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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/18/2025, 3/17/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 8-10, 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 12. A robot system comprising a control system for determining a relationship between a robot coordinate system of an industrial robot and an external surface at least partly reachable by the industrial robot, the control system including at least one data processing device and at least one memory having at least one computer program stored thereon, the at least one computer program including a program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device, causes the at least one data processing device to:
provide position data from each of at least one tracking device while one or more of the at least one tracking device is positioned on the external surface, where the position data is indicative of a position of the respective tracking device; and
determine a relationship between the robot coordinate system and the external surface based on the position data from each tracking device, where the position data is indicative of at least two different positions;
an industrial robot; and
at least one tracking device.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of determining a relationship between a robot coordinate system of an industrial robot and an external surface at least partly reachable by the industrial robot; and determine a relationship between the robot coordinate system and the external surface based on the position data from each tracking device, where the position data is indicative of at least two different positions. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a control system, data processing device, does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of provide position data from each of at least one tracking device while one or more of the at least one tracking device is positioned on the external surface, where the position data is indicative of a position of the respective tracking device. The providing steps from the tracking device are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering robot and environment condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “robot system”, “an industrial robot” and “at least one tracking device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose robot control environment, i.e. a robot. The robot system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the determine step.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to 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. See MPEP 2106.05.
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.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the provide steps is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors and tracking devices are all conventional sensors mounted on the system, and the specification does not provide any indication that the robot system is anything other than a conventional computer within a robot. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent claims 1 and 8, having the “determine” and “provide” steps similar if not the same as claim 12 are directed to the same abstract idea without significantly more with the same analysis discussed above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6, 9-10, 13-16 and 18 for claims 1, 8 and 12, 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. The further wirelessly transmit the data, as additional element, is recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere data transmitting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, in the dependent claims direct to the same abstract idea without significantly more than the same limitations discussed above for claims 1, 8 and 12. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 9-10, and 13-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 12.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12-16 and 18 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 8-10, 12-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zuhars et al. (12,213,747).
For claims 1, 8 and 12, Zuhars discloses a robot system a control system for determining a relationship between a robot coordinate system of an industrial robot and an external surface at least partly reachable by the industrial robot, the control system including at least one data processing device and at least one memory having at least one computer program stored thereon, the at least one computer program including a program code which (Fig. 2, 3), when executed by the at least one data processing device, causes the at least one data processing device to:
provide position data from each of at least one tracking device while one or more of the at least one tracking device is positioned on the external surface, where the position data is indicative of a position of the respective tracking device (Fig. 2, col. 2, ln 49-52, col. 5, ln 46-63, col. 6, ln 62 – col. 7, ln 10, col. 9, ln 5-10, where position data from tracking devices positioned externally provided to the robot control system); and
determine a relationship between the robot coordinate system and the external surface based on the position data from each tracking device, where the position data is indicative of at least two different positions (Col. 1, ln 47-55, col. 4, ln 44-61, where relative positions between the robot and the external surface are determined in various multiple positions);
an industrial robot; and the least one tracking device (Fig. 2, 3, col. 1, ln 30-67, col. 3, ln 35-44, claim 9, where the system includes various robot components and tracking devices).
For claims 2 and 13, Zuhars discloses the robot system according to claims 1 and 12, wherein each tracking device is configured to wirelessly transmit the position data to the control system (At least in col. 6, ln 62 – col. 7, ln 10, where position data are exchanged between the tracking array and the control system).
For claims 3 and 14, Zuhars discloses the robot system according to claims 2 and 13, wherein each tracking device is configured to wirelessly transmit identification data indicative of an identity of the tracking device to the control system (Col. 8, ln 16-50, where identification data associated with the tracking arrays are exchanged).
For claims 4, 9 and 15, Zuhars discloses the control system according to claims 1, 2, 8, wherein the at least one computer program comprises program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device, causes the at least one data processing device to: set an origin of an external coordinate system associated with the external surface at a position of one tracking device positioned on the external surface (Col. 11, ln 6-43, where an initial reference location is determined and tracked between the components).
For claims 5, 10, 16 and 18, Zuhars discloses the control system according to claims 1, 2, 8, wherein the at least one computer program comprises program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device, causes the at least one data processing device to: provide position data from each tracking device while at least one tracking device is positioned on the external surface and one tracking device is positioned in a known position in the robot coordinate system (Col. 1, ln 47-51, col. 6, ln 1-6, col. 8, ln 38-50, col. 12, ln 6-12, where the positioning data from each tracking device is at known position).
For claim 6, Zuhars discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein one tracking device is positioned on the industrial robot (Fig. 2, col. 3, ln 35-44, where tracking devices and positioning devices are positioned on the robot).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 11, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuhars et al. (12,213,747) as applied to claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 above, and further in view of You et al. (US 2022/0134569 A1).
For claims 7, 11, 17 and 19, Zuhars discloses the control system according to claim 8, wherein the at least one computer program comprises program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device, causes the at least one data processing device to: provide position data from at least one tracking device while the industrial robot and the external surface are positioned in a first positional relationship (Col. 11, ln 6-43, where an initial reference location is determined and tracked between the components);
and provide position data from at least one tracking device while the industrial robot and the external surface are positioned in the second positional relationship (Fig. 2, col. 2, ln 49-52, col. 5, ln 46-63, col. 6, ln 62 – col. 7, ln 10, col. 9, ln 5-10, where position data from tracking devices positioned externally provided to the robot control system); wherein the relationship between the robot coordinate system and the external surface is determined based on position data from each of the first positional relationship and the second positional relationship (Col. 1, ln 47-55, col. 4, ln 44-61, where relative positions between the robot and the external surface are determined in various multiple positions).
Zuhars does not explicitly disclose command the industrial robot and/or the external surface to move such that the industrial robot and the external surface become positioned in a second positional relationship, different from the first positional relationship. You in the same field of the art discloses command the industrial robot and/or the external surface to move such that the industrial robot and the external surface become positioned in a second positional relationship, different from the first positional relationship (Fig. 5, abstract, para. 0014, 0015, 0057, where the robot is controlled to move from first to second position relatively for calibrations). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Zuhars and command the industrial robot and/or the external surface to move such that the industrial robot and the external surface become positioned in a second positional relationship, different from the first positional relationship, as taught by You to properly align and calibrate the robot based on the determined relationship positions using known coordinates.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(12,090,004) Polchin et al. discloses a registration and navigation for surgical robot using performing calibration procedure having tracking devices in communication with robot arms.
(US 2022/0080597 A1) Huang et al. discloses a calibrating coordinate system for robotic arm having tracking devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
