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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-9 are currently pending and addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2025 has been received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/29/2025 has been received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2026 has been received. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1, “intention estimation unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (paragraphs 0028 and 0029) as a computer/control device.
Regarding claim 1, “control command generation unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (paragraphs 0028 and 0029) as a computer/control device.
Regarding claim 8, “intention estimation unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (paragraphs 0028 and 0029) as a computer/control device.
Regarding claim 8, “control command generation unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (paragraphs 0028 and 0029) as a computer/control device.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the degree of freedom of the motion of the operator" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the gripping unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 4 of Application No. 18/981,744. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/981,744 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the instant application would be patentable indistinct from that of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in Instant Application No. 19/290,401 vs. Copending Application No. 18/981,744
Instant Application No. 19/290,401
Copending Application No. 18/981,744
1. A robot remote operation control device comprising, in a robot remote operation of recognizing movement of an operator and transmitting the movement of the operator to a robot to operate the robot:
an intention estimation unit that estimates a motion of the operator on the basis of a robot environment sensor value obtained by the robot or an environment sensor installed in an environment surrounding the robot, and an operator sensor value which is the movement of the operator obtained by an operator sensor; and
a control command generation unit that generates a control command by reducing the degree of freedom of the motion of the operator by generating an appropriate control command for the degree of freedom of a portion of the operator's motion on the basis of the estimated motion of the operator.
1. A remote operation control device, in a robot remote operation of operating a robot by recognizing movement of an operator and transferring the movement of the operator to the robot, the device comprising:
an intention estimation unit estimating a motion of the operator on the basis of a first sensor value obtained by an environmental sensor acquiring information of the robot or a surrounding environment of the robot, and a second sensor value indicating movement of the operator obtained by an operator sensor;
a relationship acquisition unit acquiring a relationship between a first operation target object and a second target object;
a control command generation unit generating a control command on the basis of an estimated motion of the operator and information acquired by the relationship acquisition unit, wherein the robot performs the control command and replicates the estimated motion of the operator;
a robot body joint angle estimation unit estimating a joint angle of the body of the robot on the basis of a finger joint angle and they wrist posture of the operator included in the second sensor value; and
an object posture estimation unit estimating a posture of each of the first operation target object and the second target object on the basis of the first sensor value,
wherein the relationship acquisition unit extracts an appearance feature amount and a geometric feature amount for each of the operation target objects using an image included in the first sensor value and acquires a relationship between the first operation target object and the second target object using the appearance feature amount and the geometric feature amount extracted for each of the operation target objects.
4. The remote operation control device according to claim 1, wherein the control command generation unit generates a control command with which a degree of freedom in motion of the operator is reduced by generating a control command appropriate for a degree of freedom in part of the motion of the operator.
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.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
It does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter) or
Meets a three-prong test for determining that
The claim recites a judicial exception (such as: a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, an abstract idea)
Without integration into a practical application, and
Does not recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception
Claims 1-9 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: Statutory Category – Is the claim directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter)?
Claim 1 is directed to a robot remote operation control device (i.e. a machine), claim 8 is directed to a robot remote operation control method (i.e. a process), and claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a program causing a computer to execute operations (i.e. a machine). Therefore, claim(s) 1-9 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I – Is the claim directed to a judicial exception?
The judicial exceptions are as follows:
Abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity)
Laws of nature (e.g., naturally occurring correlations, scientific principles)
Natural phenomena (e.g., wind)
Products of nature (e.g., a plant found in the wild, minerals)
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the
follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human
activity, and/or c) mental processes.
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).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 1 recites:
1. A robot remote operation control device comprising, in a robot remote operation
of recognizing movement of an operator and transmitting the movement of the operator to a robot to operate the robot:
an intention estimation unit that estimates a motion of the operator on the basis of a robot environment sensor value obtained by the robot or an environment sensor installed in an environment surrounding the robot, and an operator sensor value which is the movement of the operator obtained by an operator sensor; and
a control command generation unit that generates a control command by reducing the degree of freedom of the motion of the operator by generating an appropriate control command for the degree of freedom of a portion of the operator's motion on the basis of the estimated motion of the operator.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “estimates…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement of how they expect the operator to move and “generates…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally determining a simplified movement which the robot may perform in order to imitate the actual movement that the operator is expected to perform. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent claim 8 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 8 recites:
8. A robot remote operation control method comprising, in a robot remote operation of recognizing movement of an operator and transmitting the movement of the operator to a robot to operate the robot:
causing an intention estimation unit to estimate a motion of the operator on the basis of a robot environment sensor value obtained by the robot or an environment sensor installed in an environment surrounding the robot, and an operator sensor value which is the movement of the operator obtained by an operator sensor; and
causing a control command generation unit to generate a control command by reducing the degree of freedom of the motion of the operator by generating an appropriate control command for the degree of freedom of a portion of the operator's motion on the basis of the estimated motion of the operator.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “estimate…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement of how they expect the operator to move and “generate…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally determining a simplified movement which the robot may perform in order to imitate the actual movement that the operator is expected to perform. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 9 recites:
9. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a program causing a computer to execute operations, in a robot remote operation of recognizing movement of an operator and transmitting the movement of the operator to a robot to operate the robot, the operations comprising:
estimating a motion of the operator on the basis of a robot environment sensor value obtained by the robot or an environment sensor installed in an environment surrounding the robot, and an operator sensor value which is the movement of the operator obtained by an operator sensor; and
generating a control command by reducing the degree of freedom of the motion of the operator by generating an appropriate control command for the degree of freedom of a portion of the operator's motion on the basis of the estimated motion of the operator.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “estimating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement of how they expect the operator to move and “generating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally determining a simplified movement which the robot may perform in order to imitate the actual movement that the operator is expected to perform. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II – Does the claim, as a whole, integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application?
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 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 guidelines provide the following (non-exhaustive) list of exemplary considerations which are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial element 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 affect 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 which is integral to the claim;
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
The following is a (non-exhaustive) list of 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-solutionary activity to the judicial exception;
An additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do
not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite additional limitations (emphasized below).
Claim 1 recites:
1. A robot remote operation control device comprising, in a robot remote operation
of recognizing movement of an operator and transmitting the movement of the operator to a robot to operate the robot:
an intention estimation unit that estimates a motion of the operator on the basis of a robot environment sensor value obtained by the robot or an environment sensor installed in an environment surrounding the robot, and an operator sensor value which is the movement of the operator obtained by an operator sensor; and
a control command generation unit that generates a control command by reducing the degree of freedom of the motion of the operator by generating an appropriate control command for the degree of freedom of a portion of the operator's motion on the basis of the estimated motion of the operator.
For the following reason(s), 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 an intention estimation unit and a control command generation unit, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (control device) to perform the process. In particular, the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering environment and operator data for use in the estimating and generating steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “control device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The control device is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the estimating and generating steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add 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(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 8 includes limitations that recite additional limitations (emphasized below).
Claim 8 recites:
8. A robot remote operation control method comprising, in a robot remote operation of recognizing movement of an operator and transmitting the movement of the operator to a robot to operate the robot:
causing an intention estimation unit to estimate a motion of the operator on the basis of a robot environment sensor value obtained by the robot or an environment sensor installed in an environment surrounding the robot, and an operator sensor value which is the movement of the operator obtained by an operator sensor; and
causing a control command generation unit to generate a control command by reducing the degree of freedom of the motion of the operator by generating an appropriate control command for the degree of freedom of a portion of the operator's motion on the basis of the estimated motion of the operator.
For the following reason(s), 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 an intention estimation unit and a control command generation unit, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (control device) to perform the process. In particular, the sensing is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering environment and operator data for use in the estimating and generating steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “control device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The control device is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the estimating and generating steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add 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(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite additional limitations (emphasized below).
Claim 9 recites:
9. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a program causing a computer to execute operations, in a robot remote operation of recognizing movement of an operator and transmitting the movement of the operator to a robot to operate the robot, the operations comprising:
estimating a motion of the operator on the basis of a robot environment sensor value obtained by the robot or an environment sensor installed in an environment surrounding the robot, and an operator sensor value which is the movement of the operator obtained by an operator sensor; and
generating a control command by reducing the degree of freedom of the motion of the operator by generating an appropriate control command for the degree of freedom of a portion of the operator's motion on the basis of the estimated motion of the operator.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional
limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of a computer to execute the operations, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (control device) to perform the process. In particular, the sensing is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering environment and operator data for use in the estimating and generating steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “control device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The control device is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the estimating and generating steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add 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(s) do/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 – Do the additional elements incorporate an inventive concept to the claim?
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.
Regarding independent claim 1:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent 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 element of using a control device to perform the estimating and generating amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in
Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the robot or in the environment, and the specification does not provide any indication that the control device is anything other than a conventional computer which automates the estimation and generation steps. 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Thus, the independent claim 1 as well as the dependent claims are directed toward an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and do not comprise significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 8:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 8 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 element of using a control device to perform the estimating and generating amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in
Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the robot or in the environment, and the specification does not provide any indication that the control device is anything other than a conventional computer which automates the estimation and generation steps. 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Thus, the independent claim 8 as well as the dependent claims are directed toward an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and do not comprise significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 9:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 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 element of using a control device to perform the estimating and generating amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in
Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the robot or in the environment, and the specification does not provide any indication that the control device is anything other than a conventional computer which automates the estimation and generation steps. 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Thus, the independent claim 9 as well as the dependent claims are directed toward an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and do not comprise significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Dependent Claims and Conclusion
Dependent claim(s) 2-7 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim(s) 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-9 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8, and 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, Double Patenting, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-7 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, Double Patenting, and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior arts, Sachs et al. (US 20220151718 A1), and Feix et al. (The GRASP Taxonomy of Human Grasp Types) fail to teach, suggest or disclose individually or in combination to render obvious the limitations in combination of Claim 1. Claim 1 discloses generating a control command which reduces the degree of freedom of a portion of the estimated operator motion. This, in conjunction with the rest of the limitations of claim 1, is not taught or suggested by the prior art. Therefore, Claim 1 is considered novel and non-obvious. Claims 2-7 depend either directly or indirectly upon independent claim 1.
The closest prior arts, Sachs et al. (US 20220151718 A1), and Feix et al. (The GRASP Taxonomy of Human Grasp Types) fail to teach, suggest or disclose individually or in combination to render obvious the limitations in combination of Claim 8. Claim 8 discloses generating a control command which reduces the degree of freedom of a portion of the estimated operator motion. This, in conjunction with the rest of the limitations of claim 8, is not taught or suggested by the prior art. Therefore, Claim 8 is considered novel and non-obvious.
The closest prior arts, Sachs et al. (US 20220151718 A1), and Feix et al. (The GRASP Taxonomy of Human Grasp Types) fail to teach, suggest or disclose individually or in combination to render obvious the limitations in combination of Claim 9. Claim 9 discloses generating a control command which reduces the degree of freedom of a portion of the estimated operator motion. This, in conjunction with the rest of the limitations of claim 9, is not taught or suggested by the prior art. Therefore, Claim 9 is considered novel and non-obvious.
Examiner Note: Pending potential amendments in light of the 101 and 112(b) rejections, allowability of the claims would need to be reevaluated and would require a full search and consideration to determine allowability of the claims.
Conclusion
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the referencesapplied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations arerepresentative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sachs et al. (US 20220151718 A1) – discusses precision motion planning for surgical robotics but does not appear to disclose a reduced degree of freedom movement based on an estimated operation movement.
Feix et al. (The GRASP Taxonomy of Human Grasp Types) – discloses that directly modeling all the degrees of freedom which a human hand has is challenging, however, they do not discuss generating reduced degree of freedom commands for a robot to perform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER KENIRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5468. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
/HEATHER J KENIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
