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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims1-7 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.
See the appropriate paragraph of the 4/23/25 non-final rejections.
The 8/25/25 amendments have added new language from the original specification, paragraphs [114-115]. These limitations are directed to “ the path trajectory be generated … either in real-time or in a simulation … on the basis of each determined virtual potential of attraction …”. For at least this reason, the claims are directed to a “simulation” and it is not clear if application was in possession of this subject matter at the time of filing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
See the appropriate paragraph in the 4/23/25 non-final office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton in view of Flaherty.
See the appropriate paragraph in the 4/23/25 non-final office action.
The 8/25/25 amendments add “ the path trajectory be generated … either in real-time or in a simulation … on the basis of each determined virtual potential of attraction …”. The claimed “simulation” is sufficiently broad to have been read acquiring data by the processing unit by the robotic apparatus to map the area and using the acquired data to control the robotic apparatus in the space.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the 35 USC 112a written description rejections stating the 8/25/25 amendments that add additional language form paragraph [114-115] of the original specification obviate these rejections.
These amendments add the limitations “ the path trajectory be generated … either in real-time or in a simulation … on the basis of each determined virtual potential of attraction …”. For at least this reason, the claims are directed to a “simulation” and it is not clear if application was in possession of this subject matter at the time of filing.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112b rejections.
Applicant traverses the 35 USC 101 rejections stating claim 1 steps (c)-(f) cannot be performed in the human mind. The rejection states the generation of a path trajectory based on the gradient of the virtual potential of attraction is an abstract idea. The 8/25/25 amendments add the trajectory path can be a simulation which is an abstract idea. Applicant contends the claims are subject matter eligible under step 2A because the invention is a “specific improvement to the technical field of robotic technology …. Limits human operators’ risk of exposure to potentially contaminate spaces.” These remarks are not commensurate in scope with the claims that generally describe control of a mobile robot.
Applicant traverses the 35 UC 103 rejection stating Dayton fails to teach the calculation model of the instant invention. The Office maintains the claims are generally directed to a model of movement and has been properly read on Dayton that teaches a controller that learns specific routes and is indistinguishable from the instant claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYLE A ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)272-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-8:30-5; T,thur-6:30am-7pm; off Fri.
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.
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.
/LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797