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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. JP2023-123623 filed on 07/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/18/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1, multiple instances of phrases such as “acquiring that is sequentially acquiring”, “calculating that is calculating”, etc. are grammatically incorrect, redundant, and render the claim scope unclear.
Claims 8, 11, and 15 are similarly indistinct.
Additionally, regarding claim 1, in lines 8-10, it is unclear and indistinct what is meant by “each of the plurality of nodes is combined and associated”, since it is unclear how and with what the nodes are combined.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear and indistinct what is meant by “the evaluating is a comprehensive evaluation of evaluations”. The phrase appears to be redundant and the intended claim scope is not clear.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear and indistinct what is meant by “an integrated value of total numbers of elements of paths”.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear and indistinct what is meant by “an integrated value of absolute values”.
The above rejections are not comprehensive, and Applicant is kindly requested to check all claims for grammatical issues.
The claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program causing a computer to perform:
acquiring that is sequentially acquiring a plurality of nodes each including position information and posture information of an end effector of an articulated robot having a plurality of joints and the end effector; and
calculating that is calculating, for each of the plurality of nodes acquired in the acquiring, a plurality of joint angle sets representing angles of the plurality of joints from the position information and the posture information included in each of the plurality of nodes;
combining that is creating a plurality of posture sets in which a joint angle set selected from among the plurality of joint angle sets for each of the plurality of nodes is combined and associated in an order of the plurality of nodes;
path creating that is creating, based on each of the plurality of posture sets, each of a plurality of path sets including a discrete path of each of the plurality of joints for each of the plurality of posture sets by creating, for each of the plurality of joints, the path from an angle of each joint of a joint angle set selected for a first node of the plurality of nodes to an angle of each joint of a joint angle set selected for a last node of the plurality of nodes; and
evaluating that is selecting one path set from among the plurality of path sets based on an evaluation of each of the plurality of path sets.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. The claim 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 bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” and “mathematical operations” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes and sales activities or business relations.
The claim recites “calculating... a plurality of joint angle sets...”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “causing a computer to perform”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could calculate joint angles for a teach point mentally or on paper using inverse kinematics. This step is directed to a mental process.
The claim recites “creating... each of a plurality of posture sets...” This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “causing a computer to perform”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could group joint angle sets mentally or on paper. This step is directed to a mental process.
The claim recites “creating... each of a plurality of path sets...” This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “causing a computer to perform”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could determine paths between joint angles mentally or on paper. This step is directed to a mental process.
The claim recites “selecting one path set from among the plurality of path sets based on an evaluation...” This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “causing a computer to perform”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could mentally determine preferred path set based on some criteria. This step is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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 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 idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claim 1 recites the additional element of a “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program causing a computer to perform:”.
According to the specification, the computer is identified as a general purpose computer such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a generic computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the acquiring, calculating, creating, and selecting steps. The generically recited computer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes and business transaction using a generic or general-purpose processor.
The claim limitation of “acquiring that is sequentially acquiring a plurality of nodes each including position information and posture information of an end effector of an articulated robot having a plurality of joints and the end effector” is directed to extra-solution activity of receiving data. This step amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 1 is 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 in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions 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.
Per the evaluation in step 2A, general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or filed of use is not indicative of an inventive concept (significantly more).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the step of “acquiring that is sequentially acquiring a plurality of nodes each including position information and posture information of an end effector of an articulated robot having a plurality of joints and the end effector” was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification and background therein does not provide any indication that the processor and network are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here), see MPEP 2106.05(g).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claims 2-10 merely provide additional details with respect to the evaluation step and are ineligible under a similar analysis as above.
Claims 11-14 merely provide additional details with respect to the combining step and are ineligible under a similar analysis as above.
Claim 15 is an independent claim of similar scope to claim 1, with the exception of reciting a hardware processor as part of the claim combination. Claim 15 is ineligible under a similar analysis as claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood by the Examiner, it appears that claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Campos Macias (US 2024/0066698), which is considered the closest prior art, teaches a system and method of path planning for a robot manipulator, including acquiring a plurality of nodes each including position information and posture information of an end effector of an articulated robot having a plurality of joints and the end effector (series of waypoints, see at least ¶0039); and
calculating that is calculating, for each of the plurality of nodes acquired in the acquiring, a plurality of joint angle sets representing angles of the plurality of joints from the position information and the posture information included in each of the plurality of nodes (see at least ¶0043); and
path creating a path from a start configuration through a series of waypoints to a target configuration by evaluating and selecting one path from a plurality of paths (see at least ¶0043-0048).
Campos Macias, however, does not reasonably teach or suggest, as best understood by the Examiner:
“combining that is creating a plurality of posture sets in which a joint angle set selected from among the plurality of joint angle sets for each of the plurality of nodes is combined and associated in an order of the plurality of nodes;
path creating that is creating, based on each of the plurality of posture sets, each of a plurality of path sets including a discrete path of each of the plurality of joints for each of the plurality of posture sets by creating, for each of the plurality of joints, the path from an angle of each joint of a joint angle set selected for a first node of the plurality of nodes to an angle of each joint of a joint angle set selected for a last node of the plurality of nodes; and
evaluating that is selecting one path set from among the plurality of path sets based on an evaluation of each of the plurality of path sets”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619