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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023213741, filed on December 19th, 2023. This is the effective filing date.
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.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed subject matter is drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, nor is the abstract idea as a judicial exception integrated into a practical application. With regards to step 1, the claimed invention is directed to a method.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
For step 2A, prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed under MPEP 2106.04 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 in bold text).
Claim 1 recites:
A controller for controlling a robot based on an interaction with a user, the controller comprising:
an input unit configured to receive, from the user, an instruction for the robot;
an output unit configured to output, to the user, a reaction from the robot to the instruction;
an input buffer configured to save data of the instruction input from the input unit;
a processing unit configured to:
transmit a prompt to a natural language processing system using a large language model;
receive a response from the natural language processing system;
generate an action command for the robot based on the response;
and overwrite the data in the input buffer with an action performed by the robot in accordance with the action command;
and a history log storage unit configured to store a history log in which the data read from the input buffer and the response from the natural language processing system to the data is accumulated,
wherein the processing unit is further configured to generate the prompt including the data read from the input buffer and the history log.
These limitations, as drafted, are a method that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as a mental process.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106.04(d), the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106.04(d), 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 an 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 elements beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
A controller for controlling a robot based on an interaction with a user, the controller comprising:
an input unit configured to receive, from the user, an instruction for the robot;
an output unit configured to output, to the user, a reaction from the robot to the instruction;
an input buffer configured to save data of the instruction input from the input unit;
a processing unit configured to:
transmit a prompt to a natural language processing system using a large language model;
receive a response from the natural language processing system;
generate an action command for the robot based on the response;
and overwrite the data in the input buffer with an action performed by the robot in accordance with the action command;
and a history log storage unit configured to store a history log in which the data read from the input buffer and the response from the natural language processing system to the data is accumulated,
wherein the processing unit is further configured to generate the prompt including the data read from the input buffer and the history log.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the element of “A controller for controlling a robot,” “the controller comprising,” “an input unit configured to,” “an output unit configured to output,” “an input buffer configured to,” “a processing unit configured to,” “and a history log storage unit configured to,” and “wherein the processing unit is further configured to” is merely describing generic computing components which allow the abstract idea to be applied on a computer or to merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, taken alone, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional element of “based on an interaction with a user,” “from the user” “to the user” and “in accordance with the action command” are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solutionary).
Regarding the additional element of “in which the data read from the input buffer and the response from the natural language processing system to the data is accumulated,” “a reaction from the robot to the instruction” and “including the data read from the input buffer and the history log” are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solutionary).
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the MPEP 2106.05, 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, regardless of whether they are looked at individually or in combination.
As discussed above, the additional elements of “A controller for controlling a robot,” “the controller comprising,” “an input unit configured to,” “an output unit configured to output,” “an input buffer configured to,” “a processing unit configured to,” “and a history log storage unit configured to,” and “wherein the processing unit is further configured to” each amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the additional elements of “based on an interaction with a user,” “from the user” “to the user,” “in accordance with the action command,” “in which the data read from the input buffer and the response from the natural language processing system to the data is accumulated,” “a reaction from the robot to the instruction” and “including the data read from the input buffer and the history log” each amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (see below). And a conclusion that additional elements are 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. These particular additional limitations are each undeniably well-understood, routine, and conventional activities already known in the art. 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, and/or merely the outputting of data in a similar manner, are well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a generic manner.
Dependent claims 2 - 6 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 also contain well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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.
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: “input unit,” “output unit,” “processing unit,” “history log storage unit” and “prerequisite storage unit” in claims 1 and 2.
Input unit: Paragraph [0022] describes that the input unit receives instructions from the user for the robot. Paragraph [0041] describes that it does this via a voice input unit via a microphone.
Output unit: Paragraph [0044] describes a voice output unit 116 that is a speaker.
Processing unit: Paragraph [0037] describes that the processing unit can be a CPU or RAM.
History log storage unit: Paragraph [0039] describes that the storage unit can be an HDD or SDD.
Prerequisite storage unit: Paragraph [0039] describes that the storage unit can be an HDD or SDD.
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 § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 2 and 4 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Pub No: 2021/0402589 A1, hereinafter Kim) in view of Adiba et al. (US Pub No: 2020/0365146 A1, hereinafter Adiba) and Elliot (US Pub No: 2021/0278819 A1, hereinafter Elliot).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kim discloses:
A controller for controlling a robot based on an interaction with a user, the controller comprising. Paragraph [0176] describes a robot interacting with a user.
an input unit configured to receive, from the user, an instruction for the robot. Paragraph [0093] describes a microphone that receives a voice input of a user. Paragraph [0179] describes a user giving a command to the robot, such as “turn on music.”
an output unit configured to output, to the user, a reaction from the robot to the instruction. Paragraph [176] describes performing various reactions to a user output. For example, it can be done using a speaker by saying “hello.”
a processing unit configured to: transmit a prompt to a natural language processing system using a large language model. Paragraph [0118] describes a natural language processing (NLP) to determine the exact meaning of the voice data.
receive a response from the natural language processing system; generate an action command for the robot based on the response. Paragraph [0118] describes a natural language processing (NLP) to determine the exact meaning of the voice data. Paragraph [176] describes performing various reactions to a user output. For example, it can be done using a speaker by saying “hello.”
Kim does not disclose a buffer configured to save data of the instruction input from the input unit, a history long storage unit and generating a prompt including the data read from the input buffer and the history log.
Adiba, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
an input buffer configured to save data of the instruction input from the input unit. Paragraph [0086] describes the estimation unit calculates the utterance rate of the user via a delay time and can be saved as dialog history.
and a history log storage unit configured to store a history log in which the data read from the input buffer and the response from the natural language processing system to the data is accumulated. Paragraph [0086] describes the estimation unit calculates the utterance rate of the user via a delay time and can be saved as dialog history.
wherein the processing unit is further configured to generate the prompt including the data read from the input buffer and the history log. Paragraph [0086] describes the estimation unit calculates the utterance rate of the user via a delay time and can be saved as dialog history.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Adiba to show a buffer configured to save data of the instruction input from the input unit, a history long storage unit and generating a prompt including the data read from the input buffer and the history log. One would have been motivated to do so to shorten the waiting time until a response is output to a user utterance and to realize a more natural conversation (Abstract of Adiba).
Kim does not disclose overwriting data in the input buffer based on the action performed by the robot.
Elliot, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
and overwrite the data in the input buffer with an action performed by the robot in accordance with the action command. Paragraph [0008] describes overwriting entries, where each entry is stored in a circular buffer.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Elliot to show overwriting data in the input buffer based on the action performed by the robot. One would have been motivated to do so that new information can be updated to allow the robot to act accordingly.
Claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 7:
Adiba teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a control program configured to control a robot based on an interaction with a user, the control program being configured to, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to. Paragraph [0051] describes a processor 302 and a memory 304.
The reason to combine Adiba with Kim is the same as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2:
Kim, Adiba and Elliot teach:
The controller according to claim 1, wherein an operation performed by the robot is divided into a plurality of steps, an operational procedure is defined for the plurality of steps, the controller further comprising a prerequisite storage unit storing a prerequisite including the operational procedure, wherein the processing unit is further configured to: transmit, to the natural language processing system, the prompt including the prerequisite, the data read from the input buffer, and the history log; receive the response from the natural language processing system; and generate the action command based on the response. Paragraph [0118] of Kim describes a natural language processing (NLP) to determine the exact meaning of the voice data. Paragraph [176] of Kim describes performing various reactions to a user output. For example, it can be done using a speaker by saying “hello.” Paragraph [0086] of Adiba describes the estimation unit calculates the utterance rate of the user via a delay time and can be saved as dialog history. Paragraph [0008] of Elliot describes overwriting entries, where each entry is stored in a circular buffer.
Regarding Claim 4:
Kim discloses:
A robot system comprising: the controller according to claim 1; and the robot. Paragraph [0176] describes a robot interacting with a user.
Regarding Claim 5:
Kim discloses:
A system comprising: the controller according to claim 1; the robot; and the natural language processing system. Paragraph [0118] describes a natural language processing (NLP) to determine the exact meaning of the voice data.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Adiba and Elliot and further in view of Judt et al. (US Pub No: 2023/0011979 A1, hereinafter Judt).
Regarding Claim 3:
Kim, Adiba and Elliot teach the above limitations in claim 1. Kim, Adiba and Elliot do not teach a Unified Modeling Language (UML).
Judt, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The controller according to claim 2, wherein the operational procedure is described in Unified Modeling Language. Paragraph [0049] describes a unified modeling language (UML).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Judt. One would have been motivated to do so to provide universal, graphical notation to map out structural and behavioral elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cohen (US Pub No: 2023/0117221 A1, hereinafter Cohen): A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a control program configured to control a robot based on an interaction with a user, the control program being configured to, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY KHANDPUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5090. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 6:30.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/JAY KHANDPUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658