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 . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of February 5, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining insurance contents based on collected information about a robot, its work environment, or its work contents without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 directed to determining insurance contents based on collected information about a robot, its work environment, or its work contents which is one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 recites “ … acquire … attribute information relating to the robot; acquire work information including information relating to at least one of an environment in which the work will be executed, and work contents for the robot; and determine the insurance contents based on at least one of the work information and the robot attribute information ”.
These limitations describe an abstract idea of determining insurance contents based on robot attributes and work information and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity( hedging, mitigating risk) and Mathematical Concepts (mathematical calculations). Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
The claim also recites as additional elements such as “information processing apparatus configured to determine insurance contents that target damage that could possibly occur during work that is executed by a robot, the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to ” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
Further, as the additional elements of claim 6 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 6 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Independent claims 1, 13-16, and 18-20 recite methods and apparatuses for determining insurance contents based on collected information about a robot, its work environment, or its work contents. Determining insurance contents, such as premiums, coverage terms, deductibles, or compensation ranges, is a fundamental economic practice. Evaluating risk and setting insurance parameters is a longstanding commercial concept. The claims therefore fall squarely within the category of abstract ideas identified by the courts. Merely limiting the abstract idea to the context of robots does not render the idea any less abstract. See Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not make it patent eligible).
These limitations describe an abstract idea of determining insurance contents based on collected information about a robot, its work environment, or its work contents and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic principles). Accordingly, claims 1, 13-16, and 18-20 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
The claims recite hardware components: “one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions” (claims 1, 13-15, 20) and “acquiring” and “determining” steps. These are components and steps that are well established in the art and are not limited to any particular structure or implementation that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed methods can be performed mentally or using data processing equipment; there is no requirement for a specific machine or transformation that would render the claims patent eligible. See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 602-04; Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (recitation of a computer performing functions that can be done mentally does not supply an inventive concept). Therefore, claims 1, 13-16, and 18-20 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
When viewed as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct a computer to acquire information (robot attribute information, work information) and determine insurance contents based on that information. This is nothing more than data collection and analysis for an insurance underwriting purpose. There is no indication that the claims are directed to an improvement in computer or robotics technology. The claimed subject matter does not solve a technological problem or implement the abstract idea in a way that amounts to more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167-68 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims directed to “a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea” lack an inventive concept). Thus, claims 1, 13-16, and 18-20 are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
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.
Claim 9 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites relative terms such as “wide”, “narrow”, “high”, and “low”. These terms, are relative terms, and as recited, fail to inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
form 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.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konrardy et al. [US Pub No. 2022/0164896 B2].
Regarding claim 1, Konrardy discloses an information processing apparatus configured to determine insurance contents that target damage that could possibly occur during work that is executed by a robot, the information processing apparatus comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions (0067); and
one or more processors executing the instructions (0067) to:
acquire robot attribute information relating to the robot (0117, 0123, 0129, 0185);
acquire work information including information relating to at least one of an environment in which the work will be executed, and work contents for the robot (Abstract, 0123); and
determine the insurance contents based on at least one of the work information and the robot attribute information (0116).
Claim 16 is directed to a method corresponding to claim 1 and stands rejected for the same reasons. Claim 20 is directed to a computer-readable medium corresponding to claim 1 and stands rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 2, Konrardy discloses wherein a degree of damage that represents the size of the damage that could possibly occur during the execution of the work by the robot is calculated based on the work information and the robot attribute information, and the insurance contents are determined such that the higher the calculated degree of damage is, the higher an insurance cost for the insurance becomes (0115).
Regarding clam 3, Konrardy teaches wherein a probability of occurrence for the damage that could possibly occur during the execution of the work by the robot is calculated based on the work information and the robot attribute information, and the insurance contents are determined such that the higher the calculated probability of occurrence is, the higher an insurance cost for the insurance becomes (0135, 0153).
Regarding claim 4, Konrardy discloses wherein the work information is information based on measurement results for the environment in which the work will be executed, information based on design information related to the environment in which the work will be executed, and information based on a combination of the information based on measurement results for the environment in which the work will be executed and the information based on design information related to the environment in which the work will be executed (Abstract, 0117).
Regarding claim 5, Konrardy discloses wherein the insurance contents are determined with an object or a person that exists in the environment in which the work will be executed by the robot as a target of the damage that could possibly occur, or with the body of the robot as the target of the damage that could possibly occur (Abstract, 0030).
Regarding claim 6, Konrardy discloses wherein the insurance contents are updated in a case in which a proposal is made to a user so as to remove a cause for the damage that could possibly occur during the execution of the work by the robot based on the work information or the robot attribute information, and the cause of the damage has been removed.
Regarding claim 7, Konrardy discloses wherein at least one or more insurance contents for which the contents of the insurance are different are determined, and the insurance contents that have been selected from among the at least one or more insurance contents are determined based on an input that has been received.
Regarding claim 10, Konrardy discloses wherein the insurance contents are determined such that the more recent a time at which the work information has been acquired is, the lower an insurance cost for the insurance becomes (Abstract, 0117).
Regarding claim 11, Konrardy discloses wherein the insurance contents are determined such that the more recent a time at which the work information has been acquired is, the lower an insurance cost for the insurance becomes (Abstract, ).
Regarding claim 13, Konrardy discloses an information processing apparatus configured to determine insurance contents that target damage that could possibly occur during work that is executed by a robot, the information processing apparatus comprising;
one or more memories storing instructions (0067); and
one or more processors executing the instructions (0067) to:
acquire work information including information relating to at least one of an environment in which the work will be executed, and work contents for the robot (Abstract, 0123); and
determine the insurance contents based on the work information (0116). Claim 17 is a method claim and corresponds to claim 13 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 14, Konrardy discloses an information processing apparatus configured to determine insurance contents that target damage that could possibly occur during work that is executed by a robot, the information processing apparatus comprising;
one or more memories storing instructions (0067); and
one or more processors executing the instructions (0067) to:
acquire robot attribute information relating to the robot (0117, 0123, 0129, 0185); and
determine the insurance contents based on the robot attribute information (0116). Claim 18 is a method claim and corresponds to claim 14 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 15, Konrardy discloses an information processing apparatus configured to determine insurance contents that target damage that could possibly occur during work, the information processing apparatus comprising;
one or more memories storing instructions (0067); and
one or more processors executing the instructions (0067) to:
acquire work information including information relating to at least one of an environment in which the work will be executed, and work contents (Abstract, 0123); and
determine the insurance contents based on the work information (0116). Claim 19 corresponds to claim 15 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Konrardy et al. [US Pub No. 2022/0164896 B2] in view of Fields et al. [US Patent No. 10,266,180 B1].
Regarding claim 8, Konrardy does not disclose however Fields teaches wherein control contents for the robot are determined according to the determined insurance contents (Abstract). Before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the Konrardy’s insurance determination system with Field’s control selection system because both relate to autonomous vehicle operation and risk assessment. The combination would allow the system to not only determine insurance contents based on risk but also to adjust the vehicle's operational control based on the same risk assessment, thereby providing a comprehensive risk management system. The combination is an application of known techniques in the art of autonomous vehicle insurance and control.
Regarding claim 9, Konrardy does not disclose however Fields teaches wherein the control contents for the robot are determined such that in a case in which a compensation range for the insurance contents is wide, and a compensation amount for the insurance contents is high, the robot will be operated so as to prioritize the work that the robot will execute, and in a case in which the range of compensation for the insurance contents is narrow, and the compensation amount for the insurance contents is low, the robot will be operated so as to prioritize safety of the robot (Abstract). Before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the Konrardy’ s insurance determination system with Field’s control selection system because both relate to autonomous vehicle operation and risk assessment. The combination would allow the system to not only determine insurance contents based on risk but also to adjust the vehicle's operational control based on the same risk assessment, thereby providing a comprehensive risk management system. The combination is an application of known techniques in the art of autonomous vehicle insurance and control.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Konrardy et al. [US Pub No. 2022/0164896 B2] in view of Kenefick et al. [WO 2008/079325 A1].
Regarding claim 12, Konrardy does not disclose however Kenefick teaches wherein in a case in which the work information for determining the insurance contents is insufficient, the addition of work information is proposed (0058). Before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Konrardy and Kenefick. The rationale to combine the teachings of would be an improved system for handling insurance requests, such as new coverage applications, renewal applications, and insurance quote requests.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights