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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because that is not what the claimed invention is drawn to (see the scope of elected claims 11-20). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b), section I, B recites “A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains” (emphasis added).
For an example, the abstract, in line 1 recites “in some examples…” which is unclear whether this abstract discloses examples or the invention that pertains. Moreover, the invention is directly to a method having a step of determining a threshold via control circuitry (see claimed invention and the remarks) that has not been disclosed in the abstract that is sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
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 11-30 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.
Claims 11 and 21 with the terms of “determining, via control circuitry, an actual threshold based on the tool property of the material removal tool…an actual rotational speed of the material removal tool” and
“modifying movement of the material removal machine …rising above, or failing below, the actual threshold.” (emphasis added).
Reading at Paragraph 59 recites “At block 808, the measured current …is compared to a threshold current….The threshold may be preloaded (and/or predetermined, preprogrammed, etc.), programmatically determined (e.g., by the control circuitry 700), and/or inputted through the UI106” that means there is a preload threshold in the system and later of the same paragraph recites “the control circuitry 700 may determine the threshold value based on…(e.g., an actual spinning and/or surface speed of the material removal tool 304, …etc.).
Paragraph 60 recites “the threshold may change based on whether the movement control procedure 800 is currently (and/or was previously) operating using contact or non-contact movement and/or actuation parameters. For example, where the threshold is a change in current threshold, the threshold may be a positive value greater than zero when the movement control procedure 800 is currently (and/or was previously) operating using non-contact movement…”.
As discussed above, it appears that the control circuitry 700 determines the threshold value (emphasis added) based on a tool property of the material removal tool and use the threshold value (below or above values of the threshold) to determine a non-contact movement or contact movement. The threshold may change based on whether the movement control procedure 800 is currently (and/or was previously) operating using contact or non-contact movement. It seems the threshold is modified or changed based on current changed or contact or non-contact movement.
Therefore, as the claim is written “determining, via control circuitry, an actual threshold based on the tool property of the material removal tool…an actual rotational speed of the material removal tool” that is different what the specification discloses.
Thus, these features were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the control circuitry determines the threshold based on the rotational speed of the removal tool.
Moreover, reading at Applicant’s para. 29, the threshold is set by a user or determined by the control circuit without providing any guidance to possess that the control circuitry determines the threshold based on the rotational speed of the removal tool. Another word, how does the control circuitry determine the threshold based on the rotational speed of the removal tool?
Is any default threshold or predetermined threshold to allow the machine to operate? If no default threshold or predetermined threshold is in the system, how the control circuitry determines the threshold based on the rotational speed of the removal tool.
Are there a plurality of preload thresholds in this system (in order the control circuitry determines the threshold based on the rotational speed of the removal tool)?
Reading at Applicant’s paras. 30-31, the control circuitry determines the “below” threshold or a first speed in a 1st mode and the “above” threshold or a second speed in a 2nd mode based on the properties of the material removal tool (rotation speed of a blade) by measured of the current sensor that means the threshold is a predetermined threshold (inputting from a user), not an actual threshold and the control circuitry determines the “below” limit of the threshold and the “upper” limit of the threshold based on the actual rotational speed of the removal tool (measured by the sensor) and
modify movement of the material removal machine (direction) in response to an electric current used on the removal tool above or below limits of the threshold as discussed in Applicant’s Paras. 29 and 59.
Therefore, there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function of being able to position the “determining, via control circuitry, an actual threshold based on the tool property of the material removal tool…an actual rotational speed of the material removal tool” and “modifying movement of the material removal machine …rising above, or failing below, the actual threshold.”
Claim 27 recites “identifying …a new threshold” and later “changing the actual threshold from an old threshold to the new threshold” that is new matter since the original specification does not discuss “identifying, via the control circuitry, a new threshold based on the tool property; and changing the threshold from an old threshold to the new threshold” (emphasis added).
See the discussion in claim 1 above “it appears that the control circuitry 700 determines the threshold value (emphasis added) based on a tool property of the material removal tool and use the threshold value (below or above values of the threshold) to determine a non-contact movement or contact movement. The threshold may change based on whether the movement control procedure 800 is currently (and/or was previously) operating using contact or non-contact movement. It seems the threshold is modified or changed based on current changed or contact or non-contact movement”.
It appears identifying, via the control circuitry, a new threshold value based on the tool property; and changing the threshold to have the new threshold value”
Based on the original specification, there is NOT discussed “identifying …a new threshold” and later “changing the threshold from an old threshold to the new threshold” as claimed in claim 27 because there is no evidence or discussion how the new threshold is identified and how it can be changed from old to new thresholds. Thus, it is new matter.
All claims dependent from claims 1, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent from rejected parent claims, respectively.
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 11-30 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.
Claims 11 and 21, the term “determining, via control circuitry, an actual threshold…by a sensor” is confusing. This term is failing to comply with the written description requirement that makes confusing this term. What and when is an actual threshold considered since the specification does not discuss this language “actual”? If an art has upper and lower thresholds, a controller determines either thresholds based on conditions of the cutting machine that meet this term right?
Claims 11 and 21 with the terms of “determining, via control circuitry, an actual threshold based on the tool property of the material removal tool…an actual rotational speed of the material removal tool” and “modifying movement of the material removal machine in response to an electric current …rising above, or failing below, the actual threshold” (emphasis added) are unclear because the sensor appears to measure the rotation speed of the removal tool (see the remark) and the last paragraph “…an electric current …a change in the electric current used to actuate the material removal tool, rising above, or failing below, the actual threshold” which is confusing. What is the “rising above” or the “falling below”? what is an actual threshold? if the modifying movement of the material removal machine “rising above” or the “falling below” of the actual threshold, the threshold is not the actual threshold. See the description problem above.
The scope of claim 17 is unclear since it uses the language “further” (see claim 11) and also, Claim 17 does not refer back to and further limit the claim from which it depends (see discussion below). What is the sensor referring to (the current sensor in line 4 of claim 11 or line 5 of claim 11).
The scope of claim 27 is unclear since it is new matter and does not support in the original specification. When and what the new, old, actual threshold are considered and defined in the system? When the machine is turned off, what the threshold is in the machine.
All claims dependent from claims 1, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being dependent from rejected parent claims, respectively.
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.
Claim 17 is 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. Claim 17 does not refer back to and further limit the claim from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 person shall 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 effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14, 16-24, 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chambers (US 2011/0017030).
Regarding claims 11, 21, as best understood Chambers teaches a method, comprising:
providing a material removal machine (Figure 1);
moving the material removal machine (EOD robot,) via a drive assembly (Figure 1, via wheels with chains), the material removal machine comprising a material removal tool (10) and a current sensor (Paras. 62-63 “emf”);
determining, via control circuitry (70), a threshold based on a tool property of the material removal tool (see the issue above and see Para. 64 “The idea is to set thresholds that bound the motor into certain performance envelopes. The lower threshold is the idle condition, and the upper threshold is the stall condition. In the idle condition, the cutter motor turns at very low speed. When the blade encounters an object and the cutting resistance goes up, the motor controller increases the current (and therefore the motor speed) to the level needed for effective cutting” that means the threshold is changed from lower to upper thresholds based on actual condition) and (Para. 66 “the efficiency of creating back emf changes and therefore the thresholds are changing”),
wherein the tool property of the material removal tool comprises an actual rotational speed of the material removal tool measured by a sensor (Para. 62 “ Control electronics 70 are adapted to monitor both the speed of motor 50 and the current draw of motor 50” and Para. 64 “the lower threshold is the idle condition,… In the idle condition, the cutter motor turns at very low speed”); and
modifying movement of the material removal machine in response an electric current used to actuate the material removal tool, or a change in the electric current used to actuate the material removal tool, rising above , or falling below, the threshold (Paras. 64-65, 67).
Regarding claims 12 and 22, Chambers teaches that the material removal machine is moved via the drive assembly in a first mode (the stall condition, Para. 64) when the electric current is below the threshold (the threshold), and the material removal machine is moved in a second mode (the idle condition) when the electric current is above the threshold (Para.64 and Para. 67 “When grinding wheel 55 is brought into contact with the object which is to be cut, grinding wheel 55 slows down and the current drawn by motor 50 goes up”).
Regarding claims 13 and 23, Chambers teaches that the material removal machine is moved in a first direction in the first mode (see the discussion in claim 12), and in a second direction in the second mode (see the discussion in claim 12 for cutting the workpiece and see Para. 65 “ the motor can be stopped or reversed so as to minimize the potential for jamming”).
Regarding claims 14 and 24, Chambers teaches that determining the threshold, via the control circuitry, based on the tool property (see the discussion in claims 11-12 above) and which of the first mode, the material removal machine was previously being moved in (see the discussion in claim 13 above and Figure 1 shows the saw machine was previously being moved in to contact the workpiece. Also, the limits of the threshold are based on the comparation of the previous experience or data and new ones. Also, see the 112b above for a predetermined threshold).
Regarding claims 16 and 26, Chambers teaches that the step of determining the threshold, via the control circuitry, based on the tool property (see the discussion in claim 11 above) and a sample property of a sample to be worked upon by the material removal tool (Paras. 64-65, 67) and the sample property comprises a weight of the sample (it is inherently limitation, because a material has its own weight).
Regarding claim 17, Chambers teaches that the measuring the actual rotational speed of the material removal tool using the sensor (see claim 11 above).
Regarding claims 18 and 28, Chambers teaches that the sensor is integrated with a tool actuator controller (Paras. 63-67) configured to control actuation of the material removal tool, the material removal machine comprising the tool actuator controller (Para. 63 “A DC motor controller…to regulate the motor speed”).
Regarding claims 19 and 29, Chambers teaches that the material removal machine is moved along an axis defined by the drive assembly (see the robot), a tool actuator actuates the material removal tool using the electric current, and a tool actuator controller (see claim 18 above) controls the tool actuator (Para. 63 “a back emf scheme to regulate the motor speed”).
Regarding claims 20 and 30, Chambers teaches that the material removal tool comprises a saw blade (a saw blade 55, Figure 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chambers in view of Urabe et al (US 2011/0290090).
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Chambers shows all of the limitations as stated above except the material removal machine and the drive assembly are enclosed within a cabinet.
Urabe a robot (Figure 1) having a cutting system (32) and the cutting system and a robot (101) are enclosed within a cabinet (100A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Chambers to have a cabinet, as taught by Urabe, in order to prevent any dirt or cutting particle or explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) exposed in an environment and protect the robot when it is not operated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons:
The scope of Claims 11-30 does not support in the original specification. See further explanation above.
The specification objection remains the same.
Claims 11-30 are indefinite. See the rejections above.
Regards to “The Office Action rejected claims 11-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as allegedly failing to comply with the written description requirement”, the argument is acknowledged, but it is persuasive. See Applicant’s specification, para. 59, it is clearly states that “the control circuitry 700 may determine the threshold VALUE based on ….” (emphasis added), not an actual threshold as claimed. See the discussion above.
What or when is a threshold considered as an actual threshold?
What is an actual threshold when the actual threshold is not stable or changed?
With regards to “claim 17, it further limits claim 11 as it adds an additional step to the method”, Examiner disagrees it because as the claim is written “the actual rotation speed…”, the actual rotation speed refers back to the actual rotation speed in claim 17. It is no further step.
With regards claim 17 (112d), applicant states that “measuring is not required by claim 11”, it is not persuasive. See claim 11 “…an actual rotation speed of the material removal tool measured by a sensor”.
With regards to “the Office Action rejected claims 11-14, 16-24, and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chambers (US2011/0017030)”, the argument is acknowledged, but it is persuasive.
As claims 11 and 25 written, it is confusing and has not support in Applicant’s specification (see the discussion in the rejection), the specification does not even mention the language “actual threshold”. If one threshold is changed, it is unclear whether it is still considered as “an actual threshold” or not.
Since claims 11 and 21 are broad and unclear, the Chambers’s reference read on it as seen in the rejections above (see further explanations).
Applicant states that “Chambers does not appear to disclose or suggest using a sensor to measure a rotational speed…”, see Para. 62 “ Control electronics 70 are adapted to monitor both the speed of motor 50 and the current draw of motor 50”; there is a sensor of some sorts to monitor the speed of motor 50. What type is Applicant’s sensor for measuring a rotational speed?
With regards to Claims 15 and 25 “the material removal machine and the drive assembly are enclosed within a cabinet”, Examiner agrees that Chambers does not have a cabinet; Chambers’s robot can be used to cut explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) …cloth, ballistic nylons, mixed textiles with zippers, buckles or chain, key shanks, cables, chains, sheet metal, etc., as discussed in Para. 5. The open environment needs to be protected. Therefore, adding a cabinet to cover the robot is necessary and should be done. As per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale G “Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention”.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/12/2026