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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 12th, 2026 has been entered. Additionally, the Supplemental response filed June 17th, 2026 had been entered
By the amendment claims 1-16, 18, and 20-35 are pending. The amendments to the specification overcome the objections presented in the previous Office action.
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 1-16, 18, and 20-35 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
Independent claim 1 is directed to a system; therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Independent claim 26 is directed to a method; therefore, claim 2 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Independent claim 27 is directed to a computer program product; therefore, claim 27 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Independent claim 28 is directed to a method; therefore, claim 28 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Independent claim 29 is directed to a method; therefore, claim 29 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Independent claim 32 is directed to a method; therefore, claim 32 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Independent claim 33 is directed to a method; therefore, claim 33 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Independent claim 34 is directed to a system; therefore, claim 34 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Independent claim 35 is directed to a method; therefore, claim 35 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of 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 following 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), is similar to independent claims 26-29 and 32-35 and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A robotic system, comprising:
a communication interface configured to receive image data from one or more cameras associated with a source material handling system; and one or more processors coupled to the communication interface and
configured to: determine, based at least in part on the image data, that an item requiring special handling has entered the source material handling system configured to convey the item to a pick location;
and in response to determining that the item requiring special handling has entered the source material handling system, cause a plan for moving the item to be updated to change a manner in which the item is moved to a destination location, wherein causing the plan for moving the item to be updated to change a manner in which the item is moved to the destination location comprises:
determining an updated plan to implement the special handling of the item in connection with moving the item to the destination location, wherein the special handling comprises operating a plurality of robotic arms to move the item in coordination.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute “a mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mathematical calculations. For example, “determining an item…” and “determining an updated plan…” in the context of this claim encompasses processing computations (math) then using a processor to update a control scheme. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
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 recites:
A robotic system, comprising:
a communication interface configured to receive image data from one or more cameras associated with a source material handling system; and one or more processors coupled to the communication interface and
configured to: determine, based at least in part on the image data, that an item requiring special handling has entered the source material handling system configured to convey the item to a pick location;
and in response to determining that the item requiring special handling has entered the source material handling system, cause a plan for moving the item to be updated to change a manner in which the item is moved to a destination location, wherein causing the plan for moving the item to be updated to change a manner in which the item is moved to the destination location comprises:
determining an updated plan to implement the special handling of the item in connection with moving the item to the destination location, wherein the special handling comprises operating a plurality of robotic arms to move the item in coordination.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a communication interface configured to receive image data…”, and “comprises operating a plurality of robotic arms” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that are merely data gathering used to perform the process. In particular, the “a communication interface configured to receive image data…” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. general means of gathering data using generic sensors and user input such as a generic GUI) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, “operating a plurality of robotic arms …” is just instructions on how to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
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 in some other meaningful way. 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, representative independent 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “a communication interface configured to receive image data…”, and “wherein the special handling comprises…,” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of
“a communication interface configured to receive image data…”, and “operating a plurality of robotic arms…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
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 additional limitation of “a communication interface configured to receive image data…”, is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background states in P002 that machine readable information can be used to route items 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. The additional limitation of “operating a plurality of robotic arms ” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process
Dependent claim(s) 2-24, 25 and 30-31 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is mere data collection, the type of data and rules for when data is labeled as “special handling.” Therefore, dependent claims 3-12 an 14-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-16, 18 and 20-25 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LYNN BURKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5824. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am to 6:00pm EST.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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.
/J.L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights