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 09/30/2025, 03/18/2026. 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 20 is directed to software per se, which is non-statutory subject matter. Claim 20 recites “a computer program product” which is interpreted as Software per se. Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations are examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03(I). Furthermore, it is well settled law that software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.
Claims 1, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
Yes claims 1, 19 are directed towards a controller, method, respectively.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The process in claims 1, 19 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper and as such is directed toward and abstract idea. The claim consists of making a decision how to control one or more elements which is similar to a human deciding to stop an arm if it fails. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actual determination of the attitude of the robot.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
An additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 19 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations include receiving state information which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. sending the command is considered a signal which is recited with high level of generality and considered data gathering. The elements, processor are considered at the apply it level technology. The communication interfaces are considered generic linking.
Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer at the “apply it level”, which is indicative of the abstract solution having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1,19 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations include receiving state information which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. sending the command is considered a signal which is recited with high level of generality and considered data gathering. The elements, processor are considered at the apply it level technology. The communication interfaces are considered generic linking.. See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1,19: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that the claims are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-10 further disclose the additional elements of claim 1.
Claim 11, 12 the establishing trust and secure communication and integrating the newly added elements are all considered data gathering via a computer or apply it level on a computer.
Claims 13-16 just indicate the type of decision and is not controlling the robots based on the decision, thus it is part of the mental process of claim 1.
Claims 17-18 further define the additional elements of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (WO2023088207, from IDS) in view of Yoon (US20240066683).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a robotic controller, comprising:
a communication interface configured to provide connectivity to a set of elements
comprising a robotic system ([28]-[41] disclosing the connection of the arms via ethernet protocol, i.e., internet protocol); and
a processor coupled to the communication interface and configured to ([28] disclosing the controller is connected to the communication interface to the arm via ethernet):
receive state information from or more elements included in the set of elements ([28]-[41] disclosing receiving the status of the arms via communication);
make based at least in part on the state information a decision as to how to control one or more elements included in the set of elements ([28]-[42] disclosing the control to control to operate the normal operation with a non faulty arm and prompt a message about the faulty arm); and
send to each of the one or more elements, via the communication interface, a command determined based on at least in part on the decision (at least [28]-[41] disclosing the instruction commands are sent to the arms via the ethernet interface).
Chen does not explicitly disclose via the communication interface.
Yoon teaches via the communication interface ([0201] disclosing the modular robots communicate the sensor data via a shared communicator).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Yoon of sharing sensor data via a shared communicator thus enhancing the share of data and avoiding extra connections with sensors to send sensor data.
Regarding claim 2, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 1, wherein the communication interface comprises a wireless communication interface.
Yoon teaches a wireless communication interface ([0201] disclosing the modular robots communicate the sensor data via a shared communicator, fig. 8 disclosing the communication is wireless).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Yoon of sharing sensor data via a shared communicator thus enhancing the share of data and avoiding extra connections with sensors to send sensor data and reducing the need for wires when wireless is used.
Regarding claim 3, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 1, wherein the communication interface comprises an EtherCAT or serial communication interface (Chen [28]-[41] disclosing the ethernet).
Regarding claim 5, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 1, wherein the state information is received from a safety system (Chen [28]-[41] disclosing the operating state monitoring module that monitors the state, i.e., safety system).
Regarding claim 8, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 1, wherein the set of elements includes an interchangeable robotic element (Chen [28]-[42] disclosing the interchangeable arm).
Regarding claim 9, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 8, wherein the interchangeable robotic element comprises one or both of a robotic arm and a robotic end effector (Chen [28]-[42] disclosing at least an arm).
Regarding claim 10, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to receive
an indication that the interchangeable robotic element is to be or has been changed (Chen [28]-[42] disclosing alerting the need to change the arm).
Regarding claim 15, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 1, wherein the decision comprises a change in previously determined plan to use the set of elements to perform a task (Chen [1]-[8] disclosing when the failure is detected, the decision is to only control the arms other than the arm that failed to continue operation but not the failed arm).
Regarding claim 16, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 15, wherein the change is associated with transitioning from a first state associated with a first control paradigm to a second state associated with a second control paradigm (Chen [1]-[8] disclosing when the failure is detected, the decision is to only control the arms other than the arm that failed to continue operation but not the failed arm, thus the second control paradigm is in a failed state and wherein the other arms are controlled only).
Regarding claim 17, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 1, wherein the communication interface includes a physical interface to a robotic element included in the set of elements ([12]-[42] disclosing the ethernet interface connected physically).
Regarding claim 18, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 1, wherein the communication interface comprises a physical connector at least a portion of which conforms to a form factor and signal layout of a connector associated with a commodity controller that the robotics controller is adapted to replace (Chen [1]-[42], and [42]-[55] disclosing the interface is a typical connector that is also accommodates the controller, the ethernet is interpreted as an interface connector associated with the connection from and signal layout of commodity controllers. It is noted that the specification is silent about the specification of the commodity controller or the signal layout and form factor).
Claims 19-20 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, see above rejection.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (WO2023088207, from IDS) in view of Yoon (US20240066683) and Bralla (US20240198475)
Regarding claim 4, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the state information is received from a camera or other sensor.
Bralla teaches wherein the state information is received from a camera or other sensor ([0130]-[0146] disclosing determining based on camera classification of the tool that the tool is degraded “state”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Bralla of wherein the state information is received from a camera or other sensor in order to allow the classification of the state of the tool accurately, the combination improves the process by adding redundancy for the state determination and or verification which improves the detection of failure.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (WO2023088207, from IDS) in view of Yoon (US20240066683) and Oleynik (US20160059412).
Regarding claim 6, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the set of elements includes an auxiliary equipment.
Oleynik teaches wherein the set of elements includes an auxiliary equipment ([0649]-[0650] disclosing the external sensors feeding data to the control unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Oleynik of providing auxiliary equipment such as cameras in order to reduce a load on the robot and allow external elements for the system such as cameras.
Regarding claim 7, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 6, but does not teach wherein the auxiliary equipment comprises one or more of a conveyor, a material handling equipment, a camera, a sensor, and a safety system.
Oleynik teaches wherein the auxiliary equipment comprises one or more of a conveyor, a material handling equipment, a camera, a sensor, and a safety system ([0649]-[0650] disclosing the external sensors feeding data to the control unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Oleynik of providing auxiliary equipment such as cameras in order to reduce a load on the robot and allow external elements for the system such as cameras.
Claims 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (WO2023088207, from IDS) in view of Yoon (US20240066683) and Jhaveri (US20210251720).
Regarding claim 11, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to establish trust with a newly added robotic element that has replaced the interchangeable robotic element with respect to which the indication was received (Chen [42]-[50] disclosing the establishing trust by performing network configuration with the replaced arm to acquire configuration parameters and further since the replaced arms has the same configuration as the original arm, the roboti arm continues operation of the robotic arm replaced).
While Chen as modified by Yoon does not teach and secure communication.
Jhaveri teaches and secure communication ([0080]-[0081] disclosing the establishing of secure communication with attached tools).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Jhaveri in order to ensure the new tool will not compromise the system or damage it or have unapproved access that may cause harm thus improving safety and security.
Regarding claim 12, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to integrate the newly added robotic element into work performed under control of the robotic controller (Chen [42]-[50] disclosing the integration of the new robotic element to continue the work assigned by the controller).
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (WO2023088207, from IDS) in view of Yoon (US20240066683) and Kalbavi (US20250319595).
Regarding claim 13, Chen as modified by Yoon teaches the robotic controller of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the decision includes for each of one or more motors associated with an element included in the set of elements a motor torque to be applied by the motor.
Kalbavi teaches wherein the decision includes for each of one or more motors associated with an element included in the set of elements a motor torque to be applied by the motor ([0022]-[0023] disclosing the method of applying a limited torque to a gripper and measure the time it accomplishes the gripping in order to determine the response time of the gripper thus identifying a gripper health).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Kalbavi in order to verify and confirm the health of the attachment thus improving the detection of errors and verification and avoiding wrong determination.
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (WO2023088207, from IDS) in view of Yoon (US20240066683) and Kalbavi (US20250319595) and Hosek (US20140201571).
Regarding claim 14, Chen as modified by Yoon and Kalbavi teaches the robotic controller of claim 13, but does not teach wherein the motor torque comprises a time series indicating a sequence of motor torques and for each a duration or interval through which that torque is to be applied.
Hosek teaches wherein the motor torque comprises a time series indicating a sequence of motor torques and for each a duration or interval through which that torque is to be applied ([0237]-[0245] disclosing the detection of change of baseline behavior based on applying torques sequences over interval indicative of a control cycle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Hosek in order to more accurately determine failure based on a control cycle rather than a small peak of change which will improve the detection of fault and can improve detection per specific control cycles of each robot control system thus improving accuracy of detection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20190248007 disclosing interchange for specific task and testing with torque greater than threshold to determine secure attachment or unchanged or zero to determine not correctly attached and encoding data.
US20250256392 disclosing changing module for specific task.
US11351680 disclosing the change of function based on simulating the module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights