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, 5, 7, 11, 15, and 17 have been amended. Claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 have been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, 17-19 and 22 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/29/2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, 17-19 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 11 recites similar limitations and is similarly analyzed. 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, wherein the step of determining the QoS requirement for each segment comprises: obtaining the one or more segments of the movement path; identifying a segment type corresponding to each segment by analyzing each segment of the movement path, wherein the segment type comprising at least one pre-determined parameter indicative of a state of movement of each industrial device along the movement path; assigning the at least one pre-determined parameter to each segment based on the identified segment type of each segment, wherein the at least one pre-determined parameter comprises a movement-phase label indicating a current state of each industrial device along the movement path and an intensity value indicating a velocity of each industrial device along the movement path; mapping the at least one pre-determined parameter of each segment with pre-determined QoS parameters of the network node; and determining the QoS requirement for each segment based on the mapping; 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 i) identifying a segment type corresponding to each segment by analyzing each segment of the movement path, wherein the segment type comprising at least one pre-determined parameter indicative of a state of movement of each industrial device along the movement path; ii) assigning the at least one pre-determined parameter to each segment based on the identified segment type of each segment, wherein the at least one pre-determined parameter comprises a movement-phase label indicating a current state of each industrial device along the movement path and an intensity value indicating a velocity of each industrial device along the movement path; iii) mapping the at least one pre-determined parameter of each segment with pre-determined QoS parameters of the network node; and iv) determining the QoS requirement for each segment based on the mapping; v) determining for each segment whether the determined QoS requirement meets an estimated QoS maintained by the network node, 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 by the network node in claim 1 (and by the controlling circuitry in claim 11), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. These limitations, in the context of the claim, encompass a person looking at an acquired movement path (i.e., including position, time, and/or speed), identifying and labeling the one or more segments with state and velocity, identifying the corresponding QoS parameters for each segment (i.e., for example from a lookup table or map), and comparing the QoS of each segment with the mapped QoS to determine if the QoS meets an estimated QoS. These are observations, judgements, and evaluations that can be performed in the human mind. 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 a network node or controlling circuitry to perform the recited steps. The network node and controlling circuitry are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic node or 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 by a person (i.e., data gathering) 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 in response to the determining step that is part of the abstract idea. 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 element of using “a network node” or “controlling circuitry” to perform both the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The limitations of acquiring at least one movement path and transmitting the at least one movement path includes an additional element in the form sending/receiving data. Sending/receiving data over a network is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), 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. Thus claim 1 (and similarly claim 11) is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15, 17-19, 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.
Claims 2 and 12 recite transmitting a message in response to the determining step, while claims 3 and 13 recite details of the message that is transmitted. Transmitting a message is an additional element in the form sending/receiving data. Sending/receiving data over a network is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as described above.
Claims 5 and 15 recite details of the state of movement, and therefore does 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.
Claims 7 and 17 recite that mapping comprises obtaining pre-determined QoS requirement information and comparing. Obtaining information is an additional element in the form of data gathering, and considered insignificant extra solution activity. Sending/receiving data over a network is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as described above. The step of comparing is a step that can be performed in the human mind as described above.
Claims 8 and 18 recite the steps of acquiring a map, obtaining the estimated QoS from the map, acquiring position information, comparing the QoS requirement, and determining whether the network node is able to maintain the QoS requirement by comparing. Acquiring a map and positioning information is an additional element in the form of data gathering, and considered insignificant extra solution activity. Sending/receiving data over a network is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as described above. The step of obtaining the estimated QoS from the map and the step of comparing are steps that can be performed in the human mind. Obtaining the estimated QoS from the map encompasses a person looking at a map indicating QoS at different positions on the map to identify the QoS corresponding to the position information. Comparing is an evaluation that can be performed in the human mind.
Claims 9 and 19 recite upon determination that the network node is able to maintain the QoS requirement, configuring at least one QoS parameter to maintain the QoS requirement. This a step that can be performed in the human mind, by selecting the QoS parameter in response to the determining step being able to maintain the requirement.
Claim 10 recites details of the movement path that is transmitted, and therefore does 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.
Claim 22 recites a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, having a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program is loadable into a processor to execute the method. These limitations are recited at a high level of (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, 17-19 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); 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); identifying a segment type corresponding to each segment by analyzing each segment of the movement path (see at least page 15, line 30 – page 16, line 3 – control path or connecting path); assigning the at least one pre-determined parameter to each segment based on the identified segment type of each segment, wherein the at least one pre-determined parameter comprises a movement-phase label indicating a current state of each industrial device along the movement path and an intensity value indicating a velocity of each industrial device along the movement path (see at least page 8, lines 26-36 and page 15, line 1 – page 17, line 4 – Cartesian points… the robotic device must visit the control points and control paths at least within a predetermined control point range and control path range… the robotic device may hereby, during movement, need to visit certain points on connecting paths within a predetermined connecting path range only, whereby the connecting path range is larger compared to the control point range or the control path range); and an intensity value indicating a velocity of each industrial device along the movement path (see at least page 8, lines 26-36 and 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… for control points and control paths, tighter ranges may be prescribed… for connecting path, less restrictive ranges may be prescribed); 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); 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, BRI of the claims only requires 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 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 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 11-13, 15, 17-19, and 22, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9, and it has been determined that claims 11-13, 15, 17-19, and 22 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9,; therefore, claims 11-13, 15, 17-19, and 22 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9.
Alternative Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
In an alternative interpretation, claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, 17-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz (WO 2019/086102 A1) in view of Park (US 2014/0316568 A1).
Regarding the alternative interpretation of 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); 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); identifying a segment type corresponding to each segment by analyzing each segment of the movement path (see at least page 15, line 30 – page 16, line 3 – control path or connecting path); assigning the at least one pre-determined parameter to each segment based on the identified segment type of each segment, wherein the at least one pre-determined parameter comprises a movement-phase label indicating a current state of each industrial device along the movement path and an intensity value indicating a velocity of each industrial device along the movement path (see at least page 8, lines 26-36 and page 15, line 1 – page 17, line 4 – Cartesian points… the robotic device must visit the control points and control paths at least within a predetermined control point range and control path range… the robotic device may hereby, during movement, need to visit certain points on connecting paths within a predetermined connecting path range only, whereby the connecting path range is larger compared to the control point range or the control path range); and an intensity value indicating a velocity of each industrial device along the movement path (see at least page 8, lines 26-36 and 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… for control points and control paths, tighter ranges may be prescribed… for connecting path, less restrictive ranges may be prescribed); 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); 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).
If there is any doubt as to Racz’s disclosure of the following limitations, Park, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: identifying a segment type corresponding to each segment by analyzing each segment of the movement path (see at least [0050-0055] - The main moving path is a set of unit motions. The unit motion is defined by a profile including an order, a target pose, a robot configuration, acceleration or an acceleration time, deceleration or a deceleration time, a maximum speed or a constant speed time, angular acceleration or an angular acceleration time, angular deceleration or an angular deceleration time, a maximum angular speed or a constant speed time, a unit motion start method, and a previous motion processing method… A moving path of the robot may be classified into an acceleration segment in which a moving speed increases, a constant speed segment that is maintained at a maximum speed, and a deceleration segment in which a moving speed decreases according to a moving speed. Further, a rotation path of the robot may be classified into an angular acceleration segment in which an angular speed increases, an angular constant speed segment that is maintained in a maximum angular speed, and an angular deceleration segment in which an angular speed decreases according to an angular speed.); assigning the at least one pre-determined parameter to each segment based on the identified segment type of each segment, wherein the at least one pre-determined parameter comprises a movement-phase label indicating a current state of each industrial device along the movement path and an intensity value indicating a velocity of each industrial device along the movement path (see at least [0050-0055, 0086] - The main moving path is a set of unit motions. The unit motion is defined by a profile including an order, a target pose, a robot configuration, acceleration or an acceleration time, deceleration or a deceleration time, a maximum speed or a constant speed time, angular acceleration or an angular acceleration time, angular deceleration or an angular deceleration time, a maximum angular speed or a constant speed time, a unit motion start method, and a previous motion processing method… speed profile of an acceleration segment, deceleration segment, and constant speed segment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Park into the invention of Racz with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so to appropriately control the motion and operation of a robot even when a real time situation changes (Park – [0005]). Labeling the segments and defining various parameters would have been well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect current state and velocity to be defined for movement of a robot along a path and therefore this implementation would yield predictable results.
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 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 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 11-13, 15, 17-19, and 22, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9, and it has been determined that claims 11-13, 15, 17-19, and 22 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9,; therefore, claims 11-13, 15, 17-19, and 22 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-16 filed 7/29/2026, 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/machine/processor that cannot be performed by a human mind and that require specialized computing and networking hardware. Applicant further argues (2) that the claimed steps provide overall improvements to the efficiency of an industrial environment. Applicant further argues (3) that determining whether the QoS requirements meets estimated QoS further comprises the steps recited in claims 8 and 18, which cannot be performed in the human mind. Applicant further argues (4) that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into practical implementation, as it is clearly directed to a concrete technological application in industrial automation, as it uses network-based QoS assessments to control and optimize movement paths of industrial devices. 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 1 that the steps are performed by a network node and reciting in claim 11 performing by controlling circuitry, nothing in the claim elements evaluated as a mental process above precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. Applicant asserts that these steps require specialized computing and networking hardware for their implementation, but this is merely an assertion and Applicant has provided no evidence or arguments that indicate the need for specialized computing and networking hardware. The claims only require a generic network node or generic controlling circuitry.
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.
Applicant argues that the step of determining whether the QoS requirements meets estimated QoS further comprises additional steps (not recited in claims 1 and 11, but recited in claims 8 and 18) of acquiring a network coverage map, obtaining the estimated QoS from the map, acquiring position information of the one or more industrial devices, and comparing the QoS requirement and the position information with the estimated QoS. The step of determining, as described above, includes steps that recite an abstract idea and steps that recite additional limitations. Acquiring a map and positioning information is an additional element in the form of data gathering, and considered insignificant extra solution activity. Sending/receiving data over a network is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as described above. The step of obtaining the estimated QoS from the map and the step of comparing are steps that can be performed in the human mind. Obtaining the estimated QoS from the map encompasses a person looking at a map indicating QoS at different positions on the map to identify the QoS corresponding to the position information. Comparing is an evaluation that can be performed in the human mind. Nothing in the claim requires or encompasses real time performance of the method/steps.
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. A further step of controlling the one or more industrial devices to navigate along the transmitted movement path would be sufficient to integrate this into a practical implementation, but none of the claims recite a step corresponding to controlling the one or more industrial devices to navigate along the movement path. 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 16-18 filed 7/29/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In an attempt to expedite prosecution, the examiner has provided an alternate rejection of the claims in view of Park, but the arguments with regards to Racz will still be addressed. Applicant argues (5) that Racz fails to disclose the limitations of previous dependent claims 4 and 14. Particularly Racz discloses that the system modifies the characteristics of the original path to be followed such as the orientation of the sensor or a tool of the robotic device, or a velocity profile of the robotic device without changing the cartesian positions. Racz does not disclose identification of the segment type corresponding to each segment by analyzing each segment of the movement path, which comprises the state of the movement of the device. The examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments.
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., modifying the characteristics of the original path such as orientation of the sensor or tool or velocity profile without changing cartesian positions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). The claims do not require changing cartesian positions. 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). Amended independent claim 1 includes the limitations of previous claim 4. Previous claim 6 has been amended into the independent claim 1 but the scope of the limitation has been changed. Previously, the limitation required one or more of movement-phase label and intensity value. Amended independent claim 1 now requires both movement-phase label and intensity value. Therefore, the examiner’s interpretation of these limitations has changed in light of the change of scope of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892. The following is the relevant prior art that was cited but not applied: US 2015/0197010 A1 and US 2021/0302956 A1.
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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights