DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This application has been examined. Claims 1-17 are pending.
The prior art submitted on 4/18/24 has been considered.
Objection
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only, and/or, cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-13, and 16-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. An information processing device comprising:
a controller that estimates at least one first control program to control a first robot under control from at least one control program to control a robot which are recorded in a memory, wherein
the controller estimates the at least on first control program on the basis of first position information indicating an installation location of the first robot.
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a device including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under it broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of “estimates at least one first control program to control a first robot under control from at least one control program to control a robot which are recorded in a memory” And “estimates the at least on first control program on the basis of first position information indicating an installation location of the first robot”. The “estimating at least one control program” And “estimates the at least one first control program” limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a controller”. That is, other than reciting “a controller” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a controller” language, the claim encompasses a user look at robot position indicating the installation where the location of the robot is, and estimating or to make a choice of what a control program which are recorded in a memory for the robot. The mere nominal recitation of a controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Additionally, the estimating steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that is practically performed in the human mind. For example, these limitations cover a user standing on an area, making an observation a robot position indicating an installation location of the robot, and evaluation, or judgment on a particular set up condition a control program which are recorded in a memory to estimate or decide what program for control the robot based on the robot position.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 1019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of “a controller” that performs the estimates steps. The estimate by a controller is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the estimate steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The controller is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the controller).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ides.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: -No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim (s) is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-13, and 16, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, claims 2-13, and 16 add additional steps to the device which only acquire operation position information about the robot and the compare steps which are an abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13, and 16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 17. An information processing method comprising: estimating at least one first control program to control a first robot under control from at least one control program to control a robot which are recorded in an information processing device, the estimating being based on first position information indicating an installation location of the first robot.
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under it broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of “estimates at least one first control program to control a first robot under control from at least one control program to control a robot ” And “the estimating being based on first position information indicating an installation location of the first robot”. The “estimates the at least one first control program” limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “an information processing device”. That is, other than reciting “a computer” or “a controller” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “an information processing device” language, the claim encompasses a user look at robot position indicating the installation where the location of the robot is, and estimating or to make a choice of what a control program which are recorded in a memory for the robot. The mere nominal recitation of a processing device does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Additionally, the estimating steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that is practically performed in the human mind. For example, these limitations cover a user standing on an area, making an observation a robot position indicating an installation location of the robot, and evaluation, or judgment on a particular set up condition a control program which are recorded in a memory to estimate or decide what program for control the robot based on the robot position.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 1019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of “an information processing device” that performs the estimates steps. The estimate by a processing device is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the estimate steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processing device is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the processing device).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ides.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: -No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim (s) is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashiguchi et al. (US 2015/0032256 A1).
As per claim 1, Hashiguchi et al. disclose an information processing device comprising: a controller that estimates at least one first control program to control a first robot under control from at least one control program to control a robot which are recorded in a memory (see at least [0006-0007] disclose the robot management computer includes a robot information receiving unit for receiving set-up location information about a set-up location of each of the robot; a storage for storing and operation control program of the each of the robots in association with the set-up location information), wherein the controller estimates the at least one first control program on the basis of first position information indicating an installation location of the first robot (see at least [0037-0038] disclose the operation control program transmitting unit 104b reads a robot set-up location associated with the network identifier out of the robot set-up location table of fig.6 and identifies an operation control program that is associated with the robot set-up location from the work specifics data of fig.8).
As per claim 2, Hashiguchi et al. disclose the controller is configured to acquire operation position information about the robot from operation data about the robot, and estimate the at least one first control program on the basis of the first position information and the operation position information (see at least [0008] disclose receiving, by the robot management computer, set-up location information about a set-up location of each of the robots, and accessing a storage for storing an operation control program of the each of the robots in association with the set-up location information, and transmitting, to each of the robot controllers, the operation control program that is associated with the received set-up location information; and para. [0037-0038] disclose the operation control program transmitting unit 104b reads a robot set-up location associated with the network identifier out of the robot set-up location table of fig.6 and identifies an operation control program that is associated with the robot set-up location from the work specifics data of fig.8).
As per claim 3, Hashiguchi et al. disclose wherein the operation position information includes past position information when the control program was executed (see at least [0029] disclose transmitted to the robot management computer 100 are pieces of operation specifics data……The robot management computer 100 stores these pieces of data in association with the IDs of the work pieces 34, thereby recording what operation has specifically been performed on which work piece 34 by which robot; and para. [0032] disclose the work environment data area 102b stores three-dimensional model data of each work piece 34, parts attached to the work piece 34, the work table 38, and the like, a robot set-up location table, and the relative positions in design of the work tables 38 relative to the set-up locations of the robots 30A, 30B, and 30C (position measurement data)).
As per claim 4, Hashiguchi et al. disclose the controller is configured to acquire information different from the first position information and operation data about the first robot, and estimate the at least one first control program on the basis of information pertaining to the first robot and the operation data (see at least [0033] disclose the operation control program area 102c stores the substance of the operation control programs executed in the robot controllers 20A, 20B, and 20C, a required work ability table, and a calibration program for measuring the actual relative positions of the work tables 39 relative to the set-up locations of the robots 30A, 30B, and 30C).
As per claim 5, Hashiguchi et al. disclose the controller is configured to acquire information different from the first position information and operation data about the first robot, and estimate the at least one first control program on the basis of the information different from the first position information and the operation data (see at least [0033] disclose the operation control program area 102c stores the substance of the operation control programs executed in the robot controllers 20A, 20B, and 20C, a required work ability table, and a calibration program for measuring the actual relative positions of the work tables 39 relative to the set-up locations of the robots 30A, 30B, and 30C).
