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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1-2 and 4-8 is withdrawn in view of 35 USC 101 analysis. Rejections follow.
Claims 9 and 11-23 are allowed.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is regarded to be WO 2024/033368 which is teaches determining a velocity of a pallet surface relative to the mobile robot during the pallet load operation. While it also teaches a camera and kinematic sensor it does not use data from both to determine said velocity as claimed.
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.
Claim 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are directed to a machine and therefore are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 1 A mobile robot, comprising:
a set of wheels configured to move the mobile robot;
a pallet fork configured to lift and carry pallets;
a plurality of sensors comprising:
at least one camera configured to output image data; and
at least one second sensor configured to provide kinematic data; and
at least one processor configured to:
determine that a pallet load operation has initiated;
identify a pallet surface; and
determine a velocity of the pallet surface relative to the mobile robot during the pallet load operation using image data output from the at least one camera and kinematic data provided by the at least one second sensor.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine that a pallet load operation has initiated” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing a mental observation that a pallet load operation has initiated. For example, “identifying a pallet surface” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing a mental observation of a pallet surface. For example, “determine a velocity of the pallet surface…using image data output….and kinematic data” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing a mental evaluation of the pallet velocity using an image and kinematic data displayed on a screen. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 A mobile robot, comprising:
a set of wheels configured to move the mobile robot;
a pallet fork configured to lift and carry pallets;
a plurality of sensors comprising:
at least one camera configured to output image data; and
at least one second sensor configured to provide kinematic data; and
at least one processor configured to:
determine that a pallet load operation has initiated;
identify a pallet surface; and
determine a velocity of the pallet surface relative to the mobile robot during the pallet load operation using image data output from the at least one camera and kinematic data provided by the at least one second sensor.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “a set of wheels”, “a pallet fork”, and “a plurality of sensors”, they merely describe conventional components of an autonomous robot for moving pallets that are operating in their ordinary capacity and therefore does not use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Regarding the additional limitation of “at least one processor”, it merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computer environment. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claim 2 and 4-8 are also rejected for not providing significantly more. The claims either further define the mental steps with additional mental steps and/or further define the camera or sensor as a particular type of camera or sensor which have been addressed in the analysis of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619
