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 .
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:
“a teaching motion storing unit…” recited in claim 1 and described in Figs. 3, 7, 9, 11 and 13, element 131 and paragraphs 0035, 0038 and 0052. The broadest reasonable interpretation of which is a computer implemented means plus function limitation;
“a constraint condition storing unit…” recited in claims 1-2 and described in Figs. 3, 7, 9, 11 and 13, element 132 and paragraphs 0035, 0040, 0052, 0059 and 0061. The broadest reasonable interpretation of which is a computer implemented means plus function limitation.
“an initial path generating unit…” recited in claims 1 and 3 and described in Figs. 3, 7, 9, 11 and 13, element 133 and paragraphs 0035, 0043, 0049 and 0052. The broadest reasonable interpretation of which is a computer implemented means plus function limitation.
“a correcting unit…” recited in claims 1 and 4 and described in Figs. 3, 7, 9, 11 and 13, element 134 and paragraphs 0035, 0047, 0052, 0061 and 0072. The broadest reasonable interpretation of which is a computer implemented means plus function limitation.
“a motion path search range setting unit…” recited in claim 5 and described paragraph 0070-0073. The broadest reasonable interpretation of which is a computer implemented means plus function limitation.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1
Claim 1. “A motion path generating device for generating motion paths for a plurality of robots, comprising:
a teaching motion storing unit that stores teaching motions for the plurality of robots;
a constraint condition storing unit that stores constraint conditions including at least an order constraint of motions for the plurality of robots;
an initial path generating unit that determines motion start times of the plurality of robots based on the teaching motions and the constraint conditions and generates motion paths for the plurality of robots by generating interference avoidance paths for the plurality of robots between two of the teaching motions; and
a correcting unit that corrects the motion start times for the plurality of robots based on the motion paths which are generated.”
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a motion path generating device. Thus, the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is to a manufacture/machine. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of “…determines motion start times…”,”… generates motion paths…” and “…corrects the motion start times…”. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of “initial path generating unit” and “correcting unit”. That is, other than reciting “unit” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “initial path generating unit” and “correcting unit” language, the claim encompasses a person observing stored data and mentally forming motion start times while generating interference avoidance paths for the observed robots and making appropriate adjustment to the start times based on the devised paths including the usage of pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of “initial path generating unit” and “correcting unit” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
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”).
The “teaching motion storing unit” and “constraint condition storing unit” are additional elements that are directed to generic computers for mere data gathering function. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), they are directed to insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering.
The “initial path generating unit” and “ correcting unit” ” merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental observation and planning using generic or general-purpose processors. The units are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the determining, generating and correcting steps, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-5
Dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible because they do not contain additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process of parent claim 1.
Regarding claim 6
Claim 6. A motion path generating method which generates motion paths for a plurality of robots, the method comprising:
generating the motion paths for the plurality of robots by
(i) determining motion start times for the plurality of robots based on teaching motions for the plurality of robots which are stored and constraint conditions including at least order constraints of motions for the plurality of robots which are stored and
(ii) generating interference avoidance paths for the plurality of robots between two of the teaching motions; and
correcting the motion start times for the plurality of robots based on the motion paths which are generated.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a motion path generating method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is to a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of “…determining motion start times…”,”… generating interference avoidance paths…” and “…corrects the motion start times…”. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. The claim encompasses a person observing stored data and mentally forming motion start times while generating interference avoidance paths for the observed robots and making appropriate adjustment to the start times based on the devised paths including the usage of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
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”).
It is noted that the step of “correcting the motion start times…” according to the specification is understood as being performed by a computer. The step is not considered a control step because the claim does not explicitly require actuation of the robot to be controlled based on the generated correction times.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (US 2019/0366541 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Kobayashi”).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a motion path generating device for generating motion paths for a plurality of robots, comprising: a teaching motion storing unit (Figs. 1-2, elements 20, 50 and/or 95) that stores teaching motions (tasks, actions; actions include motions including: move, pick, transfer, place; see Fig. 3) for the plurality of robots (paragraphs 0029 and 0031); a constraint condition storing unit (Figs. 1-2, element 10, 24) that stores constraint conditions including at least an order constraint (sequence restriction) of motions for the plurality of robots (paragraphs 0034, 0038); an initial path generating unit (Figs. 1-2, element 10, 24) that determines (Fig. 5, step S28) motion start times of the plurality of robots (Fig. 4, element R1, R2) based on the teaching motions (via Figs. 1-2, element 50) and the constraint conditions and generates (Fig. 5, step S30) motion paths for the plurality of robots between two of the teaching motions paths for the plurality of robots by generating interference avoidance (paragraph 0041, 0052, 0054, 0056, 0058-0059, 0064, 0068, 0081); and a correcting unit that corrects the motion start times for the plurality of robots based on the motion paths which are generated (paragraph 0057; adopts the order of execution that has the earlier completion time).
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi teaches the motion path generating device according to claim 1, wherein the constraint condition storing unit stores, as the constraint condition, ensuring a safety distance between the plurality of robots determined based on a distance in which one of the plurality of robots moves during an adjustable time, which is an adjustment width for one of the motion start times (adjustment width shown in Fig. 8A; it is inherent that the safety constraint being no overlap for interference operations requires ensuring a safety distance)
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi discloses the motion path generating device according to claim 1, wherein the initial path generating unit generates a non-interfering path for the plurality of robots based on an adjustable time, which is an adjustment width for determined one of the motion start times (compare Fig. 7C with shifted Fig. 8A; Fig. 8A, element B2(4) and B3(1) are shown with adjustment width relative Fig. 7C, element B2(4) and B3(1)).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi discloses the motion path generating device according to claim 1, wherein the correcting unit regenerates motions of the plurality of robots by setting the motion start time for a specific one of the plurality of robots as a fixed value (the correcting unit sets motion start time of action B2(4) for robot R2 to occur at the fixed time value shown in Fig. 8A; paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi discloses the motion path generating device according to claim 1, further comprising: a motion path search range setting unit which searches ranges of the motion paths based on evaluation values of the motion paths for the plurality of robots, wherein the path search range setting unit searches the motion paths for the plurality of robots so that the evaluation values for all of the plurality of robots to be controlled are equal to or less than an evaluation value (earlier completion time) for a specific one of the plurality of robot (paragraphs 0054, 0057-0058, 0065-0066, 0070, 0081).
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi discloses a motion path generating method which generates motion paths for a plurality of robots, the method comprising: generating the motion paths for the plurality of robots by (i) determining (Fig. 5, step S28) motion start times for the plurality of robots based on teaching motions for the plurality of robots which are stored and constraint conditions including at least order constraints (sequence restriction) of motions for the plurality of robots which are stored and (ii) generating (Fig. 5, step S30) interference avoidance paths for the plurality of robots between two of the teaching motions (paragraph 0029, 0031, 0034, 0038, 0041, 0052, 0054, 0056, 0058-0059, 0064, 0068, 0081); and correcting the motion start times for the plurality of robots based on the motion paths which are generated (paragraph 0057; adopts the order of execution that has the earlier completion time).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE MOYER whose telephone number is (571)270-7821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PT.
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, Khoi H Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. 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.
/Dale Moyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656