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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim 19 is new.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18 are amended.
Response to Remarks:
Regarding 101:
In light of the amendments, the Examiner has dropped the organizing human activity rejection. However, after careful analysis of the amendments within the context as a whole of the claims, the Examiner has introduced a new rejection, namely, computer aided mental process. See below for further details and clarification.
Regarding 103:
In light of the amendments, the Examiner has updated the rejection. Examiner would like to point out that dependent claim 6, having been moved into independent claim 1 is taught by the combination of Cella in light of Rinze. See below for further details and clarification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Specifically, the Examiner could not find support for the claim as a whole.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is -directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-19 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I. 2A-prong one (Identify the Abstract Ideas)
The Alice framework, step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Independent claims 1,7, and 13 are directed to optimize an intelligent workflow design based on a digital twin simulation with varying intelligences.
Under step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claimed invention in claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The above limitation falls within computer aided mental process.
Part II. 2A-prong two (additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application)
Under step 2A-Prong two (part 1 of Mayo test), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea. Such as, “…data processing system…processor…digital twin simulation…physical production environment…performance resources…storage device…robot”
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as merely generic manners (e.g., at a high level of generality) and as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., "receiving, processing, storing, transmitting/notifying/displaying/presenting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with no significantly more elements.
As a result, Examiner asserts that claims 7 and 13 are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part III. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more" than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 do not include any limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, alone. Claims 1, 7, and 13 include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include, “…data processing system…processor…digital twin simulation…physical production environment…performance resources…storage device…robot”
these amounts to generic computing elements performing generic computing functions.
In addition, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13 of the Applicant’s specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method (i.e., commercially available processors). Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Moreover, the Examiner would like to point out that claims 6, 12, and 18 disclose the use of a “human” in applying the intelligent workflow steps.
Further, Examiner notes that the additional limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
Therefore, the dependent claims are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to independent claims 1, 13, and 7.
Claims 7-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a storage device.
Where the specification provides support for the claimed element in “storage device” in claim 7. (Instant Spec paragraph 13) The Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media memorandum (01/26/2010) states “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium . . . typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signal per se . . . particularly when the specification is silent”, Also see MPEP 2106.03(I). It is suggested that Applicant add “non-transitory” to the claimed limitation to overcome the rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0339114) (hereinafter, Cella) in view of Rinze et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0254593) (hereinafter, Rinze) .
As per claim 1,
Cella teaches,
A method of data processing in a data processing system, comprising:
a processor determining by a data processing system an intelligent workflow including a plurality of workflow steps to be performed
(paragraph 18, noting “A job workflow system generates a workflow that defines an order of performance of the robot tasks based on the fleet resource configuration data structure and the set of robot tasks.”)
the processor performing digital twin simulation of performance of the intelligent workflow in a physical production environment;
(paragraphs 2124 and 2125 read with 2214, noting on 2214 “In embodiments, the job configuration system 12018 systems (e.g., job parsing system 12302, task definition system 12304, workflow definition system 12306) may reference a library 12314 to identify content and structural filters for distinguishing robot automation job content from other job content (e.g., cost, payment, financing, etc.), preconfigured candidate tasks, workflows, and/or complete job configurations that substantially meet the requirements of the job request.”; further noting on 2125, “In embodiments, a digital twin system 12220 may include and provide access to as well as facilitate execution of robot twins (e.g., digital twin of individual robot operating units), task twins (e.g., digital representation of tasks as defined by, for example the task definition system and/or pre-configured library of robot task building blocks, which may be optimized for certain job conditions/requirements), team twins (e.g., digital embodiment of designated teams of robot operating units that may include digital twins of individual robot operating units and the tasks that they are performing and/or pre-configured task-range-specific team twins), project twins (e.g., digital embodiment of a defined job execution plan, optionally including digital twins for robot operating units, teams, tasks, fleet resources and/or a set of preconfigured project-specific project twins that can address a range of specific tasks), fleet twins (e.g., an aggregation of robot operating unit digital twins along with fleet operational and organizational models that take into consideration cross-job fleet functions, such as maintenance, robot operating unit retirement and replacement, backup robot operating units and the like)…”)
Cella does not explicitly teach, however, Rinze does teach,
the processor determining, based on the digital twin simulation, at least one type of intelligence among a plurality of types of intelligences to be allocated to each of multiple of the plurality of workflow steps, wherein the determining at least one type of intelligences includes determining different types of intelligences for the plurality of workflow steps;
(paragraph 21, discussing various types of intelligence are allocated to tasks, read in conjunction with paragraph 27, wherein paragraph 27 discussing categorizing various intelligence for various tasks)
the processor allocating and deploying, in the physical production environment, performance resources possessing the different types of intelligences;
(paragraph 28 giving varying examples of limitation; see claim 2 for clarity of Applicant’s Claims)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Rinze within the inventio of Cella with the motivation of an automated generation of reference intelligence tasks that can automatically generate reference intelligence tasks in pre-determined categories, including categories defined by an intended utilization of such intelligence tasks.
Cella teaches,
and iteratively optimizing by the processor the intelligent workflow based on observation of execution of the intelligent workflow by the deployed performance resources in the physical production environment
(paragraph 2507 and 2516 discussing execution of the intelligent workflow by the deployed performance resources in the production environment, read in conjunction with 2243, 2251, 2484, 2524 discussing iteratively optimizing the intelligent workflow based on observation of execution)
Cella teaches,
the performance of the digital twin simulation comprises simulating a different combination of performance resources,
(paragraph 2758-discussing human and robots)
Cella does not explicitly teach, however, Rinze does teach,
a plurality of types of intelligences of the performance resources,
(paragraph 21 teaching by example a cognitive and decision intelligence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Rinze within the inventio of Cella with the motivation of an automated generation of reference intelligence tasks that can automatically generate reference intelligence tasks in pre-determined categories, including categories defined by an intended utilization of such intelligence tasks.
Cella teaches,
strengths of the performance resources in each simulation run of a plurality of simulation runs,
(paragraph 2240, noting “payload” functioning as physical strength; further noting “…In a simple example, a task that involved traveling a long distance and then performing an action in a small space might be resolved by the fleet configuration system with a combination of robots, such as a multi-purpose robot that travels long distances efficiently (and optionally includes a payload carrying capability suitable for transporting a special purpose robot) and a special purpose robot that meets a small space requirement… Such a fleet configuration may indicate a preferred robot and/or robot combination for meeting a goal, such as efficient use of robots and the like that other element of the job configuration system (e.g., a job workflow generation system) may consider when configuring, for example, a plurality of defined robot tasks into a job workflow 12306D. Therefore, a fleet configuration may include first, second, and tertiary robot indications for performing a task…”)
Cella teaches,
the digital twin simulation is performed until improvements in first key performance indicators associated with the intelligent workflow drop below a refinement threshold,
(paragraph 350)
and
Cella
the performance resources comprise at least one robot;
(paragraph 2240, see above notations).
As per claim 2, See 112 written description Rejection
Cella does not explicitly teach, however, Rinze does teach,
the method of Claim1, wherein the plurality of types of intelligence includes the following: emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, decision intelligence, and creative intelligence
(paragraph 21 teaching by example a cognitive and decision intelligence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Rinze within the inventio of Cella with the motivation of an automated generation of reference intelligence tasks that can automatically generate reference intelligence tasks in pre-determined categories, including categories defined by an intended utilization of such intelligence tasks.
As per claim 3,
Cella teaches,
The method of Claim 1, further comprising determining, based on the digital twin simulation, a physical strength to be allocated to at least one of the pluralities of workflow steps
(paragraph 2240, noting “payload” functioning as physical strength; further noting “…In a simple example, a task that involved traveling a long distance and then performing an action in a small space might be resolved by the fleet configuration system with a combination of robots, such as a multi-purpose robot that travels long distances efficiently (and optionally includes a payload carrying capability suitable for transporting a special purpose robot) and a special purpose robot that meets a small space requirement… Such a fleet configuration may indicate a preferred robot and/or robot combination for meeting a goal, such as efficient use of robots and the like that other element of the job configuration system (e.g., a job workflow generation system) may consider when configuring, for example, a plurality of defined robot tasks into a job workflow 12306D. Therefore, a fleet configuration may include first, second, and tertiary robot indications for performing a task…”)
As per claim 6,
Cella teaches,
The method of Claim 1, wherein the performance resources include at least code resource, and at least one human worker
(Paragraph 798-code; paragraph 2758-discussing human and robots).
As per claim 19,
Cella teaches,
the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
capturing using a plurality of sensors, second key performance indicators associated with the intelligent workflow, wherein the second key performance indicators are captured during execution of the plurality of workflow steps, and
iteratively optimizing the intelligent workflow based on the second key performance indicators.
(paragraph 2240, 1215)
As per claims 7-9 and 12
Claims 7-9 and 12 disclose similar limitations to claims 1-3 and 6 above, however, in a system form. Cella discloses their invention in such form as well, see Cella Abstract. Therefore, claims 7-9 and 12 are rejected under similar rationale as claims 1-3 and 6 above.
13-15, and 18:
Claims 13-15 and 18 disclose similar limitations to claims 1-3 and 6 above, however, in a product form. Cella discloses their invention in such form as well, see Cella Abstract. Therefore, claims 13-15 and 18 are rejected under similar rationale as claims 1-3 and 6 above.
Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella in view of Rinze as applied to claims 1, 7, and 13 above, and further in view of Cella et al. (Canada Pub. No. CA3238745) (hereinafter, Cella Canada) .
As per claim 4,
Cella/Rinze do not teach, however, Cella Canada teaches,
the method of Claim 1, further comprising: determining based on the digital twin simulation the first key performance indicators for the intelligent workflow
(paragraph 101)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Cella Canada within the invention of Cella in view of Rinze with the motivation of efficiently and accurately identifying the optimal intelligent workflow.
As per claim 5,
Cella/Rinze do not teach, however, Cella Canada teaches,
the method of Claim 4, further comprising: deploying workflow monitoring agents to monitor at least some of the first key performance indicators; and
(paragraph 975)
iteratively improving the intelligent workflow based on values of the first key performance indicators
(paragraph 142)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Cella Canada within the invention of Cella in view of Rinze with the motivation of efficiently and accurately identifying the optimal intelligent workflow.
As per claims 10-11,
Claims 10-11 disclose similar limitations to claims 4-5 above, however, in a system form. Cella discloses their invention in such form as well, see Cella Abstract. Therefore, claims 10-11 are rejected under similar rationale as claims 4-5 above.
As per claims 16-17,
Claims 16-17 disclose similar limitations to claims 4-5 above, however, in a different form. Cella discloses their invention in such form as well, see Cella Abstract. Therefore, claims 16-17 are rejected under similar rationale as claims 4-5 above.
Conclusion:
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
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, Rob Wu can be reached at 571.272.6045. 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
