DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks and Arguments
Request for Interview
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request for an interview prior to issuance of this Office Action, however Examiner believed that an interview would be best conducted after Applicant has had the opportunity to review this Office Action. Applicant is invited to request an interview by contacting the Examiner or through the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form if Applicant remains interested in an interview. After-final interview practice is found in MPEP 713.09.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Claims 8 and 16 – 18, Applicant’s disclosure appears to at most disclose determining a relative position in simulation. It does not disclose control of the bases, especially not real bases. Applicant’s arguments appear to rely on assertions rather than facts established in the disclosure. Applicant’s originally filed specification on Page 3 explicitly recites “In particular, the base is immobile with respect to an installation surface of the respective robot manipulator, such as a floor or a tabletop or a trolley” (emphasis added).
Furthermore, Applicant argues meanings of features of the drawings never described, explained, or otherwise disclosed. The lines/arrows in the context of the disclosure at most appear to indicate a coordinate system or pose and a relative distance and orientation between bases, not any such mobility or degree of freedom thereof. All written disclosure related to Fig. 4 is completely silent with respect to any “line”, the word “line” or similar being entirely absent from the originally filed specification. The only detailed description of Figure 4 which provides the most likely interpretation of these features in the drawings are found on page 8 which reads, “Fig. 4 shows a respective possible pose of the first robot manipulator 10 and the second robot manipulator 20 for a particular one of the plurality of possible tuples of the first end effector 12 for which the second end effector 22 of the second robot manipulator 20 is positionable in the predetermined orientation and at the predetermined distance, respectively, relative to the first end effector 12, as shown in Fig. 3. Furthermore, Fig. 4 shows the relative orientation and the relative distance of the first base 11 to the second base 21” (emphasis added).
With respect to Claim 12, It is unclear what Applicant’s request is with respect to amending limitations of “predetermined” and similar. As made clear in both the arguments and the rejections of the Office Action filed 05/29/2025, the issue is with respect to “from” as opposed to “in” “a grid”. Furthermore, this request makes it appear that Applicant may have misunderstood the rejection.
Examiner has maintained the rejection as the phrasing of the claim is “from a grid” rather than “in a grid”, the former being unclear and not adequately disclosed while the latter is disclosed in Applicant’s specification. The cited locations of support for “from a grid” rather than “in a grid” all appear to only support the latter and not the former. As presently claimed, the data is not created in a grid, but rather the data comes from a grid, while as disclosed the data is created in a grid and does not come from a grid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but are only partially persuasive.
The rejection made with respect to the limitation “the selected pair of possible relative positions and possible relative orientations” was mistakenly described by Examiner as being from Claim 12, though as found in Applicant’s claims filed 12/12/2024 and 11/25/2025 the limitation is found in Claim 9 (which claim 12 depends from). Claim 12 does not recite any limitation of a/the “selected pair which was the limitation at issue as evidenced by Examiner’s following statements (see e.g. “no such pair” also emphasized in Applicant’s arguments). Claim 12 similarly does not recite the word “pair” or a variation of the verb “select”. The only claims reciting a “pair” are Claims 8 and 9, and Claim 8 was referred to as the preceding claim.
The identified issue remains in the claim discussed by Applicant of Claim 9 and is not clarified by Applicant’s arguments. While Applicant does discuss Claim 9, Applicant does not appear to address the limitation and issue thereof. Specifically, the “selected pair” is not previously recited as being of “possible relative orientations” in addition to “possible relative positions” and therefore lacks antecedent basis in a manner that suggests a wholly missing limitation, that the use of “the” is in error, or something similar. Furthermore, Applicant’s statement on Page 10 of the arguments appears to indicate that Applicant believes that this limitation is referring to a different “selected pair” than of Claim 8, specifically that of some pair of Claim 9; see “the limitations that follow in claim 9 -- requiring … determination of a selected pair -- are performed after the specifying the first limitation”.
The rejection with respect to the limitation “predetermining” does not appear to be addressed. Applicant’s response does not inform the Examiner as to the proper scope of the claim. As shown by Applicant, Claim 9 already recites “specifying” this information. Claim 12 recites “predetermining” this same information. The “pre” indicates before something else, however it is not clear what it is before, and furthermore it is unclear what the distinction between “specifying” and “determining” is, though a distinction is implied in using different verbs.
With respect to Claim 15, in light of Applicant’s arguments, Examiner has withdrawn the rejection. The recitation of “such that the first end effector and the second end effector point to each other about a vertical axis” in light of the “such that” appears to merely indicate the inherent outcome of the preceding limitation and merely clarify or describe the nature of “a half rotation about a reference point of the first end effector”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 8 and 16 – 18, the claims recite the amended limitation of “the processor to perform the operations comprising: … positioning the first base and the second base” or “a control unit configured to: … position the first base and the second base”. Applicant does not appear to disclose that a processor, control unit, or other computer component positions the base. Applicant’s disclosure appears entirely directed to determining from simulation relative positions of the bases to each other and to be entirely silent as to actually positioning the robot bases based on that information. There is no evidence that the terms “output”, “determine”, “specify”, etc. used throughout the specification mean that motion is performed, and the drawings do not illustrate the manipulators as being mobile or their base otherwise having a degree of freedom. Applicant’s indicated locations for support for the amendments are silent on the subject or otherwise appear to support Examiner’s conclusion that the most the system does is determine the positioning, not actually effectuate any kind of change to implement the positioning. Furthermore, Page 3 of Applicant’s originally filed specification explicitly recites “In particular, the base is immobile with respect to an installation surface of the respective robot manipulator, such as a floor or a tabletop or a trolley” (emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites “predetermining the possible relative positions and/or the possible relative orientations at the possible relative positions of the first base and the second base from the specified plurality from a grid”. Applicant does not appear to teach that positions are determined “from a grid”. Instead, Applicant appears to only teach that the positions are determined by simulation at discrete intervals (discretized) such that a grid would be formed by the possible positions or in other words, in a grid-like pattern. See Page 3 of Applicant’s Specification filed 7/28/2021, “The determination of the plurality of possible positions of the first end effector is thereby preferably performed by a simulation over the entire reachable geometric range of the first end effector. Preferably, the possible positions are stored at discrete intervals so that, in particular, a grid with possible positions of the first end effector is created”.
In other words, Applicant appears to disclose “in a grid” rather than “from a grid”.
Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 9 – 11 and 13 – 15, the claims depend from Claim 8 and inherit the deficiencies of Claim 8 as described above. Therefore, Claims 9 – 11 and 13 – 15 are rejected under the same logic as Claim 8 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites the limitation “the selected pair of possible relative positions and possible relative orientations”. No such pair has been previously recited, only a “selected pair of possible relative positions”. It is therefore unclear the relationship of this limitation with respect to the preceding one of “determining a selected pair of possible relative positions” in Claim 8. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments filed 11/25/2025 now appear to indicate that “the selected pair” of Claim 9 likely should refer to a different “selected pair” than that of Claim 8, in particular some sort of pair within Claim 9.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted as beginning by reading “a selected pair” rather than with “the …”.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “predetermining” with respect to “the possible relative positions and/or the possible relative orientations”. However, Claim 9 from which Claim already recites “specifying possible relative positions and possible relative orientations”. It is unclear what distinction is being provided by the use of a different verb, particularly one with a temporal prefix of “pre”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted as meaning that a “determining” occurs before any other of the “operation”, and “determining” is equivalent to “specifying”.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, the claims depend from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under the same logic presented above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Voelz et al. (US 20200376663 A1) which teaches collision-free motion planning for more than one manipulator.
Li et al. (Z. Li, D. Glozman, D. Milutinovic and J. Rosen, "Maximizing dexterous workspace and optimal port placement of a multi-arm surgical robot," 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Shanghai, China, 2011, pp. 3394-3399, doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2011.5980270) which teaches optimizing the workspace of a multi-arm surgical with respect to robot base positions.
Mirrazavi et al. (Mirrazavi, Sina & Figueroa, Nadia & Billard, Aude. (2016). Coordinated multi-arm motion planning: Reaching for moving objects in the face of uncertainty. 0.15607/RSS.2016.XII.019.) which teaches motion planning for coordinating robot manipulators.
Cao et al. (B. Cao, G. I. Dodds and G. W. Irwin, "Optimal placement and grasping of two robot arms holding a common object based on workspace usage," SMC'98 Conference Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Cat. No.98CH36218), San Diego, CA, USA, 1998, pp. 3353-3358 vol.4, doi: 10.1109/ICSMC.1998.726521.) which teaches optimizing base placement and grasping of two robots where “the problem is formulated as a multivariable nonlinear constrained optimisation problem” (abstract).
Alonso-Mora et al. (Alonso-Mora J, Baker S, Rus D. Multi-robot formation control and object transport in dynamic environments via constrained optimization. The International Journal of Robotics Research. 2017;36(9):1000-1021.) which teaches a constrained optimization method for multi-robot formation control in dynamic environments.
Hassan et al. (M. Hassan, D. Liu and G. Paul, "Modeling and stochastic optimization of complete coverage under uncertainties in multi-robot base placements," 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Daejeon, Korea (South), 2016, pp. 2978-2984, doi: 10.1109/IROS.2016.7759461.) which teaches optimization of multi-robot base placements.
Hassan et al. (2018) (Hassan, M., Liu, D. & Paul, G. Collaboration of Multiple Autonomous Industrial Robots through Optimal Base Placements. J Intell Robot Syst 90, 113–132 (2018).) which teaches determining overlapping work zones and optimal base placements.
Tao et al. (Long Tao and Zhigang Liu, "Optimization on multi-robot workcell layout in vertical plane," 2011 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation, Shenzhen, 2011, pp. 744-749, doi: 10.1109/ICINFA.2011.5949092.) which teaches an optimization method of designing and positioning multi-robot workcells which are used to manufacture large surface workpieces in three-dimensional space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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 on (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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657