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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1, 4-7 and 9-12. Amendment to claims 11 and 12 overcomes previous grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112(b). However, the amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection. See 112(b) rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/10/2025, with respect to claims 1, 10, 11 and 12 have been fully considered and overcome rejection under 35 USC 103. Furthermore, the amendments to claims 11 and 12 overcome previously presented 112(b) rejection.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) in light of the amended claim language.
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 1-7 and 9-12 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.
Specification filed on 01/12/2023 states in [0011-0012] “determine whether the constituent member of the robot interferes with a workpiece or a surrounding object disposed
around the robot when the robot is driven. The controller includes a setting unit configured to set one or more constituent members to be determined concerning interference according to an operating state of the robot among the plurality of constituent members of the robot”.
Similar is stated in [0030]. Similarly, [0050] states “in step 117, the setting unit 56 sets members for which interference is determined among the plurality of constituent members of the robot 1 and the hand 2”.
Therefore, one or more constituent member(s) is/are set to determine its/their interference with a workpiece or object disposed around the robot (when driven).
However, amended claims 1, 10, 11 and 12 recite:
“before performing interference check, switch, from one or more constituent members which are selected from among the plurality of constituent members of the robot and for which interference with a workpiece or a surrounding object disposed around the robot is to be determined, to one or more constituent members of the robot different from the selected one or more constituent members according to an operating state of the robot”.
Examiner interprets limitation above as: interference check will be performed for member A of robot. And prior to performing the interference check for member A, it is replaced with another member.
As specification does not disclose switching the member of robot prior to performing interreference determination, limitations identified above are deemed new subject matter that were not disclosed originally.
Claims 2-7 and 9 are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 1.
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 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because:
With respect to claim 1:
“before performing interference check, switch, from one or more constituent members which are selected from among the plurality of constituent members of the robot and for which interference with a workpiece or a surrounding object disposed around the robot is to be determined, to one or more constituent members of the robot different from the selected one or more constituent members according to an operating state of the robot” is interpreted as:
interference for object (robot member)) A with a workpiece or surrounding object is to be determined, and before performing interference determination for object A, the A is switched with object B (another member of the robot). Therefore, interference determination is planned for object A but before actually performing the determination, it is replaced with another object.
The claim further recites:
performing the interference check by determining whether the switched one or more constituent members interfere with the workpiece or the surrounding object
It is unclear what “the switched one or more constituent members” refers to. Is it object A that is switched by object B, or is it object B? Furthermore, as interference determination is expected for object A and before determination is performed, it is switched by object B, is object B switched by another object C before interference determination is made for B?
Claims 10, 11 and 12 recite same limitations, hence are similarly rejected. Claims 2-7 and 9 are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights