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
Claims 1-3, and 5-6 are pending and examined. Claim 4 is cancelled.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract has 158 words which is more than 150 words allowed. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1, 3 and 5:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a machine and process respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “Mental Processes” Groupings. The independent claims and the other claims recite a machine and method comprising receiving a bulk consent request, indicating a set of control values, receiving the buck consent request, and modifying the set of parameters as recited in independent claims 1, 3 and 5. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements of creating a first movement plan, moving control object, a second movement plan, and moving control object are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of modifying the set of parameters in the outputting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The moving the set of parameters are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the creating steps), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. These insignificant extra-solution activities merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose environment. The moving step is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the creating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, 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 (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the modifying step is considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background discloses that technique for controlling actions of a plurality of control objects is well-known [0002]-[0008]. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2 and 6:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claim 2 is directed to “a device’. The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Claim 6 is directed to “a computer readable non-transitory recording medium’. The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 2 and 6 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One claims 1 and 5 applies. Claims 2 and 6 directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2 and 6 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 2 is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 2 and 6 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 2 and 6 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2 and 6 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 2 and 6 are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention
Claims 1-3, and 5-6 are rejected because claims 1-2 seem to claim a control device in which not all limitations pertain to structures. Claims 3 seems to claim a control method in which not all limitations pertains to method steps. Claims 5 and 6 are ambiguous as "A control device comprising, A computer-readable non-transitory memory…” in which claims 5 and 6 are indefinite whether they are directed towards a device or computer-readable non-transitory memory”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected because “first type control unit”, and “second type control unit” as recited are unclear and indefinite. The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). Likewise, the phrase "ZSM-5-type aluminosilicate zeolites" was held to be indefinite because it was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. The interpretation was made more difficult by the fact that the zeolites defined in the dependent claims were not within the genus of the type of zeolites defined in the independent claim. Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). (MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(e) Relative Terminology – Type). Appropriate correction is needed.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected because “initial position S” and “target position G” which is clear to refer to one initial position and one target positions respectively. However, in the respective claims, “initial positions S” and “target positions G” are recited. It is indefinite and unclear whether S and G are single position or many positions. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected because “2U” as recited is indefinite what it means or included as recited. U is claimed as U is an integer or 4 or more. What does 2U include? Appropriate correction is needed.
Claims 1-3, and 5-6 are rejected because “intermediate position M” and “intermediate position M’” which is indefinite and unclear whether intermediate position is M or M’. Appropriate correction is needed.
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:
"first movement planning unit" configured to “create” as recited in claims 1, 3, and 5;
"first movement unit" configured to “move” as recited in claims 1, 3, and 5;
"second movement planning unit" configured to “create” as recited in claims 1, 3, and 5;
"intermediate position exchange unit" configured to “move” as recited in claims 1-3, and 5-6; and
"second movement unit" configured to “move” as recited in claims 1, 3, and 5.
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.
"first movement planning unit" configured to “create” as recited in claims 1, 3, and 5; "first movement unit" configured to “move” as recited in claims 1, 3, and 5; "second movement planning unit" configured to “create” as recited in claims 1, 3, and 5; "intermediate position exchange unit" configured to “move” as recited in claims 1-3, and 5-6; and "second movement unit" configured to “move” as recited in claims 1, 3, and 5 correspondingly invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function is a processing circuit based on “[0496] In addition, although the present device is configured by executing a predetermined program on the computer in this from, at least a part of the details of the processing may be implemented by hardware. For example, the first movement planning unit 1, the first movement unit 2, the second movement planning unit 3, the intermediate position exchange unit 4, the second movement unit 5, and the intermediate position determination unit 6 may be configured by a processing circuit.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, and 5-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under specification objection, 35 U.S.C. 101, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of Alesiani, US 2017/0219353 (A1) teaches a method for determining a path of an object for moving from a starting node representing a starting state to an end state includes a) determining a plurality of child nodes to a parent node, b) checking whether transitions from the parent node to each of the child nodes are free of obstacles and excluding partial paths that are not free of obstacles, c) computing a cost value for each of the non-excluded partial paths, d) adding the computed cost value to a cost value from the starting node to the parent node, e) adding an estimated or expected cost value for a partial path from each of the child nodes to an end node representing an end state, f) determining a lowest overall cost value and selecting a new parent node, and g) repeatedly performing steps a)-f) until at least one termination condition is fulfilled.
In regarding to independent claims 1, 3, and 5, Alesiani taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a device and method for initial position S and a target position G are determined for each control object, a structure composed of control objects at initial positions S and target positions G is constituted by a combined control object unit composed of 2U control objects by combining the first type control object unit and the second type control object unit,
a graph in which a control object unit at an intermediate position is defined as a node and a plane connecting two control object units in contact with each other is defined as an edge constitutes a part or the whole of a Hamilton cycle, a combined control object unit and a second type control object unit are alternately disposed at intermediate positions along the Hamilton cycle, and intermediate positions include an intermediate position M before exchange and an intermediate position M' after exchange, creating, a first movement plan for moving each control object at an initial position S to an intermediate position M before exchange in control object units;moving, each control object at the initial position S to the intermediate position M before exchange in control object units according to the first movement plan; creating, a second movement plan for moving each control object assumed to be at a target position G to an intermediate position M' after exchange in control object units; moving each control object at the intermediate position M before exchange to a movement destination of each control object determined by the second movement plan among intermediate positions M' after exchange; and moving, each control object at the intermediate position M' after exchange to a target position G in control object units according to a plan obtained by temporally reversing the second movement plan.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action 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. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
Examiner’s Request
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support must be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, the applicant is requested to indicate support for amended claim language and newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). (MPEP 2163 I. B. New or Amended Claims). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313)446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUEN WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667