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 . Claims 1-19 and 22 were previously pending. Claims 1-3, 8, 11-13, 18, and 22 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Thus, claims 1-19 and 22 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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 1-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a method or an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“A method for optimizing a planned movement of one or more industrial devices, in an industrial environment for industrial automation, the method being performed by a network node, in a wireless communication network, the method comprising: acquiring at least one movement path for the one or more industrial devices, each movement path comprising one or more segments indicative of movement data; determining a Quality of Service (QoS) QoS requirement for each segment; determining for each segment whether the determined QoS requirement meets an estimated QoS maintained by the network node; and when it has been determined that the QoS requirement for each segment meets the estimated QoS, transmitting the at least one movement path to the one or more industrial devices.”
The limitations of determining a Quality of Service requirement and determining whether the QoS requirement meets an estimated QoS, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting (in claim 11) performing by controlling circuitry, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “controlling circuitry” language, determining a Quality of Service requirement and determining whether the QoS requirement meets an estimated QoS, in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at a map which shows the quality of signal in an environment and identifying whether or not the quality of signal at the movement path meets the need for quality of signal. As a simple example, imagine a map of a building with three rooms, one of which has a low QoS, one of which has a medium QoS, and another has a high QoS and the need for quality of signal is at least medium QoS. If the movement path passes through only the medium and/or high QoS rooms then the QoS can be maintained for the movement path, and a decision is made that the movement path is sufficient and should be transmitted. If the movement path passes through the low QoS room then the QoS cannot be maintained for the movement path, and a decision is made that the movement path is not sufficient and should not be transmitted. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of controlling circuitry to perform the recited steps. The controlling circuitry is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic controlling circuitry performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The step of acquiring at least one movement path is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as data that can be received or observed by a person (i.e., receiving data) which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. The step of transmitting at least one movement path is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as data transmission (i.e., sending data) which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. The communication network and network node are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic network and node). Utilizing a communication network with a node to transmit and receive messages or data is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. See 2106.05(g) for more details. The courts have recognized that certain computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, are considered well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept- rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 (and similarly claim 11) is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 2-10, 12-19, and 22 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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 1-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Racz (WO 2019/086102 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Racz discloses a method for optimizing a planned movement of one or more industrial devices, in an industrial environment for industrial automation (see at least Figs. 1, 3, page 3, lines 3-11, page 15, line 1 – page 17, line 14 – controlling a robot in an industrial environment), the method being performed by a network node (see at least Fig. 1, page 12, lines 1-3 – cloud robotics platform 112), in a wireless communication network (see at least Fig. 1, page 3, lines 3-16, page 12, lines 1-3 – wireless communication), the method comprising: acquiring at least one movement path for the one or more industrial devices, each movement path comprising one or more segments indicative of movement data (see at least Figs. 1, 3, page 15, lines 8-11 – at step S302 an original path for the robotic device 122 is provided to the cloud platform 112 from the path generation unit 106); determining a Quality of Service (QoS) QoS requirement for each segment (see at least Figs. 1, 3, page 5, lines 29-36, page 12, lines 24-32, page 16, lines 6-10 – a communication demand is provided to the cloud platform 112); determining for each segment whether the determined QoS requirement meets an estimated QoS maintained by the network node (see at least Figs. 1, 3, page 16, lines 6-10 - at step S306 it is determined whether the communication demand is satisfied); and when it has been determined that the QoS requirement for each segment meets the estimated QoS, transmitting the at least one movement path to the one or more industrial devices (see at least Figs. 1, 3, page 5, lines 21-27, page 16, lines 6-10 - at step S306 it is determined whether the communication demand is satisfied, the method continues with step S322).
Examiner note: According to broadest reasonable interpretation due to the “one or more” language throughout the claims, the claims only require one movement path having one segment for one industrial device.
Regarding claim 2, Racz discloses further comprising: when it has been determined that the QoS requirement for at least one of the one or more segments does not meet the estimated QoS, transmitting a message to an industrial application for regenerating the movement path (see at least Figs. 1, 3, page 5, lines 21-27, page 13, lines 25-33, page 16, lines 12-35 – if the communication demand cannot be satisfied, a movement path of the industrial device is updated, the updated path is then sent to the robotic application 102 for generation of joint trajectories).
Regarding claim 3, Racz discloses wherein the message comprises one or more of (BRI requires only one of the following): at least one of the one or more segments for which the determined QoS not meeting the estimated QoS (see at least Figs. 1, 3, page 5, lines 21-27, page 13, lines 25-33, page 16, lines 12-35 – if the communication demand cannot be satisfied, a movement path of the industrial device is updated, the updated path is then sent to the robotic application 102 for generation of joint trajectories); position information about the at least one of the segment (see at least Figs. 1, 3, page 5, lines 21-27, page 13, lines 25-33, page 16, lines 12-35 – if the communication demand cannot be satisfied, a movement path of the industrial device is updated, the updated path is then sent to the robotic application 102 for generation of joint trajectories); and maximum estimated QoS supported by the network node.
Regarding claim 4, Racz discloses wherein the step of determining the QoS requirement for each segment comprises: obtaining the one or more segments of the movement path (see at least page 5, lines 29-36, page 15, lines 4-38 – path of movement); obtaining one or more segment types comprising at least one pre-determined parameter indicative of a state of movement of each industrial device along the movement path (see at least page 15, line 1 – page 17, line 4 – control elements… speed or velocity parameters); identifying a segment type corresponding to each segment by analyzing each segment of the movement path (see at least page 15, line 1 – page 17, line 4 – speed or velocity parameters corresponding to the path); assigning the at least one pre-determined parameter to each segment based on the segment type of each segment (see at least page 15, line 1 – page 17, line 4 – speed or velocity parameters corresponding to the path); mapping the at least one pre-determined parameter of each segment with pre-determined QoS parameters of the network node (see at least page 5, lines 29-36, page 12, line 34 – page 13, line 8, page 15, line 1 – page 17, line 4 – determine whether the communication demand is satisfied with the path of the movement… a better velocity profile may relate to an improved quality of radio communication… determining whether the communication demand is satisfied); and determining the QoS requirement for each segment based on the mapping (see at least page 5, lines 29-36, page 12, line 34 – page 13, line 8, page 15, line 1 – page 17, line 4 – determine whether the communication demand is satisfied with the path of the movement… a better velocity profile may relate to an improved quality of radio communication… determining whether the communication demand is satisfied).
Regarding claim 5, Racz discloses wherein the state of movement of each industrial device comprises one or more of (BRI requires only one of the following) steady-state (see at least page 15, lines 16-38 – not allowed to go with a higher velocity), accelerating state, decelerating state (see at least page 15, lines 16-38 – slow down up to 25%), travelling state (see at least page 15, lines 16-38 - velocity profile), curving state, slaloming state, approaching state, and synchronized movement.
Regarding claim 6, Racz discloses wherein the at least one parameter comprises one or more of (BRI requires only one of the following): a movement-phase label indicating a current state of each industrial device along the movement path (see at least page 15, line 1 – page 17, line 4 – speed or velocity parameters… tolerance range corresponding to the velocity of the robotic arm for the movement path (i.e., under BRI velocity profile range reads on a movement-phase label)); and an intensity value indicating a velocity of each industrial device along the movement path (see at least page 15, line 1 – page 17, line 4 – speed or velocity parameters… tolerance range corresponding to the velocity of the robotic arm for the movement path (i.e., under BRI velocity profile range also reads on an intensity value of velocity)).
Regarding claim 7, Racz discloses wherein the step of mapping the at least one pre-determined parameter of each segment with the pre-determined QoS parameters of the network node comprises: obtaining a pre-determined QoS requirement information comprising a QoS requirement for each pre-determined QoS parameter; and comparing the at least one parameter with the pre-determined QoS requirement (see at least Fig. 3, page 15, line 1 – page 17, line 4 – speed or velocity parameters… communication demand corresponding to the original path… determining whether the communication demand is satisfied).
Regarding claim 8, Racz discloses wherein the step of determining for each segment whether the determined QoS requirement meets an estimated QoS maintained by the network node comprises: acquiring a network coverage map indicating network conditions within the industrial environment (see at least page 12, lines 34-38 – radio coverage database 116 used to determine the radio channel capacity when the robotic arm travels along the path of movement… radio coverage maps); obtaining the estimated QoS from the network coverage map (see at least page 12, lines 34-38 – radio coverage maps may be accessed for determination for the radio channel capacity); acquiring position information of the one or more industrial devices (see at least page 12, line 34 – page 13, line 8 – path of the movement); comparing the QoS requirement for each segment and the position information with the estimated QoS (see at least page 5, lines 29-36, page 12, line 34 – page 13, line 8 – determine whether the communication demand is satisfied with the path of the movement); and determining whether the network node is able to maintain the QoS requirement for each segment by comparing the QoS requirement with the estimated QoS (see at least page 5, lines 29-36, page 12, line 34 – page 13, line 8 – determine whether the communication demand is satisfied with the path of the movement).
Regarding claim 9, Racz discloses further comprising: upon the determination that the network node is able to maintain the QoS requirement for each segment, configuring at least one QoS parameter to maintain the QoS requirement for each segment (see at least page 15, line 1 – page 17, line 4 – speed or velocity parameters… tolerance range corresponding to the velocity of the robotic arm for the movement path… if the communication path is satisfied, no parameters are modified with respect to the original path… the method continues with step S322).
Regarding claim 10, Racz discloses wherein each segment of the movement path comprises movement data related to one or more of (BRI requires only one of the following) a velocity (see at least page 6, lines 4-8, page 14, lines 13-18 – speed… velocity), a position information related to at least one joint of each industrial device (see at least page 6, lines 4-8, page 13, lines 30-33, page 14, lines 13-18, page 15, lines 13-32 – coordinates… joint trajectories… locations), and an acceleration value.
Regarding claims 11-19 and 22, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-9, and it has been determined that claims 11-19 and 22 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1-9; therefore, claims 11-19 and 22 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1-9.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to the claims, claim limitations are no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-14 filed 3/23/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (1) amended claim 1 recites steps performed by a network node that cannot be performed by a human mind. Applicant further argues (2) that the claimed steps provide overall improvements to the efficiency of an industrial environment. Applicant further argues (3) that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into practical implementation. The examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that the steps cannot be performed in the human mind. Step 2A – Prong 1 evaluates whether the claims recite limitations recite an abstract idea. Other than reciting in claim 11 performing by controlling circuitry (or similar limitations in claim 1 where the steps are performed by a network node), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “controlling circuitry” language in claim 11 (and similarly the network node language in claim 1), the step of determining a Quality of Service requirement and determining whether the QoS requirement meets an estimated QoS, in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at a map which shows the quality of signal in an environment and identifying whether or not the quality of signal at the movement path meets the need for quality of signal. This is a step that can be performed in the human mind.
With regards to the claimed steps providing overall improvements to the efficiency of an industrial environment, providing an improvement to the industrial environment is not sufficient to demonstrate that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or another technology. In this instance, the claims are not directed towards steps that improve the functioning of the control circuitry or network node that performs the steps. Rather, improving the efficiency of an industrial environment by performing steps via control circuitry or a network node that could otherwise be performed in the human mind. Therefore this is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment or application (i.e., the industrial environment). Therefore the examiner respectfully disagrees with this particular argument.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that the abstract idea is integrated into practical implementation. The claim merely links the steps to the environment of industrial automation. The claim includes a step of transmitting at least one movement path, but does not include steps of applying the at least one movement path to the one or more industrial devices. The courts have recognized that certain computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, are considered well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 14-16 filed 3/23/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (4) that Racz fails to disclose that the acquired movement path contains segments and (5) that each segment is indicative of movement data such as velocity, a position information related to at least one joint of each industrial device, and an acceleration value. The examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments.
With regards to the argument that Racz fails to disclose that the acquired movement path contains segments, these limitations are not recited in the claims. Claims 1 and 11 recite “at least one movement path… each movement path comprising one or more segments”. This was already clarified in the rejection of the previous office action dated 12/23/2025 with an examiner note (see above). According to broadest reasonable interpretation, one movement path comprising one segment reads on the claim limitation. In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the movement path containing segments) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With regards to the argument that Racz fails to disclose that each segment is indicative of movement data such as velocity, a position information related to at least one joint of each industrial device, and an acceleration value, these limitations are not recited in claims 1 and 11. Claims 1 and 11 only recite movement data but do not further define or limit what the movement data is. If Applicant is referring to claim 10, this claim recites “wherein each segment of the movement path comprises movement data related to one or more of a velocity, a position information related to at least one joint of each industrial device and an acceleration value”. Claim 10 does not recite that each segment is indicative of movement data such as velocity, a position information related to at least one joint of each industrial device, and an acceleration value. Here again, Applicant is arguing limitations which are not recited in the claims.
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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights