DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/31/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-21, 23-28, 30 and 37 are pending. Claims 22, 29 and 31-36 have been cancelled. Claim 37 is newly added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/31/2025 have been fully considered.
In Arguments/Remarks:
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-21, 23-28, 30 and 37 are directed towards the newly amended limitations not previously examined by the examiner. Examiner notes that applicant’s amendments raise new 112(a) and 112(b) issues (see rejection below). Newly amended claim 27 also raises restriction issues (see rejection below).
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-21. 23-24, 26, 28, 30 and 37, drawn to an information processing method, robot system, and an information processing apparatus classified in B25J 9/1671.
II. Claim 27, drawn to an article manufacturing method, classified in B33Y 40/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Newly submitted claim 27 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 27 claims an article manufacturing method that acquires a motion program for controlling a robot to manufacture an article. Previously, the applicant introduced an article manufacturing method in claim 26 (see final rejection dated 01/02/2025), however the claim was a generic article manufacturing method and lacked distinction. Claim 27 adds steps/limitations to make the article manufacturing distinct from claim 1.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 27 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 1-21. 23-24, 26, 28, 30 and 37 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 claim 1, Newly amended limitation within independent claim 1, such as “second elements set for simulating a second robot system.” contain new matter not previously disclosed within applicant’s disclosure. For example, the applicant’s specification does not disclose “a second robot system”. Applicant’s specification only contains “[para 31] The following describes an embodiment of the present disclosure in detail with reference to the drawings. Fig. 1 illustrates a robot system 1000 according to the embodiment.” and “[para 56] In the virtual space V, a virtual robot system 1000A is defined. The virtual robot system 1000A is defined by three-dimensional model data for imitating the robot arm body 100, the robot hand body 400, the workpieces Wa and Wb, and the box H illustrated in FIG. 1.” and “[para 83] The present embodiment describes as an example the case of using the partial hierarchical data described above in a virtual space V′ represented by second data, which is different from the virtual space V represented by the first data.”. The applicant’s disclosure only discloses one robot system. The applicant’s specification makes no reference to “a second robot system”. Applicant’s specification discloses a first virtual space V and a second virtual space V’. Although applicant in paragraph 84 discloses “The virtual space V′ differs from the virtual space V in that a virtual robot arm body (ROBOT_2) 100′A, which is different from the virtual robot arm body (ROBOT_1) 100A, and a virtual robot hand body 400′A, which is different from the virtual robot hand body 400A, are displayed.” Examiner notes that only one robot system is disclosed (robot system 1000), virtual robots 100A and 100’A are virtual robots that dependent are the first and second data. Virtual robot system 1000A according to applicant’s specification “The virtual robot system 1000A is defined by three-dimensional model data for imitating the robot arm body 100”. Examiner notes that robot system 1000A is a virtual model/simulation of the actual robot system. Therefore, a second robot system is not disclosed by applicant’s specification. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is earnest solicited.
Regarding claims 2-21, 23-26 and 37, Claims 2-21, 23-26 and 37 are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 28, Newly amended limitation within independent claim 28, such as “second elements set for simulating a second robot system.” contain new matter not previously disclosed within applicant’s disclosure. For example, the applicant’s specification does not disclose “a second robot system”. Applicant’s specification only contains “[para 31] The following describes an embodiment of the present disclosure in detail with reference to the drawings. Fig. 1 illustrates a robot system 1000 according to the embodiment.” and “[para 56] In the virtual space V, a virtual robot system 1000A is defined. The virtual robot system 1000A is defined by three-dimensional model data for imitating the robot arm body 100, the robot hand body 400, the workpieces Wa and Wb, and the box H illustrated in FIG. 1.” and “[para 83] The present embodiment describes as an example the case of using the partial hierarchical data described above in a virtual space V′ represented by second data, which is different from the virtual space V represented by the first data.”. The applicant’s disclosure only discloses one robot system. The applicant’s specification makes no reference to “a second robot system”. Applicant’s specification discloses a first virtual space V and a second virtual space V’. Although applicant in paragraph 84 discloses “The virtual space V′ differs from the virtual space V in that a virtual robot arm body (ROBOT_2) 100′A, which is different from the virtual robot arm body (ROBOT_1) 100A, and a virtual robot hand body 400′A, which is different from the virtual robot hand body 400A, are displayed.” Examiner notes that only one robot system is disclosed (robot system 1000), virtual robots 100A and 100’A are virtual robots that dependent are the first and second data. Virtual robot system 1000A according to applicant’s specification “The virtual robot system 1000A is defined by three-dimensional model data for imitating the robot arm body 100”. Examiner notes that robot system 1000A is a virtual model/simulation of the actual robot system. Therefore, a second robot system is not disclosed by applicant’s specification. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is earnest solicited.
Regarding claim 30, Claim 30 is rejected based on their dependency to a rejected claim.
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 25 and 26 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 25, Claim 25 recites “the information processing method, wherein the first elements to be output are….”. However, the terms “the processing method” and “the first elements” lack antecedent basis within the claim. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is earnestly solicited. Examiner further notes that it appears claim 25 was intended to be a dependent claim with dependency to claim 1 due to “the processing method” and “wherein the first elements…” claim language. Examiner is interpreting claim 25 as a dependent claim with dependency on claim 1. Therefore, claim 25 is also rejected by the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection as stated above.
Regarding claim 26, Claim 26 recites “A robot system configured to be…”. However, claim 1 introduces “a first robot system” so it is unclear and indefinite if “a robot system” claimed in claim 26 is the same as the “a first robot system” as claimed in claim 1 or a different robot system altogether. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is earnestly solicited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA whose telephone number is (571)272-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 with flex.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights