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).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/17/2025 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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because:
Both claims recite operating robot arm based on a trajectory. It is unclear is this trajectory is same as recited in “obtaining the trajectory on which the robot arm is operated” of claim 1 or not.
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 23-37, 40 and 43 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 claims 23 and 43 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 23 and 43 fall within one of the statutory categories? Claim 23 is directed towards a method and claim 43 is directed towards an apparatus, and as such fall within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, claims 23 and42 are directed to mental processes.
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).
NOTE: Claims 23 and 43 recite limitations that are similar in scope, hence examiner will assess method of claim 23.
The method of claim 13 contains a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The claim merely recites acquiring a plurality of trajectories and selecting a trajectory from those acquired. A human can drawn a plurality of trajectories and select one based on an evaluation condition. All of this can be performed mentally or with help of pen and paper. Therefore, the following limitations are directed towards an abstract idea:
acquiring a plurality of first trajectories defining a path from the first position to the second position;
selecting a predetermined first trajectory from the first trajectories based on a first evaluation condition;
acquiring a plurality of second trajectories that are determined to satisfy the first evaluation condition in trajectories acquired by displacing an intermediate point corresponding to the predetermined first trajectory;
selecting a predetermined second trajectory from the second trajectories based on a second evaluation condition; and
obtaining the trajectory on which the robot arm is operated based on the predetermined second trajectory
Although “obtaining the trajectory on which the robot arm is operated”, the limitation does not necessitate actual operation of robot arm or and command to do so. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as “picking a trajectory on which robot arm will/should operate”
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 23 and 43 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having 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, 7 and 13 not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Limitations identified as “apply it” in step 2A qualify as apply it in step 2B as well.
With respect to “detection of an object by a sensor coupled to the robot”, this is receiving or transmitting data. And as such has been recognized as well-understood
routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 23 and 43 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 23 and 43 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claim 24, the claim further limits first and second evaluation conditions. This is still part of the abstract idea and is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 25, the claim further limits first evaluation and second evaluation. This is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 26, displacing the intermediate point by adding a value based on a correlated random number to adjacent intermediate points is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 27, random number is correlated by giving a positive value to a covariances in a variance-covariance matrix is a mathematical calculation, hence an abstract idea. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 28, a trajectory that does not satisfy the first evaluation condition among trajectories obtained by displacing an intermediate point corresponding to the predetermined first trajectory is nullified is merely ignoring a trajectory based on an evaluation. Therefore, is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 29, the claim further limits displacing an intermediate point. This is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 30, the claim further limits acquiring positions by a user and displaying points by a user. This is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 31, displaying a robot arm in virtual space is insignificant extra solution activity and accepting user’s plotting is mere data gathering. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 32, the claim further limits acquiring firth trajectories. This is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 33, the claim further limits how plurality of first and second trajectories are acquired. This is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 34, the claim further limits intermediate points to be subjected to curve interpolation. This is a mathematical calculation and is part of the abstract idea. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 35, setting first and second positions through AI process is merely using a computer to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 36, executing an error message when trajectories are not acquired is an internal process of a computer. Hence is apply it and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 37, displaying the trajectory on a display unit is collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Hence an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106(05)(h).
With respect to claim 38, outputting data of trajectory to a controller that controls the robot arm is not a mental process and is a practical application. Therefore, the claim is statutory.
With respect to claim 39, the claim is statutory as being dependent on claim 38.
With respect to claim 40, the claim limits the method of claim 23 to be performed by controller i.e., a computer. Therefore is apply it, and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 41, operating the robot along a trajectory is a practical application. Therefore, the claim is statutory.
With respect to claim 42, controlling an operation of robot arm based on a trajectory is a practical application. Therefore, the claim is statutory.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38 and 39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 41 and 42 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson (US 11628566) teaches of selecting a trajectory from a set of trajectories (see column 3). However, does not teach “acquiring a plurality of second trajectories that are determined to satisfy the first evaluation condition in trajectories acquired by displacing an intermediate point corresponding to the predetermined first trajectory; selecting a predetermined second trajectory from the second trajectories based on a second evaluation condition” as claims in claims 23 and 43.
Watts (US 9821458 ) teaches of selecting a first candidate trajectory and a second candidate trajectory (see abstract). However, does not teach “acquiring a plurality of second trajectories that are determined to satisfy the first evaluation condition in trajectories acquired by displacing an intermediate point corresponding to the predetermined first trajectory; selecting a predetermined second trajectory from the second trajectories based on a second evaluation condition” as claims in claims 23 and 43.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights