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 communication is a final action in response to amendment filed on 12/12/2025. Claims 1, 3-9 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on11/11/2025 has been considered.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument directed to claim objection, 103 are persuasive. These objection/rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s argument directed to 101 rejection, the argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the elements are not representative of human activity and mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, while claim has now been amended to describe a work cell (e.g., production line, conveyor belt, etc.), the work cell is merely being described as part of the planning process and therefore is broad enough to be a data label as opposed to the actual physical machinery. With that in mind, the claimed invention is still capable of being performed by a human using physical aid to make determination and judgement about what function to be performed. Similarly, the claimed invention is also merely a series of rules using similar rationale presented in the non-final action previously. Therefore for at least these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
Further, a machine within a production line can be broad enough to encompass a generic computer used to display information. Therefore, even if work cell is considered a physical structure, it is unlikely to integrate the abstract idea into practical application as the step performed may be purely displaying information. This would be at least similar to EPG’s displaying information, which can be part of mental process that wouldn’t be integrated into practical application with mere recitation of a generic display.
Examiner recommends removing machine from the grouping of work cell and add an additional step requiring the work cell physically perform the determined target function. Examiner also recommends adding physical computer structure such as processor and memory to perform the method steps of claim 1. These would likely overcome the 101 rejection.
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 the various “unit” in claim 8
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.
Examiner notes a processor similarly to the one recited in claim 9 would likely provide sufficient structure to perform the entire function.
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, 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
Examiner believes the entire body of claim 1 recites an abstract idea. The body describes a series of step to be performed to determine a workflow being assignment to a target body. While claim includes “a target body” and “work cell” (which are one or more of production line, conveyor belt, machine, robot arm or automated transport), which may suggest a physical thing on first glance, in this case, it is no more than the subject of intended planning process and therefore is broad enough to encompass merely data label represented in a table or instruction. This falls into interpersonal relationship as it merely follows a series of rules. Therefore, claim 1 falls into certain methods of organizing human activities.
In addition, claim 1 also falls into mental processes as the series of steps can be performed mentally by a persona making determination and judgement. At most, a person with physical aid such as pen and paper can draw a table detailing the mapping relationship and write down workflow assignment to perform the steps. Therefore, claim 1 falls into mental processes as well.
Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2,
As noted above, there is no additional element in claim 1 and therefore, no additional element can integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Examiner notes “a target body” is part of the abstract idea because it merely represent a name that is used to identify the body that is being assigned a workflow in some kind of instruction (e.g., a table showing workflow assignment or a target body A is assigned workflow. Similarly, “work cell” can be treated similarly and “work cell” can even be a machine, which can be a generic computer used to display information. Such computer, even when analyzed as an additional element, would be unlikely to integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it’s mere instruction to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2B
As noted above in step 2A prong 2, claim 1 contains no additional element and therefore nothing can provide significantly more to the abstract idea either. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Dependent claims 4-7 merely further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore still recite the same abstract idea. The step 2A prong 2 and step 2B analysis would remain the same.
Claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1 but includes an OT device that performs a corresponding operation. Broadest reasonable interpretation of such OT device can be a computer displaying instructions. Such additional element, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, are nothing more than mere generally linking the abstract idea into a particular field of use (computer technology). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application or provide significantly more to an abstract idea. The claim is still ineligible.
Claim 9 recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. While claim 9 includes memory and processor as additional elements, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, they’re merely generally linking the abstract idea into particular field of use (computer technology). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application or provide significantly more to an abstract idea. The claim is still ineligible.
Claim 8 recites substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 except for having various “unit” as additional elements being used to perform the recited abstract idea. Similar to claim 9, these units, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, are merely generally linking the abstract idea into particular field of use (computer technology). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application or provide significantly more to an abstract idea. The claim is still ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
See page 12 of non-final mailed 09/22/2025.
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 GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628