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 . 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 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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The instant application is a bypass application as it is a continuation of PCT/KR2025/007710, which has an effective filing date of 06/05/2025. Additionally, the instant application claims foreign priority to Korean application KR10-2024-0119174, which has an effective filing date of 09/03/2024. The examiner has checked and verified that the subject matter of the instant application is supported by the earlier filed foreign application, and as such, the earlier filed date of 09/03/2024 is granted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/03/2025 and 12/05/2025, were filed before the mailing of a First Office Action on the Merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 07/03/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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 without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis -Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within the 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) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A robot comprising:
memory storing instructions; and one or more processors comprising processing circuitry, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the robot to:
monitor at least one function of the robot, wherein the at least one function is associated with performing a predetermined task;
based on identifying that an error related to the at least one function has occurred, identify a type of the error;
identify a degree to which the robot is able to perform the predetermined task after occurrence of the error, based on the type of the error; and
modify the at least one function based on the degree to which the robot is able to perform the predetermined task.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “monitor”, “identify”, and “modify” steps encompass a user observing a robot performing a function, identifying if an error occurs while the robot performs the function and determining what type of error occurred, identifying how much the robot is able to continue performing the function after the error occurred, and noting down how to modify the robot function based on the errors observed.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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 2019 PEG, 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 limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A robot comprising:
memory storing instructions; and one or more processors comprising processing circuitry, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the robot to:
monitor at least one function of the robot, wherein the at least one function is associated with performing a predetermined task;
based on identifying that an error related to the at least one function has occurred, identify a type of the error;
identify a degree to which the robot is able to perform the predetermined task after occurrence of the error, based on the type of the error; and
modify the at least one function based on the degree to which the robot is able to perform the predetermined task.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “robot”, “memory”, “one or more processors”, and “processing circuitry”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “robot”, “memory”, “one or more processors”, and “processing circuitry” are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the “monitor”, “identify”, and “modify” steps, therefore acting as generic computer components to perform the abstract idea. The “robot”, “memory”, “one or more processors”, and “processing circuitry” are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception 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 exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (“robot”, “memory”, “one or more processors”, and “processing circuitry”).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “robot”, “memory”, “one or more processors”, and “processing circuitry” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 2-10, the claims ultimately depend from claim 1 and simply recite additional limitations that do not amount to more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). Additionally, a portion of the claims recite additional elements, however, these elements are simply insignificant pre-solution activity (storing scores in claims 2 and 4, sensing data in claims 3 and 9) and insignificant post-solution activity (outputting an alarm in claim 7, inputting information into an AI model in claim 10).
Regarding claims 11-15 and 16-20, the claim limitations are similar in nature to a portion of those in claims 1-10 and recite similar abstract ideas as those found in portions of claims 1-10.
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 4-9 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitations of “first score information” and “second score information”, and then further discloses limitations of “identify, based on the first and second score information, a first score …” and “identify, based on the first and second score information, a second score …”. However, it is unclear how the first score can be based on both the first and second score information, especially since only one of the ‘score information’ is relevant (type of error). Likewise, the same can be applied for the ‘second score’ being dependent on the ‘second score information’. Furthermore, the specification only discloses that the first score may be based on ‘score information corresponding to a type of error related to each of the plurality of tasks including the predetermined task’ and that the second score may be based on ‘score information of each of a plurality of task environments’ (0017). For the purposes of examination, examiner is interpreting the first score to only be based on a type of error and ability to perform a predetermined task, and the second score to only be based on task environments and context information. Examiner believes that the claim should be amended to more closely resemble that of claims 14/19.
Additionally, claim 4 recites the limitation of ‘each of a plurality of task environments’. However, claim 3 from which it depends only recites a single task environment.
As such, claim 4 is indefinite.
Regarding claims 5-9, the claims ultimately depend from claim 4 and contain the same indefinite subject matter as claim 4. As such, claims 5-9 are also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 10-20 are rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inagaki et al., US 20170031329 A1, herein referred to as Inagaki.
Regarding claim 1,
Inagaki discloses the following:
Memory (Paragraph 0038)
The system may include memory
one or more processors (Paragraph 0038)
the system may include a cpu
monitor at least one function of the robot, wherein the at least one function is associated with performing a predetermined task (Paragraphs 0009, 0039)
the fault determination unit may determine if a fault has occurred in the robot
the robot may have a given operation or may be at rest (predetermined tasks)
based on identifying that an error related to the at least one function has occurred, identify a type of the error (Figs. 6-7, Paragraphs 0039, 0067)
faults of the robot are based on state data
degrees of fault may be compared to thresholds
those whose degree is below a given threshold may be considered as normal operation, whereas those above a given threshold may have various severity of fault
fault and normal operation (fault below a given threshold) may both be considered as types of faults
identify a degree to which the robot is able to perform the predetermined task after occurrence of the error, based on the type of the error (Paragraphs 0039, 0067)
faults that have associated degrees less than a given threshold may be classified as normal operation and can continue a given operation
those with fault degrees above a given threshold may
modify the at least one function based on the degree to which the robot is able to perform the predetermined task (Paragraphs 0067-0070)
fault prediction may be performed to allow for the robot to perform specific operations
this fault prediction may be based on the degrees of fault (able to continue in the case of below a threshold)
this can be considered a modification based on the degree of fault
Regarding claim 2,
Inagaki discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Inagaki further discloses the following:
wherein the memory further stores score information corresponding a type of an error related to each of a plurality of tasks including the predetermined task (Figs. 6-7, Paragraph 0067)
degrees of fault may be gathered based on the state data over time
these degrees of fault (actually values) may be considered as a score
this ‘score’ can correspond to normal operation (below a given threshold) or fault (above a given threshold)
different thresholds could be considered as types of errors (severity)
identify a score corresponding to the degree to which the robot is able to perform the predetermined task based on the score information (Figs. 6-7, Paragraph 0067)
degrees of fault can correspond to a normal operation (below threshold) or fault (above a given threshold)
both are related to potential continued performance (see above rationale in claim 1)
modify the at least one function based on the score (Paragraphs 0067-0070)
specific operations may be initiated based on fault prediction, which is itself based on fault degrees (actual values; see Figs. 6-7)
Regarding claim 3,
Inagaki discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Inagaki further discloses the following:
at least one sensor (Paragraph 0041)
the system may include a sensor
obtain context information on a task environment of the robot based on sensing data obtained from the at least one sensor (Paragraph 0041)
the sensors may be used to obtain data regarding a state of the robot or the surrounding environment
the data obtained may be considered as contextual as it is sensing the environment and the robot state during a given operation
modify the at least one function based on the context information and the degree to which the robot is able to perform the predetermined task (Paragraphs 0041, 067-0070)
fault prediction may be used to initiate specific robot operations
this fault prediction may be based on the data output from the sensor (context data; see above rationale), as well as potential for continued operation (no fault vs. fault, see claim 1 rationale)
Regarding claim 4,
Inagaki discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Inagaki further discloses the following:
wherein the memory further stores first score information corresponding to a type of an error related to each of a plurality of tasks including the predetermined task (Figs. 6-7, Paragraph 0067)
degrees of fault may be gathered based on the state data over time
these degrees of fault (actually values) may be considered as a score
this ‘score’ can correspond to normal operation (below a given threshold) or fault (above a given threshold)
wherein the memory further stores second score information related to each of a plurality of task environments (Paragraph 0048)
a state variable may be based off of computations involving the output data (context data; see above rationale)
this state variable is based on the current state of the robot and the environment and represents an associated value, of which can be considered as a second score information
identify, based on the first and the second score information, a first score corresponding to the degree to which the robot is able to perform the predetermined task (Paragraphs 0048-0049, 0067-0070)
degrees of fault can correspond to a normal operation (below threshold) or fault (above a given threshold)
both are related to potential continued performance (see above rationale in claim 1)
a degree of fault can be considered a first score based on a type of fault and ability to continue operation (see above rationale)
identify, based on the first and the second score information, a second score corresponding to the context information (Paragraphs 0041, 0048-0049, 0067-0070)
a state variable may be based off of computations involving the output data (context data; see above rationale)
this state variable is based on the current state of the robot and the environment and represents an associated value, of which can be considered as a second score
modify the at least one function based on the first score and the second score (Paragraphs 0041, 0048-0049, 0067-0070)
fault prediction may be based on fault degree (first score) over time, as well as computed state variable data from the sensors (second score)
this fault prediction may then be used to initiate a specific operation
Regarding claim 5,
Inagaki discloses all the limitations of claim 4. Inagaki further discloses the following:
identify one of a plurality of control levels corresponding to the at least one function based on the first score and the second score (Paragraphs 0059, 0065-0066, 0069-0070)
a fault prediction unit may output fault information
this fault information may include fault prediction and other fault related information, including notifying an operator, which can be considered a control level as it is an output based on the fault prediction
modify the at least one function based on the identified control level (Paragraphs 0065-0066, 0069-0070)
the fault prediction may be used to for the robot to execute a specific operation
Regarding claim 7,
Inagaki discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Inagaki further discloses the following:
provide an alarm notification corresponding to the identified control level (Paragraphs 0059, 0065-0066)
output of the fault prediction unit can be considered as control level(s)
one of the outputs can be an alarm to notify a user of the fault
Regarding claim 10,
Inagaki discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Inagaki further discloses the following:
at least one sensor (Paragraph 0041)
the system may include a sensor
identify one of a plurality of control levels corresponding to the at least one function by inputting, to an artificial intelligence model, type information of the error and sensing data obtained from the at least one sensor (Paragraphs 0059, 0065-0066)
the fault prediction unit may output data which can be considered as control level(s) (see claim 5 rationale)
the fault prediction unit may be based on a neural network in which data regarding the fault (type of error, state variable data determined by sensors, etc.) may be used as input
modify the at least one function based on the identified control level (Paragraphs 0065-0070)
fault prediction may be used during operation to allow for the robot to execute specific operations
the fault prediction may be based on data output from the fault prediction unit, which includes the control level(s) (see above rationale)
Regarding claims 11-15, the limitations are similar to those in claims 1-5 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1-5.
Regarding claims 16-20, the limitations are similar to those in claims 1-5 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1-5.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Inagaki, and in view of Burns et al., US 20150112481 A1, herein referred to as Burns.
Regarding claim 6, Inagaki discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Inagaki further discloses a plurality of control levels (Paragraphs 0059, 0065-0066, 0069-0070; fault information may be used for further control, including specific system controls such as an alarm), but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of control levels comprises at least one of function maintenance, limited function maintenance, function stop after completion of a current task, and immediate function stop. However, Burns, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the plurality of control levels comprises at least one of function maintenance, limited function maintenance, function stop after completion of a current task, and immediate function stop (at least Paragraphs 0031, 0059; upon detection of a fault, the system may allow for determined robotic arms to be placed into safe-states, wherein the fault may be isolated; this can be considered as a function stop, as well as function maintenance as the fault is isolated and the robotic arm is stopped). Therefore, from the teaching of Burns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Inagaki to include wherein the plurality of control levels comprises at least one of function maintenance, limited function maintenance, function stop after completion of a current task, and immediate function stop, as taught/suggested by Burns. The motivation to do so would be to allow for specific remedial actions to be performed based on the relevant scores from the fault detection system of Inagaki. This can allow for the system to prevent itself from encountering a serious fault, such as those where the system may break or when damage to the surrounding environment may occur.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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. Examiner suggests fixing the noted 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues and 35 U.S.C. 101 issues, and including the subject matter of claims 8 and/or 9, including intervening claims, into each of the independent claims.
Regarding claim 8, the examiner has completed a thorough search and has not found a piece of prior art, either alone or in combination with other prior art, that discloses, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claim limitations. The closest piece of prior art, US 20170031329 A1 by Inagaki, discloses weighting being applied to data from a determination unit (Paragraph 0061; determination data can include degree of error and state variable data), but fails to disclose identify a weight to be applied to each of the first score and the second score based on a number of types of the context information; and modify the at least one function based on the first score and the second score to which the identified weight is applied. These features are novel in that the weighting is applied based on a number of types of context information which correspond to a task environment. This can allow for the system to adjust to highly complex task environments, such as those where multiple processes may be occurring at once, and can increase the overall accuracy of robotic control in these environments, especially in the presence of one or more faults.
Regarding claim 9, the examiner has completed a thorough search and has not found a piece of prior art, either alone or in combination with other prior art, that discloses, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claim limitations. The closest piece of prior art, US 20170031329 A1 by Inagaki, discloses identifying sensor data based on a type of error (Paragraphs 0067-0070; a type of error may be identified; sensors may obtain state variable data associated with a given error), but fails to disclose identify, based on a type of the error, second sensing data to substitute for first sensing data of a sensor to which the error occurs among the at least one sensor; and identify the degree to which the robot is able to perform the predetermined task by substituting the first sensing data with the second sensing data. These features are novel in that it allows the system to exchange sensor data that may be more favorable for fault avoidance. Additionally, the system can evaluate if a substitution of sensor data will affect the performance of a given function. In doing so, the system can explore possible control schemes that result in low fault occurrence, or even no faults at all.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
