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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed February 9th, 2026, have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 7-9 regarding the indefinite terms of ”receiving unit”, “generation unit” and “connection unit”. However, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-2 and 5-9 (and 3-4 due to dependency), have not been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amended claims 7-9 still do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, and are merely using generic components (“processor” and “connection terminal”) to implement an abstract idea. The involvement of these elements is nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea into a particular field of use. Simply replacing the term “unit” with “terminal” does not further narrow or define the scope of the invention, especially when the judicial exception(s), under broadest reasonable interpretation, continue to merely cover mental processes.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) rejections of claims 1, 8 and 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Tanako does not disclose an image processing device “externally connected to the robot control device”. Examiner disagrees, as Tanako clearly discloses an imaging unit attached to the robot in [0007] and [0045-0046] in the 102 rejection(s) below. Examiner further notes [0089] and [0115] of Tanako further disclose a vision program executed by the robot control unit, as seen in the 102 rejections below. The claimed vision execution command seems to be a generic vision execution command with no specific characteristics, thus being the same as the vision program execution process in the robotic system of Tanako. For at least these reasons, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections are maintained, along with the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 4.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-9 (and 3-4 due to dependency) are 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.
The terms “common” and “substantially common” in claims 1-2 and 5-9 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “common” and “substantially common” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Analysis of the claims in view of MPEP § 2106.04 are provided below.
Regarding Claim 7: A program generation device for generating a program related to a robot, comprising:
a processor;
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive selection of a built-in image processing device built into a robot control device or an external image processing device provided externally to the robot control device; and
in a case in which at least one of the built-in image processing device or the external image processing device is selected, make a vision execution command in the program common therebetween.
Regarding Claim 8: A robot control device connectable to at least one image processing device, comprising:
a first connection terminal connectable to the at least one image processing device; and
a second connection terminal, which is different from the first connection terminal, connectable to the at least one image processing device,
wherein a vision execution command in a vision program in the at least one image processing device and a vision execution command in a robot program are common in a case where the image processing device is connected to at least one of the first connection terminal or the second connection terminal.
Regarding Claim 9: A robot control device connectable to at least one image processing device, comprising:
a connection terminal connectable to the at least one image processing device,
wherein a vision execution command in a vision program in the at least one image processing device and a vision execution command in a robot program are substantially common regardless of whether or not the at least one image processing device is connected to the connection terminal.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claims 7-9 all recite machines, which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
Claim 7 recites limitations of receiving a selection of an image processing device and generating a vision execution command. These limitations as drafted, are simple processes that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind without further reciting significant structure or application to classify as an inventive concept. Nothing in the claim precludes the elements of the limitations from being performed in the mind. For example, a person could receive a selection of image processing device by simply making the selection of an image processing device in their mind. A person can also reasonably generate an execution command mentally, and can do so after selection of an available image processing device, both in the mind. Thus, this step recites a mental process.
Claim 8 recites multiple connection terminals without defining structure or explicit functionality, while Claim 9 similarly recites a single “connection terminal”. As written, a person can reasonably perform every limitation comprised within the claimed robot control device in both claims. For example, a person being “connectable to the at least one image processing device” can be as simple as the device being in view of the person, thus meaning the person and the device are visually connected. Furthermore, “a second connection terminal, which is different from the first connection terminal”, may be as simple as the person maintaining physical contact with the device, thus having a second, physical connection to the same device that is different from the initial visual connection.
Each of the limitations identified above falls within at least one of collecting and storing information, both of which fall within the bucket of “Mental Processes” of abstract ideas.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application – No
Claims 7-9 are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. As noted in MPEP § 2106.04, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer or generic component 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”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The additional elements recited in Claims 7-9 do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, and are merely using generic components (“processor” and “connection terminal”) to implement an abstract idea. The involvement of these elements is nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea into a particular field of use. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claims 7-9 are evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount 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).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements are merely generally linking the abstract idea into a particular field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Examiner notes that physical operation of the robot as a result of some manipulation by the robot control device to physically affect the robot is suggested as part of intended use language in Claims 7-9. In the event these claims are amended to positively recite the robot’s physical operation as implemented using the execution command being necessarily generated from the processor and various connection terminals, they will likely overcome the 101 rejection(s) noted above.
Examiner further notes that despite Claims 1-6 including similar subject matter with Claim 7-9, they are not being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the following reasons. These claims are directed to a robot control device but not directed to a judicial exception. In particular, these claims recite specific configurations of tangible robotic hardware and define how the robot control device and image processing device interact to execute vision commands, albeit through extremely broad limitations. This reflects a technological improvement in the operation of robot systems implemented through particular hardware arrangements and function coordination, rather than through mere manipulation of an abstract idea or performance of mental processes, thus integrating any recited abstract concept into a practical application. Therefore, these claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanako et al. (JP Patent Pub. No. 2019-89180A), herein “Tanako”.
Regarding Claim 1, Tanako discloses a robot control device (See 0045, “[…] a robot system 2 according to the present embodiment includes a control device 30 […]”) comprising:
at least one image processing device that images a target by a vision sensor mounted on a robot or fixed and installed at a predetermined position (See 0045-0046, “[…] a first stereo camera 20a as an imaging unit […] includes an image processing unit 42 (see FIG. 8) as an image receiving unit that receives an image captured by the first stereo camera 20a and the second stereo camera […]”),
wherein the at least one image processing device is built into the robot control device or is externally connected to the robot control device (See 0007, “[…] an imaging unit connected to the shoulder via a support […]”), and
a vision execution command in a vision program in the image processing device and a vision execution command in a robot program in the robot control device are common between a built-in image processing device built into the robot control device and an external image processing device externally connected to the robot control device (See 0089, “[…] the robot control unit 34 generates a command value to move the arm […] various general techniques can be used for the trajectory generation process, the target angle determination process, the command value generation process, and the like performed by the robot control unit […]” See 0115, “[…] method of controlling a robot or the like, a program for controlling a robot or the like, and a storage medium storing the program.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Tanako further discloses the robot control device according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one image processing device includes the built-in image processing devices built into the robot control device or the external image processing devices externally connected to the robot control device (See 0007 and 0045-0046 as referenced above), and
the vision program is common between the built-in image processing device and the external image processing device (See 0089 and 0115 as referenced above).
Regarding Claim 3, Tanako further discloses the robot control device according to claim 2, wherein the robot control device transmits an image acquired by the built-in image processing device to the external image processing device, and the external image processing device processes the image (See 0083, “[…] image reception unit that processes captured images of two sets of the first stereo camera 20a and the second stereo camera […]” See 0111, “[…] the wiring necessary for transmitting and receiving stereo images can be simplified […]”).
Regarding Claim 5, Tanako further discloses the robot control device according to claim 1, wherein a setting screen for setting the vision program is common between the built-in image processing device and the external image processing device (See 0062, “A display device 14 visible from the back side of the robot 4 is disposed on the back side of the body 10. The display device 14 is, for example, a liquid crystal monitor, and can display the current state of the robot 4 and the like.” See also 0106, “[…] used when the user creates an operation command to the robot […] displays the stereo image received from the control device […]”).
Regarding Claim 6, Tanako further discloses the robot control device according to claim 1, wherein a history of execution of the vision program is common between the built-in image processing device and the external image processing device (See 0095, “[…] functions of the robot control unit 34, the image processing unit 42, the input unit 38, and the display unit 40 are performed by the arithmetic unit 62 executing a predetermined program loaded from the auxiliary storage unit 66 or the like to the main storage unit […]” Examiner notes the auxiliary storage unit contains a history of vision program executions).
Regarding Claim 7, Tanako further discloses a program generation device for generating a program related to a robot (See 0089 as referenced above), comprising:
a processor;
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive selection of a built-in image processing device built into a robot control device or an external image processing device provided externally to the robot control device (See 0007 and 0045-0046 as referenced above); and
in a case in which at least one of the built-in image processing device or the external image processing device is selected, make a vision execution command in the program common therebetween (See 0083, 0089 and 0115 as referenced above).
Regarding Claim 8, Tanako further discloses a robot control device connectable to at least one image processing device (See 0045-0046 as referenced above), comprising:
a first connection terminal connectable to the at least one image processing device (See 0019, “[…] in the two or more sets of stereo cameras, two cameras constituting the stereo camera are respectively connected to the two image reception units.”); and
a second connection terminal, which is different from the first connection terminal, connectable to the at least one image processing device (See 0081, “[…] a line connecting the two cameras constituting the first stereo camera 20a and a line connecting the two cameras constituting the second stereo camera […] line connecting the two cameras constituting the first stereo camera 20a and the line connecting the two cameras constituting the second stereo camera 20b may be parallel or inclined.”),
wherein a vision execution command in a vision program in the at least one image processing device and a vision execution command in a robot program are common in a case where the image processing device is connected to at least one of the first connection terminal or the second connection terminal (See 0089 and 0115 as referenced above).
Regarding Claim 9, Tanako further discloses a robot control device connectable to at least one image processing device (See 0045-0046 as referenced above), comprising:
a connection terminal connectable to the at least one image processing device (See 0019 and 0081 as referenced above),
wherein a vision execution command in a vision program in the at least one image processing device and a vision execution command in a robot program are substantially common regardless of whether or not the at least one image processing device is connected to the connection terminal (See 0089 and 0115 as referenced above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanako et al. (JP Patent Pub. No. 2019-89180A) in view of Daiki (JP Patent Pub. No. 2019-192145A).
Regarding Claim 4, Tanako discloses the robot control device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the vision program in the external image processing device is executed on a cloud.
Daiki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the vision program in the external image processing device is executed on a cloud (See 0081, “[…] processes in the information processing apparatus 10 described above may be performed by another apparatus, for example, a server apparatus on the cloud […] all or part of the functions of the control unit 11 may be provided in the server device, and processing corresponding to the functions may be performed on the server device side.”).
In view of Daiki’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the robot control device receiving and processing image data to generate vision-based commands for a robot as disclosed by Tanako, the image processing execution to be on a cloud, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it is commonly understood in the art that image processing on a cloud offers scalability, cost-efficiency, and improved performance by reducing operational loads on physical resources.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658