Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 3/26/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/26/2024 and 9/3/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: holding unit in claim 1, range determination unit and number-of-pieces-of-data determination unit in claims 1 and 3, selection unit in claims 1 and 3-4, simulation unit and processing state acquisition unit in claim 5, position data output unit and processing state input unit in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the selection unit preferentially selects the instruction positions”, it is not clear if “selects the instruction positions” is required by the claim because the usage of “preferentially”. Therefore, the claim is unclear and ambiguous.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving determine an earliest time point and a latest time point indicating a range for selecting the pieces of position data from among the pieces of position data held by the holding unit, set a number of pieces of position data to be selected from among the pieces of position data existing in the range in consideration of a processing load of the physical simulation, select the set number of pieces of position data from among the pieces of position data existing in the range, if the number of instruction positions set by the number-of-pieces-of-data determination unit or fewer instruction positions exist in the range determined by the range determination unit, preferentially selects the instruction positions, selects pieces of position data obtained by the approximation (claims 1 and 3-4), these limitations as described in [0071-[0073] and [0103-[0114] is recited in high level of generality constitutes as a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgement, that can be performed in the human mind. The claim(s) also recite(s) mathematical concepts of performs piecewise linear approximation of a path with the set number of pieces of position data, perform the physical simulation using pieces of position data selected by the selection device (claims 4-5), these limitations as described in [0071] and [0081]-[0083] constitutes details of mathematical calculations of the piecewise linear approximation and interference check processing, thus, it falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of a holding unit configured to hold the pieces of position data in association with time-series information, wherein the pieces of position data include instruction positions for instructions to the movable part (claims 1-2) represent mere data storage which is an insignificant extrasolution activity. The limitation of a processing state acquisition unit configured to acquire information including any of a load of the simulation unit and a completion status of the physical simulation by the simulation unit, communication control device comprising a position data output unit configured to transfer pieces of position data selected by the selection device to the simulation device; and a processing state input unit configured to receive input of information from the simulation device, the information including at least any of a load of hardware of the simulation device, a completion status of the physical simulation at a predetermined time point, and an instruction to output the pieces of position data from the simulation device (claims 5-6) represent mere data transmission which is an insignificant extrasolution activity. The selection device, range determination unit, number-of-pieces-of-data determination unit, selection unit, simulation unit (claims 1-6) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity of data storage/retrieval is considered well-understood, routine and conventional because the courts have identified storing and retrieving information in memory to be well-understood, routine and conventional. Please see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), The selection device, range determination unit, number-of-pieces-of-data determination unit, selection unit, simulation unit are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). The “field of use” limitation do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP2106.05(d)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action, is overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, US20240152667 discloses a selection device is for selecting, when operation simulation is to be performed, positional data of an observation object to be used. The selection device includes a position acquisition unit that acquires positional data including coordinate values that indicate the position of the observation object, a state acquisition unit that acquires the state of the observation object including an operation command and at least one item of data not based on the operation command, a worst change amount calculation unit that calculates, based on the state of the observation object, a worst change amount in accuracy of operation simulation between the case where the positional data is used for a calculation process relating to the operation simulation and the case where the data is not used, and a selection unit that selects positional data to be used for the operation simulation, based on the calculated worst change amount. US12036677 discloses a method for transferring an end effector of a robot between an end effector pose and a further end effector pose, for at least one axis of the robot includes specifying the same uniform progression of the position of the axis, particularly in advance, for the transfer between the one end effector pose and the one further end effector pose, and for transfers between the one end effector pose and a group of other further end effector poses, more particularly in dependence on activation of a control operating mode. For at least one further axis of the robot, different progressions of the position of the further axis are commanded, more particularly during the transferring, for the transfer between the one end effector pose and the one further end effector pose and the transfer between the one end effector pose and the at least one of the further end effector poses. US6856853 discloses a simulation device is provided with a speed ratio determining portion and a speed determining portion for calculating the maximum feeding speed of an operative part from an interference detecting distance and an interpolation period, and replacing the feeding speed of the operative part, which is read out by a program analyzing portion, with the maximum feeding speed; and an interpolating portion for determining interpolated points of a moving path of the operative part from the feeding speed of the operative part, which is replaced by the maximum feeding speed by the speed ratio determining portion and the speed determining portion, and the interpolation period. An interference check on the operative part is made at an interpolated point determined by the interpolating portion.
However, regarding claim 1, the combination of prior arts does not describe:
a range determination unit configured to determine an earliest time point and a latest time point indicating a range for selecting the pieces of position data from among the pieces of position data held by the holding unit; a number-of-pieces-of-data determination unit configured to set a number of pieces of position data to be selected from among the pieces of position data existing in the range in consideration of a processing load of the physical simulation
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US8126585 discloses a collision preventing device includes an acceleration/deceleration simulating unit 30 that performs acceleration/deceleration processing based on a moving command generated by a function generation unit 16 according to a method similar to that used by acceleration/deceleration units 18x and 18z and obtains a moving path resulting from the acceleration/deceleration processing, an interference check unit 34 that performs interference check between a mobile member and an interfering object along the moving path generated by the acceleration/deceleration simulating unit 30 and determines whether any interference may occur, a delay unit 32 that successively stores moving commands generated by the function generation unit 16 and successively outputs a moving command having been stored a predetermined time before, and a moving command blocking unit 36 that sends the moving command output from the delay unit 32 to the acceleration/deceleration units 18x and 18z if the interference check unit 34 determines that there is no interference, and blocks the moving command to be sent from the delay unit 32 to the acceleration/deceleration units 18x and 18z if the interference check unit 34 determines that interference may occur.
US6157873 discloses a robot programming system is provided comprising a simulated work cell configuration, a tool position and orientation sensor assembly, and a programing computer. The simulated work cell configuration includes a tangible artificial tool and a tangible artificial workpiece, wherein the position and orientation of the artificial tool relative to the workpiece is variable. The sensor assembly is operative to sense the position and the orientation of the artificial tool. The programming computer is in communication with the sensor assembly and is programmed to (i) display a variable virtual robot configuration based upon the sensed position and orientation of the artificial tool, (ii) receive discrete artificial tool positions and orientations from the sensor assembly, and (iii) create a robot job data file including the discrete artificial tool positions and orientations.
US6076030 discloses a motion planning algorithm is used to control an autonomous machine. The motion planning algorithm consists of a template or script which captures the general trends of the motion, while parameters in the script are filled in with the kinematic details for a specific machine and set of movements. A learning algorithm computes the script parameters by using feedback of how the machine performed during the preceding cycle with the current parameter set, and adjusting the parameters to improve the machine's performance during succeeding work cycles. The new parameters are evaluated by the learning algorithm using a predictive function approximator to test various performance criteria such as the time required to perform a task and the accuracy with which the task was performed. The performance criteria are weighted using local regression techniques so that the prediction of the outcome of alternate motions places emphasis on the performance criteria that is considered most important. As data from repeated motions accumulates, the algorithm uses the history of the results of various motions to recompute and refine the parameters to improve performance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights