www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/996,447
`
`10/18/2022
`
`HIROKI SAIJO
`
`SYP335133US01
`
`4110
`
`CHIP LAW GROUP
`505 N. LAKE SHORE DRIVE
`SUITE 250
`CHICAGO, IL 60611
`
`BROSH, BENJAMIN J
`
`3658
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/20/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`docketing @chiplawgroup.com
`eofficeaction @appcoll.com
`sonydocket @evalueserve.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-15 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)(¥] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 18 October 2022 is/are: a)() accepted or b)(¥) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)(¥) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)Y) All
`1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. |
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 2024111 2bjbnfr
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/996,447
`SAWO et al.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`BENJAMIN J BROSH
`3658
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 18 October 2022.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/996,447
`Art Unit: 3658
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis
`
`(i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground ofrejection if the
`
`prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
`
`Joint Inventors
`
`This application currently namesjoint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the
`
`examiner presumesthat the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidenceto 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 ownedasofthe 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.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`The information disclosure statements (IDSs)filed on 18 October 2022 and 19 October 2023
`
`comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being
`
`considered by the examiner.
`
`Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 and
`
`acknowledgementis made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
`
`Priority
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/996,447
`Art Unit: 3658
`
`Page 3
`
`The disclosure is objected to because ofthe following informalities:
`
`Specification
`
`e
`
`Paragraph [0078] states "After that, the robot checks whether it has checked whether it was
`
`able to alert the human (step S1009)." The examiner believes the underlined portion to be a
`
`typographical error and that instead, "After that, the robot checks whether it was able to alert
`
`the human (step $1009)" to be intended.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`The drawings are objected to because ofthe following informality:
`
`Drawings
`
`e
`
`Fig 10 step $1011 has two possible outcomes, both are listed as "NO". The examiner
`
`believes this to be a typographical error, and that one of the two outcomes should be "YES".
`
`Per the description given in Spec paragraph [0084], the examiner believes that the branch
`
`pointing toward "PERFORM TASK"should be labeled "YES"instead of "NO".
`
`Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office
`
`action to avoid abandonmentof the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include
`
`all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being
`
`amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.”If a
`
`drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet,
`
`and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes madeto the
`
`brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may
`
`be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the
`
`filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New
`
`Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121 (d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will
`
`be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the
`
`drawingswill not be held in abeyance.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/996,447
`Art Unit: 3658
`
`Page 4
`
`Claim 5 is objected to becauseof the following informalities:
`
`Claim Objections
`
`e
`
`Claim 5: Claim 5 recites “...the object...” in line 2 of the claim. While the examiner
`
`understandsthis to refer to the predetermined object established in claim 4, reference as “the
`
`object” rather than “the predetermined object” is improper and leads to a lack of antecedent
`
`basis.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`The examiner notesthat the claim set contains referenceto a “field of view information of a
`
`human’(claim 1, for example) and a “line of sight of the human”(claim 6, for example). However, the
`
`claims are being interpreted to only claim a bi-product of human presence, not the human themselves.
`
`Thus, the examiner is not interpreting the claims to contain living subject matter.
`
`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 meansor 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 elementin a claim for a combination may be expressed as a meansor step for performing
`a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and
`suchclaim shall be construed to cover the correspondingstructure, 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-AlA 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/996,447
`Art Unit: 3658
`
`Page 5
`
`(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., “meansfor”) 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-AlA 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.
`
`Absenceof 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-AlA
`
`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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
`
`otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`This application includes one or moreclaim 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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/996,447
`Art Unit: 3658
`
`Page 6
`
`e Acquiring Unit: Claim 1
`
`line 2, Claim 6 line 1, Claim 12 line 1, Claim 13 line 1, Claim 15 line
`
`4
`
`
`
`e Control Unit: Claim 1 line 3, Claim 2 line 1, Claim 3 line 1, Claim 7 line 1, Claim8line 1,
`
`Claim 9 line 1, Claim 10 line 1, Claim 11 line 1, Claim 15 line 5
`
`
`
`e=Alert Unit: Claim 1 line 3, Claim 2 line 2, Claim 3 line 2, Claim 4 line 1, Claim 7 line 2, Claim
`
`8 line 2, Claim 9 line 3, Claim 10 line 3, Claim 14 line 3, Claim 15 line 5
`
`Because theseclaim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f} or pre-AlA 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 notintend to have theselimitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
`
`(1) amendthe claim limitations to avoid them being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient
`
`structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient snowing 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-AlA 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-AlA), second paragraph:
`
`The specification shall conclude with one or moreclaims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`The terms “field of view’, “auxiliary field of view’, and “stable main field of view” in claims 1-
`
`3, 6, and 10-15 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The term “field of view”is not
`
`defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree,
`
`and one of ordinaryskill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope ofthe invention. While
`
`“auxiliary field of view” is generally understood to be an area outside of the “field of view” (as gathered
`
`by the examiner by the display of Figure [1] and Paragraph [0025] of the specification), it depends upon
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/996,447
`Art Unit: 3658
`
`Page 7
`
`the field of view in order to be clearly determined. Further however, “auxiliary field of view” lacks enough
`
`support to allow one having ordinary skill in the art to understand how far outside of a “field of view” may
`
`be utilized in order to deliver notifications to the human. Further still, “stable main field of view”is also
`
`not described in a manner to allow one having ordinary skill in the art with an understanding of what
`
`constitutes “stable main”, how it is determined, and howit differs from a “field of view”. Humans have
`
`differing capabilities regarding sense of sight; some humans have reduced capabilities in one or both
`
`eyes, for example. The specification and corresponding claims do not provide one having ordinaryskill in
`
`the art with the requisite knowledge needed to understand how the device determinesa field of view in
`
`order to further determine an auxiliary field of view, thus rendering the claimsindefinite.
`
`Further, “importance”of a task, as described in claim 11 is a term of relative degree that is not
`
`properly supported. While Paragraphs [0081] and [0115] generally discuss that importance of a task is
`
`associated with the alert operation, the term “importance”is not clearly defined. One having ordinary skill
`
`in the art would not understand how tasks are classified as more or less important and therefore would
`
`not be able to adequately understand the breadth of the claimed invention.
`
`While claims 4-5 and 7-9 do notrecite the indefinite terms noted above, they depend upon
`
`rejected base claims and are thus rejected under the same rationale. Therefore, claims 1-15 are rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
`
`In accordance with the USPTO’s trained examination practices, while the examiner is unsure
`
`exactly how “field of view” and “auxiliary field of view” should be determined, a best effort regarding
`
`understanding of these conceptsis utilized in order to provide prior art rejections found 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 improvementthereof, may obtain a patent
`therefor, subject to the conditions and requirementsofthis title.
`
`Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 becausethe claimed invention is directed to non-
`
`statutory subject matter.
`
`101 Analysis — Step 1:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/996,447
`Art Unit: 3658
`
`Claim 15 recites:
`
`Page 8
`
`A computer program written in a computer-readable format to execute processing for
`
`controlling a robot on a computer, the computer program causing a computer to function as:
`
`an acquiring unit configured to acquire field of view information of a human; and
`
`a control unit configured to control an operation of an alert unit provided on the robot
`
`based on the field of view information.
`
`Paragraph [0011] and [0115] of the specification simply restate the claim, that the program is
`
`written in a computer-readable format to execute a program for control of a robot. Since the specification
`
`is silent regarding non-transitory signals and storage, one of ordinary skill in the art would understandthat
`
`claim 15 covers both transitory and non-transitory mediums. Therefore, it fails step 1 of the 35 U.S.C.
`
`101 analysis.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)is obliged to give claims their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In
`
`re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319(Fed. Cir. 1989}(during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted
`
`as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a
`
`computer readable storage device (also called machine readable medium and other such variations)
`
`typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of
`
`the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is
`
`silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per
`
`se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re
`
`Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory
`
`subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35
`
`U.S.C.j101, Aug. 24,2009; p. 2.
`
`The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media
`
`that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering both non-
`
`statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent communityin
`
`overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests
`
`the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/996,447
`Art Unit: 3658
`
`Page 9
`
`and nontransitory embodiments may be amendedto narrowthe claim to cover only statutory
`
`embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory” to the
`
`claim. CJ: Animals -Patentability, 1 077 0)Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants
`
`add the limitation "non-human"to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35
`
`U.S.C. 5 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the
`
`specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment
`
`could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-
`
`transitory embodiment becauseasignal perse is the only viable embodiment such that the amended
`
`claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v.
`
`Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`Applicant is recommended to amend claim 15 to specify that the program is stored within a “non-
`
`transitory” computer readable storage device to provide a physical/tangible form.
`
`Further, claims 1-3 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 becausethe claimed invention is
`
`directed to an abstract idea, specifically a method of organizing human activity, without significantly more.
`
`101 Analysis — Step 1
`
`Claims 1-13 are directed to an apparatus and Claim 14 is directed to a method. The examiner
`
`notes that Claim 15 is currently not within at least one of the four statutory categories, but if rewritten to
`
`incorporate the above-noted non-transitory memory, would fall under the same groundsfor rejection
`
`below. Claims 1-14 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
`
`101 Analysis — Step 2A Prong !
`
`Regarding Prong| of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are analyzed to determine
`
`whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: a)
`
`mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing humanactivity, and/or c) mental processes.
`
`Independent claim 14 includeslimitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and
`
`will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 14 recites:
`
`A control method of controlling a robot, the control method comprising:
`
`an acquiring step of acquiring field of view information of a human; and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/996,447
`Art Unit: 3658
`
`Page 10
`
`a control step of controlling an operation of an alert unit provided on the
`
`robot based on the field of view information.
`
`The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “certain method of
`
`organizing human activity” because under broadest reasonableinterpretation, the claim covers a process
`
`that occurs whenever humansinteract with each other. For example, when one human wishesto get the
`
`attention of another target human in order to inform them of something, the human would determine if the
`
`target humanis paying attention to them, such as by looking in their direction (acquiring field of view
`
`information of the target human) and informing the target human basedon the result (control of alerting
`
`them basedon the field of view). Therefore, the claim recites a method of organizing human activity.
`
`101 Analysis — Step 2A ProngIl
`
`Regarding ProngII of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claimsare 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 environmentor field of use do not integrate a
`
`judicial exception into a “practical application’.
`
`In the present case, the additionallimitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows
`
`(where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to
`
`representthe “abstract idea”):
`
`A control method of controlling a robot, the control method comprising:
`
`an acquiring step of acquiring field of view information of a human; and
`
`a control step of controlling an operation of an alert unit provided on the
`
`
`robot based on the field of view information.
`
`For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do
`
`not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/996,447
`Art Unit: 3658
`
`Page 11
`
`Regarding the additional limitations of a “unit” and a robot, the examiner submits that these
`
`limitations are recited in a generic manner andis generically linked to the abstract idea, which does not
`
`integrate the abstract idea into a practical application becausethe limitations do not impose any
`
`meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
`
`101 Analysis — Step 2B
`
`The claim doesnot include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered
`
`combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed
`
`with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of generic
`
`components to perform the described tasks are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the
`
`judicial exception, because they are mere generic automation steps applied to the exception. Merely
`
`applying generic automation to a method of organizing human activity cannot provide an inventive
`
`concept. To further explain the examiner’s position, as the alert is generically recited, the “alert” may be
`
`considered something as minor as anelectrical signal outputting a change of signal rather than a
`
`significant control output. Therefore, the examiner notes that the claim, even when interpretedin light of
`
`the specification, is generic in its control and does not appearto provide a moresignificant output, thus
`
`pertaining more to insignificant extra-solution activity rather than amounting significantly more than the
`
`judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible and as such, the claim is ineligible under 35
`
`U.S.C. 101.
`
`Regarding Claim 1, the claim is analogous to claim 14 as described above, with the exception of
`
`providing additional generic units, such as an “acquiring unit”, “control unit”, and a “control device”. These
`
`elements are considered to be recited in a generic manner and are generically linked to the abstract idea,
`
`which doesnot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application becausethe limitations do not
`
`impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 is rejected under the same
`
`premise as claim 14 above.
`
`Regarding Claim 2, the claim simply provides the “alert” when within an auxiliary field of view
`
`area of the human (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
`
`Regarding Claim 3, the claim describes that an alert correspondsto a target task (merely further
`
`limiting the abstract idea, as both the “target task” and the “alert” are generic in nature and may simply be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/996,447
`Art Unit: 3658
`
`Page 12
`
`considered a changein electrical signal based on any detected condition, the target task pertaining to
`
`insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering/processing).
`
`Regarding Claim 6, the claim further describes that another field of view is acquired based ona
`
`line of sight detection (performing mere data gathering with insignificant extra-solution activity; see MPEP
`
`2106.05(g)).
`
`Regarding Claims7 and 8, the claims further describe that an operational check is performed
`
`(performing mere data gathering with insignificant extra-solution activity; see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
`
`Regarding Claim 9, the claim further generically recites that “a task” is executed when the alert is
`
`active (as described above, a “task” may be generic in nature and may constitute simple control signal
`
`outputs, thus merely further limiting the abstract idea).
`
`Regarding Claim 10, the claim further specifies that the control step is repeated if not found
`
`“effective” (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
`
`Regarding Claim 11, the claim further specifies the field of view contributing to the performance
`
`of a generic task (performing mere data gathering with insignificant extra-solution activity; see MPEP
`
`2106.05(g)).
`
`Regarding Claims 12 and 13, the claims further recite that data is gathered from a discrete
`
`componentand an integrated sensor, respectively (simply generally links the use of the abstract idea toa
`
`particular technological environment without altering or affecting how the steps of the abstract idea are
`
`performed — see MPEP 2106.05(h) — using a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the
`
`above-noted abstract idea — see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
`
`The examiner notes that Claims 4 and 5 amountto significantly more, as the alert operation is
`
`explicitly noted as performing a physical operation such as gripping an object.
`
`As noted above, if claim 15 wereto fall into one of the four statutory categories (asit currently
`
`doesnot), it would also be rejected in its current form for the above reasons.
`
`In summary, claims 1-3 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons provided
`
`above, however, while claims 4 and 5 contain limitations that amountto significantly more, claims 4 and
`
`5 depend on rejected claim 1.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/996,447
`Art Unit: 3658
`
`Page 13
`
`Prior Art Note
`
`The examiner notesthat the teachings of Sato et al. (JP 6086440 B2) are utilized below for prior
`
`art rejections (85 U.S.C. 103). The examiner has provided an authoritative copy of the original document
`
`and a machine translation of the abstract, specification, and claims. The examiner will provide references
`
`below to the machine translation document.
`
`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 personshall 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 effectivefiling date of the claimed
`invention.
`
`Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
`
`Dipankar et al. (NPL — “Supporting Human-RobotInteraction Based on the Level of Visual Focusof
`
`Attention”, provided with this office action as a PDF; hereinafter Dipankar).
`
`Regarding Claim 1:
`
`- Dipankar discloses A control device that controls a robot, the control device
`
`comprising: (Page [8] Section [V.A] and Figure [5], Dipankar discloses a PC and Robot
`
`Control Module for control of a robot, including pan-tilt unit control as a function)
`
`an acquiring unit configured to acquire field of view information of a human; and (Page
`
`[2, 8] Section [IIl., V-A] and Figure [7], Dipankar discloses determining the level of attention of
`
`a humantarget on a task and their visual focus of attention (VFOA), wherein the VFOAis
`
`defined by the 3-D eye gaze direction)
`
`a control unit configured to control