As per claim 6, Hashiguchi et al. disclose the controller is configured to acquire, from among information pertaining to a second robot communicatively connected to the first robot, second position information indicating an installation location of the second robot, and compare the first and second position information, and when the second robot is installed within a certain range of the first robot, estimate the first control program on the basis of the information pertaining to the second robot (see at least [0032] disclose the work environment data area 102b stores three-dimensional model data of each work piece 34, parts attached to the work piece 34, the work table 38, and the like, a robot set-up location table, and the relative positions in design of the work tables 38 relative to the set-up locations of the robots 30A, 30B, and 30C (position measurement data)).
As per claim 7, Hashiguchi et al. disclose the controller is configured to acquire information different from the first position information and the information pertaining to the second robot, and estimate the at least one first control program on the basis of the information pertaining to the first robot and the information pertaining to the second robot (see at least [0033] disclose the operation control program area 102c stores the substance of the operation control programs executed in the robot controllers 20A, 20B, and 20C, a required work ability table, and a calibration program for measuring the actual relative positions of the work tables 39 relative to the set-up locations of the robots 30A, 30B, and 30C).
As per claim 8, Hashiguchi et al. disclose the controller is configured to acquire operation data about the second robot, and estimate the at least one first control program on the basis of the operation data about the second robot (see at least [0029] disclose transmitted to the robot management computer 100 are pieces of operation specifics data……The robot management computer 100 stores these pieces of data in association with the IDs of the work pieces 34, thereby recording what operation has specifically been performed on which work piece 34 by which robot).
As per claim 9, Hashiguchi et al. disclose the controller compares the first and second position information, and estimates the first control program on the basis of a positional relationship with the second robot (see at least [0032] disclose the work environment data area 102b stores three-dimensional model data of each work piece 34, parts attached to the work piece 34, the work table 38, and the like, a robot set-up location table, and the relative positions in design of the work tables 38 relative to the set-up locations of the robots 30A, 30B, and 30C (position measurement data)).
As per claim 10, Hashiguchi et al. disclose the controller is configured to acquire, from among information pertaining to a third robot communicatively connected to the first robot, third position information indicating an installation location of the third robot, and compare the first and third position information, and when the third robot is installed within a certain range of the first robot, estimate the first control program on the basis of the information pertaining to the second robot and the information pertaining to the third robot (see at least [0039-0040] disclose the work ability determining unit 104c determines whether or not one of the robots 30A, 30B, and 30C that is identified by a received robot ID can be controlled with an operation control program that is associated with a received network identifier).
As per claim 11, Hashiguchi et al. disclose the controller is configured to acquire, from among information pertaining to a third robot communicatively connected to the first robot, third position information indicating an installation location of the third robot, and compare the first position information with the and second and third position information, and when the second robot and the third robot are installed within a certain range of the first robot, estimate the at least one first control program on the basis of a positional relationship with the second robot and the third robot (see at least [0029-0032] disclose transmitted to the robot management computer 100 are pieces of operation specifics data, which are transmitted from the robot controllers 20A, 20B, and 20C and which indicate the IDs of the robots 30A, 30B, and 30C and the specifics of operations of the robots at work).
As per claim 12, Hashiguchi et al. disclose the controller is configured to acquire group information indicating an association between the first robot and another robot, acquire, on the basis of the group information, group robot information pertaining to a robot belonging to the same group as the first robot, and estimate the at least one first control program on the basis of the group robot information (see at least [0027] disclose the use of the robots 30A, 30B, and 30C is flexible, and the robots 30A, 30B, and 30C may be put to work at one place in the manufacturing site one day while put to different work at a different place in the manufacturing site another day).
As per claim 13, Hashiguchi et al. disclose the group information is included in at least one of operation data about the first robot or operation data about a second robot communicatively connected to the first robot, and includes information indicating that another robot different from the first robot had been controlled by the same control program as the first robot at the same time in the past, or that the first robot and another robot different from the first robot are set to cooperate (see at least [0037-0038] disclose the operation control program transmitting unit 104b reads a robot set-up location associated with the network identifier out of the robot set-up location table of fig.6 and identifies an operation control program that is associated with the robot set-up location from the work specifics data of fig.8).
As per claim 14, Hashiguchi et al. disclose the controller is configured to output extracted control programs, accept input by which a user selects one control program from among the extracted control programs, and cause the first robot to execute the control program selected by the user as the first control program (see at least [0059-0061] disclose the administrator input a set-up location and the control program to control a robot).
As per claim 15, Hashiguchi et al. disclose a robot controller that executes the first control program outputted from the information processing device according to claim 1 (see at least the abstract, and para. [0006]).
As per claim 16, Hashiguchi et al. disclose a robot control system comprising: the information processing device according to claim 1; the robot controller according to claim 16; and the robot (see at least [0023-0024]).
As per claim 17, Hashiguchi et al. disclose an information processing method comprising: estimating at least one first control program to control a first robot under control from at least one control program to control a robot which are recorded in an information processing device, the estimating being based on first position information indicating an installation location of the first robot (see at least [0037-0038] disclose the operation control program transmitting unit 104b reads a robot set-up location associated with the network identifier out of the robot set-up location table of fig.6 and identifies an operation control program that is associated with the robot set-up location from the work specifics data of fig.8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
. Purrucker et al. (10940590)
. Jain et al. (9672184)
. Shitamoto et al. (US 2013/0116880 A1)
. Parrott et al. (US 2018/0050450 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALENA TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-5PM.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached at 571-270-5376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DALENA TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657