DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Independent claim 1 recites:
“ A method comprising…receiving input data…identifying...using…AI model, a series of tasks...identifying a subset of the robots…causing the subset of the robots...” as under abstract idea without significantly more for a pure method to organizing human activity.
Under Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03), applicant’s claim directs to a process method under four categories of the statutory subject matter.
Further, Under Step 2A, Prong One (MPEP 2106.04), applicant’s claim directs to an abstract idea for an ineligible concept as the claim recites one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, (namely mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes) will be considered to recite an abstract idea.
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation directs to an operation method under describing human operator activities exerted upon AI model where the “receiving…identifying…identifying….causing” claim method step are to be performed upon human operator potentially exerting/operating AI model, for instance, Claude AI/ChatGPT or alike, where the actual method step performed by human operator and thus are deemed to be treated under ineligibility.
Further, the recited claim limitation regarding, “causing…the robots…to perform…the tasks” are deemed to be software agent where further recited claim limitation regarding “tasks to complete the operation comprises generating commands…in natural language format” in recited further claim 6 defined the software task performed by robot upon human operator exertion input, for instance, OpenClaw or alike.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, applicant recited claim limitation also does not recited additional elements that integrates the judicial exception for the recited claim limitation.
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “robots…to perform…tasks” is deemed to be insignificant extra solution activities where this recited robot is deemed to be software agent as further recited in dependent claim 6 as discussed above that is upon human operator exertion as human activities exertion upon the software agent.
Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), it is also noted that applicant recited claim limitation does not resulting any special computer/additional element as insignificant extra solution activities in conjunction with the abstract idea discussed above and thus also does not result significantly more than judicial exception and to impose additional meaningful limitation where the claim as whole mainly falls under the method of organizing human activities, namely a method for human operator activity as a procedure method as apparatus exerted upon human operator.
Independent claim 8 recites:
“ A system comprising…one or more computer readable media…a processor…the operation comprising…receiving…identifying…identifying…causing….” as under abstract idea without significantly more for a pure method to organizing human activity.
Under Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03), applicant’s claim directs to a system under four categories of the statutory subject matter.
It is also further noted applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “computer readable media” is deemed transitory medium as signal per se as non- eligible. Please see MPEP 2106.03 II.
For example, the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves).
Further, Under Step 2A, Prong One (MPEP 2106.04), applicant’s claim directs to an abstract idea for an ineligible concept as the claim recites one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, (namely mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes) will be considered to recite an abstract idea.
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation directs to an system describing human operator activities exerted upon AI model where the recited system regarding, “computer readable media…processor to executed instruction” are deemed to be generic processor along with as extra solution activity where the actual operation step as claimed as “receiving…identifying…identifying….causing” claim method step are to be performed upon human operator potentially exerting/operating AI model, for instance, Claude AI/ChatGPT or alike, where the actual method step performed by human operator and thus are deemed to be treated under ineligibility.
Further, the recited claim limitation regarding, “causing…the robots…to perform…the tasks” are deemed to be software agent where further recited claim limitation regarding “tasks to complete the operation comprises generating commands…in natural language format” in recited further claim 6 defined the software task performed by robot upon human operator exertion input, for instance, OpenClaw or alike.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, applicant recited claim limitation also does not recited additional elements that integrates the judicial exception for the recited claim limitation.
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “robots…to perform…tasks” is deemed to be insignificant extra solution activities where this recited robot is deemed to be software agent as further recited in dependent claim 6 as discussed above that is upon human operator exertion as human activities exertion upon the software agent.
Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), it is also noted that applicant recited claim limitation does not resulting any special computer/additional element as insignificant extra solution activities in conjunction with the abstract idea discussed above and thus also does not result significantly more than judicial exception and to impose additional meaningful limitation where the claim as whole mainly falls under the method of organizing human activities, namely a method for human operator activity as a procedure method as apparatus exerted upon human operator.
Regarding claims 2 – 7 and 9 - 13 , the recited claim limitation further directs limitations under the scope of ineligibility with claim focus under the repeated human operator steps thus also does not produce significantly more out of the scope of the ineligible subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: all of the limitations in claim 20 are defined to be pure human operation method exerted upon apparatus as claiming a method for human operator activity as a procedure.
Step 2A Prong 2/Step 2B: There are no additional elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 – 20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
