Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 12/03/2024. Claims 1-15 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12/03/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “position data acquiring unit” & “position data canceling unit” in claim 1, “a first input receiving unit” in claim 2, “a verification area setting unit” in claims 2 and 3, “a simulation executing unit” in claim 4, “a second input receiving unit” in claim 6. See Fig. 17 of the instant application disclosing each of the recited units correspond to a processor.
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.
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 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process, and therefore an abstract idea. The claim recites “acquiring, by a processor, the position data by matching a workpiece model, which models the workpiece and in which a verification area corresponding to the area where the object cannot enter is defined, with shape data of the workpiece included in the detection data; and invalidating, by the processor, the acquired position data when shape data of the object included in the detection data is present in the verification area defined in the workpiece model matched with the shape data of the workpiece.” which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation is a mental process provided a human observing the environment of the workpiece. The claim does not meaningfully limit how the analysis (matching and invalidation) is performed, and there is nothing about performing the analysis of the data itself that would limit how it can be performed. For example, nothing in the claims, outside of the generic recitation of “by a processor”, limits the scope of performing the mental process, as a human could reasonably observe the environment of a workpiece to identify if a match with a model is present. The claim does not provide any details about how the output of the analysis is used to effectuate any meaningful operation of the robotic system, and the plain meaning of “matching” encompasses performing a mental process, e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Under step 2A, prong 2 claim 28 does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because the recitations “A method of acquiring position data of a workpiece based on detection data of a shape detection sensor configured to detect shapes of an object and the workpiece, the workpiece being adjacent to the object and having an area where the object cannot enter, the method comprising:”, & “by a processor” are directed to generic linking, merely defining an environment of the abstract idea with generically recited elements, provided for linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and lacking an element to incorporate a result of performing the abstract idea with the recited structures in a meaningful way see MPEP, 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(e).
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for “A method of acquiring position data of a workpiece based on detection data of a shape detection sensor configured to detect shapes of an object and the workpiece, the workpiece being adjacent to the object and having an area where the object cannot enter, the method comprising:”, & “by a processor” again is merely applying and generically linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, MPEP, 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(e), and does not impose any other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For example, the recitations of “A method of acquiring position data of a workpiece based on detection data of a shape detection sensor configured to detect shapes of an object and the workpiece, the workpiece being adjacent to the object and having an area where the object cannot enter, the method comprising:”, & “by a processor” are only provided to define the generic structures and steps for performing the mental process or provided to define an environment for applying the steps of the mental process and perform no additional functions.
Additionally, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with similar rationale as claim 14.
Additionally, claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 2-6, 9-10, 12, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because claims recite steps to defining additional data, steps, and structures in the environment of the abstract idea, and therefore directed to generic linking. See claims 2-3 and 6 reciting input receiving units and a verification area setting unit provided for receiving data and outputting the recited verification area, claim 4 reciting a simulation unit provided for outputting the recited verification area, claim 5 reciting a position data acquiring unit provided for outputting data corresponding to the models and further defining how the verification area is set, claim 9 defining when to perform steps of the mental process, claim 10 defining the object in the environment of the abstract idea, and claims 12 & 15 further reciting additional generic structures provided in the environment of the abstract idea. Defining a technological environment of the mental process, merely links the process to generic data, steps or structure, lacking any element reciting how an output of performing the process is integrated to impact the operation of the robot or effectuate any control, see MPEP, 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(e). 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. Accordingly, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 7-8 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, because the claims are directed to insignificant extra solution activity data gathering and outputting steps, for example reciting steps to further define pre-solution and/or post-solution activity for/as a result of performing the mental process and outputting data without significantly more, see claims 7-8 reciting steps calculating a “data amount” for performing the mental process, and claim 11 reciting steps for gathering/storing/deleting data. The mere recitation of when/how/what data is gathered/output, however again lacks a specific element reciting how the result of performing the mental process is applied or integrated as a specific control step, and therefore is directed to well understood routine and conventional activity in the art. These claims do not provide any details about how an output of the determination is used to control any meaningful operation of the robot, and the plain meaning of analyzing data encompasses mental observations or evaluations, e.g., a computer programmer’s mental identification of an anomaly in a data set. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); & University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Also see MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); & See 2106.05(a) iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.2. 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. Accordingly, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount the abstract idea into a practical application, and would overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 101 if re-written in independent form including all limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
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 12-13 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. In claim 12, applicant fails to claim any other structure for the recited controller outside of the device of claim 1. Because “[a] controller of a robot” implies there must be more structure than merely the device of claim 1, but fails to disclose any of that structure, rendering the scope is unclear, and thus rendering the claim indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 12-13 recite a controller comprising the device of claim 1, which fails to further limit the scope of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1 and similarly with respect to claim 14
The recitation “and a position data canceling unit configured to invalidate the position data acquired by the position data acquiring unit when shape data of the object included in the detection data is present in the verification area defined in the workpiece model matched with the shape data of the workpiece by the position data acquiring unit.” overcomes the art of record, rendering the claims in a manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art, Hosomi et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0214249). The claims specifically overcome the art of record, because of the limitation directed to invalidating position data of a workpiece based on detecting a object in a verification area of a workpiece from gathered detection data. For example, the documents recited in the ISR as well as, Hosomi [0104]-[0106] disclose matching model data with detection data to determine a position of a workpiece, however invalidating the position data when an object is detected in a verification or restricted area of a workpiece is neither recited or rendered obvious in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claims is therefore allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hosomi et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0214249) discloses a control apparatus, control system, robot system, control method, and computer program, which may generate a control signal for controlling a robot based on position data of a workpiece determined from a match between a model and shape detection data, see Hosomi Abstract and [0104]-[0106]. The detection data may include object data corresponding to an object different from the workpiece, see Hosomi [0121].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656