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 Office Action is in response to Applicant’s filing of 09/30/2025.
Claims 1 – 27 are pending.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 19/035,332, 18/488,128, 18/056,399, and 63/280,368, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Independent claim 1 includes elements identified within paragraphs (b) – (e); these same elements are repeated within paragraphs (a) – (d) of claim 12. Claim 21 includes these elements within paragraphs (a) – (e), and further adds elements within paragraphs (f) and (f) (sic). Overall, these elements are illustrated by claim 12:
a plurality of robotic agents configured to perform manufacturing, maintenance, or oversight tasks and to autonomously generate improvement proposals based on observed operational data or external sources;
an idea registry configured to receive, store, track, and update said improvement proposals and associated metadata;
a decision module configured to evaluate whether regulatory approval is required for implementation of a given improvement proposal; and
an integration module configured to propagate approved improvement proposals into one or more of: design documentation, production protocols, and training workflows.
These method steps of generating improvements within a robotic manufacturing are not disclosed by any previous application. All previous applications were directed to the construction of lighter-than-air airships by robots performing tasks. The instant application is directed to these robots identifying, proposing, and implementing task improvement steps, and possibly obtaining federally regulated approval. This subject matter is first disclosed within the instant application, as evidenced by the additional matter within the Specification and illustrated within new Figures 7 and 8.
Dependent claims 2 – 11, 13 – 20, and 22 – 27, inherit this priority date based on their dependencies to claims 1, 12, and 21. Accordingly, all claims have an effective priority date of the filing date of this application – 09/23/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 10, and 21, are objected to because of the following informalities:
claims 2 and 10 are missing punctuation; see MPEP 608.01(m);
claim 21 lists two paragraphs labelled (f).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“evaluating, via a decision module”, (also recited as “a decision module configured to evaluate”), in claims 1, 12;
“an integration module configured to…”, in claims 12 and 19.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9 is 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 9, the phrase “or other complex or regulated product lines" renders the claim indefinite because it is not sure what is encompassed by "or other"; as well as, “other "), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). This phrasing can have several different interpretations, such as:
“…defense technologies, or other complex or regulated lines”
“…defense technologies, or (other complex or regulated lines)”
“…defense technologies, or other (complex), or (regulated lines)”;
Appropriate correction can better define the scope of this claim.
Further regarding claim 9, the phrase “…other complex…” renders the claim indefinite because it is not sure what is encompassed by "complex". The claim includes a type of Markush grouping of alternatives. However, the complexity of child safety equipment would appear to be different from defense technologies or onshore wind tower sections and blades. Appropriate correction can better define the scope of “complex” within this claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 22 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 22; this claim depends to itself.
Regarding claims 23 – 25; these claims depend to claim 22, and therefore, inherit this improper dependent form.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
To advance prosecution, the Examiner has read claims 22 – 25 as if they depend to claim 21. This further ensures antecedent basis for those claims.
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 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the claims recite a method and a system; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims describes a method for improving tasks within a manufacturing environment. This method is set forth when a potential improvement is identified, a proposal is submitted, the proposal is evaluated and a determination is made if regulatory approval is required. The method possibly concludes with the improvement being implemented within the manufacturing environment. This description aptly describes a mental process of continuous improvement used throughout industry. The Examiner notes that claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, (identify an improvement), evaluations, (evaluate whether approval is required), judgments, and opinions, (generate proposals, cause implementation). The aforementioned mental process is a grouping of abstract idea.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of claims 12 and 21, contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method of regulatory-compliant autonomous improvement in a robotic manufacturing environment, comprising:
(a) configuring a plurality of robotic agents to perform one or more tasks in said manufacturing environment;
(b) configuring an idea registry to store, track, and update improvement proposals and associated metadata and validation history;
(c) enabling at least one of said plurality of robotic agents, upon identifying an improvement to a task conducted in said environment, to submit a corresponding improvement proposal to said idea registry;
(d) evaluating, via a decision module, whether regulatory approval is required for said improvement proposal; and
(e) upon determining that regulatory approval is not required, or that said improvement approval has been received, integrating said improvement proposal into one or more of: design documentation, production protocols, and training workflows for said manufacturing environment.
Claim 21, adds elements that further define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
(b) store the improvement proposal in an idea registry together with one or more of: a timestamp, originating agent ID, domain classification, confidence score, or validation history;
(c) evaluate whether regulatory approval is required for the improvement proposal based on one or more rules aligned with applicable oversight frameworks;
(d) in response to a determination that regulatory approval is required, generate or facilitate generation of a submission packet including one or more of: supporting technical data, validation records, simulation results, or impact assessments;
(f) notify affected robotic agents or subsystems of the approved improvement; and
(f) cause implementation of the approved improvement in one or more subsequent production cycles.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1, 12, and 21, recite only the following additional elements:
a plurality of robotic agents;
an idea registry;
a decision module;
an integration module;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors.
These elements merely invoke computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Foremost, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data), does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant has only described generic components, at Specification [0137]. Notably disclosed is: “…a centralized or distributed data structure for logging”; and, “[t]he term "idea registry," as used herein, is not intended as a term of limitation, but is merely a convenient label for the subsystem that stores and manages improvement proposal data.” See also where "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Recites herein, as (operating in a manufacturing environment). Further, the modules are not specifically defined with structure to perform certain tasks, but rather, merely describe: “…the use of such generative AI systems - including but not limited to large language models (LLMs), multimodal foundation models, and other neural or hybrid architectures….” Lastly, the use of a plurality of robotic agents is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment – an industrial robotic manufacturing environment. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of: (an idea registry; a decision module; an integration module; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Further, certain limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself: a plurality of robotic agents. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 2 and 3 contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to tasks and improvements are further definitions that detail the method of identifying the improvement for the task. These claims are directed to the abstract idea. Further, these claims are applied with the computer or environment of claim 1, thus, not providing for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 4, 15, and 27, contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1, 12, and 21. Recitations to an idea registry, it’s data, and propagating the approved improvement using instructions, are linking the performance of the abstract idea identified to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f), where it is noted that use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 5 and 13 contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 12. Recitations to robotic agents or swarms are linking the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment – an industrial robotic manufacturing environment. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 6, 14, and 20, contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 12. Recitations to AI or models is defined as mere use of this technology without defining any improvement to this technical field. Because this field is generically defined - “…including but not limited to large language models (LLMs), multimodal foundation models, and other neural or hybrid architectures…”, it recites other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” – (“…uses AI…”) is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology, per MPEP 2106.05(f), and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 7, 9, and 18, contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 12. Recitations to certain manufacturing environments, and testing in that environment, are further descriptions of the concept of developing improvements. Continuous improvement for processes and workflows is an abstract idea long performed in industry. An improvement to an abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, these claims are applied with the computer or environment of claims 1 and 12, thus, not providing for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 8, 16, and 22 – 26, contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1, 12, and 21. Recitations to FAA, EASA, FDA, and EMA, as well as those groups requirements for documentations and approvals, are elements directed to the method for improving tasks within a manufacturing environment. Therefore, that are directed to the abstract idea identified. Further, these claims are applied with the computer or environment of claims 1, 12, and 21; and thus, do not provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 10, 11, 17, and 19, contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claim 1 and 12. Recitations to approvals, polling, compiling data, evaluations, and updating, are natural ensuing steps that follow when an improvement is proposed within any manufacturing environment. Polling of other robotic agents is included here because this requires the evaluation and judgment steps to be performed within a robotic environment. According to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 1 – 27, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Claims Distinguished Over Prior Art
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 21, the prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as currently claimed. The most relevant prior art is (Keravala, US 11,738,461), who discloses squads of industrial robots autonomously communicating and working together, perhaps in a manufacturing environment. However, these robots do not identify improvements to tasks nor submit improvement proposals. (Jiao, US 11,698628), teaches methods for optimizing a manufacturing process; but does not teach robotic agents. Therefore, the Examiner reads the current claims as reciting elements not disclosed by the prior art. Specifically not disclosed, either alone, or in combination, are the following claimed elements, within claims 1, 12, and 21:
enabling at least one of said plurality of robotic agents, upon identifying an improvement to a task conducted in said environment, to submit a corresponding improvement proposal to said idea registry;
a plurality of robotic agents configured to perform manufacturing, maintenance, or oversight tasks and to autonomously generate improvement proposals based on observed operational data or external sources;
notify affected robotic agents or subsystems of the approved improvement.
Regarding claims 2 – 11, 13 – 20, and 22 – 27, based on their dependency to independent claims 1, 12, and 21, they inherit the distinguished claim limitations and are therefore, also not disclosed by the prior art.
Noting that patentability of any claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner points to other rejections within this Office Action.
Applicant presents an inventive concept of manufacturing continuous improvement via robotic agents. The recited method is described as identifying a potential improvement, submitting a proposal, evaluating the proposal, and implementing an improved process within the manufacturing environment. This description aptly describes a mental process of conducting continuous improvement in industry; therefore, the claims describe an abstract idea.
However, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973. As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).
“A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty: SAP AMERICA, INC. v. INVESTPIC, LLC 3.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. No matter how much of an advance in the finance field [robotic manufacturing environment] the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the nonabstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629