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 .
With regards to the prior 35 USC 101 rejections applied to claims 1-20, those rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
With regards to the prior 35 USC 112 rejections applied to claims 1-20, those rejections are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s claim amendments.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 02/25/2026 are unacceptable, and are not entered because they contain new matter. Correction is necessary by removing the ‘actuator’ element(s) coupled to the processor in Fig. 1. The ‘sensors’ in Fig. 1 can remain as they were previously disclosed in applicant’s original specification.
Specification
The amendment filed 02/25/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. Thus, the amendments to the specification are not entered.
The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows (with underlined emphasis):
“[0014] FIG. 1 shows a schematic block diagram of a mobile robot 10 (e.g., autonomous robot) according to one embodiment. The robot 10 may include a processor 101, a storage 102, [[and]] one or more executable computer programs 103 that are stored in the storage 102, and sensors 104 and actuators 105 electrically connected to the processor 101. The storage 102 and the processor 101 are directly or indirectly electrically connected to each other to realize data transmission or interaction. For example, they can be electrically connected to each other through one or more communication buses or signal lines. The processor 101 performs corresponding operations by executing the executable computer programs 103 stored in the storage 102. When the processor 101 executes the computer programs 103, the steps in the embodiments of the method for controlling the robot, such as steps S101 to S104 in FIG. 2, are implemented.”
In this amendment cited above, the amendment includes additional actuators coupled to the processor, and the originally filed specification does not support this type of coupling to actuators. More specifically, although the original specification describes the robot can be controlled, it doesn’t provide sufficient support that it is specifically actuators that are controlled. For example, the original specification explains in paragraph 0014 and paragraph 0050 that the robot is controlled, but does not explain in these paragraphs that the type of control must include actuators. The examiner notes that other types of control are possible that the paragraphs from the original specification could be referring to such as control of how steps are executed as shown/supported in Fig. 2 of the applicant’s own specification. Thus, since the original filed specification is devoid of the actuator element(s) and the original drawings are devoid of actuator elements, the assumption by the applicant that there must be actuators that are the target of the control (due to apparent inherency) is not persuasive. The examiner maintains that the original specification never provided support that actuators were part of the control process as written/disclosed/depicted in the originally filed specification.
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 1-20 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.
With regards to claim 1, it recites “… controlling actuators of the mobile robot to move the mobile robot based on the two-dimensional laser image …”. However, as mentioned above, although the specification discloses in paragraph 0014 and paragraph 0050 that the robot is controlled, the specification does not disclose the type of control must include actuators. The examiner notes that other types of control are possible that the paragraphs from the original specification could be referring to such as control of how steps are executed as disclosed/supported in Fig. 2 of the applicant’s own specification. Thus, the assumption by the applicant that there must be actuator’s that are the target of the control (due to apparent inherency) is not persuasive. The examiner maintains that the original specification never provided support that actuators were part of the control process as written/disclosed in the originally filed specification.
With regards to claims 2-7, they are rejected for depending upon the subject matter of their corresponding claim 1 and since they do not resolve the deficiencies explained for claim 1, they are rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 8 and 15, they are rejected under similar rationale as the reasons disclosed for the rejection of claim 1 above.
With regards to claims 9-14 and 16-20, they are rejected for depending upon the subject matter of their corresponding independent claim (claim 8 or claim 15) and since they do not resolve the deficiencies explained for their corresponding independent claim (claim 8 or claim 15), they are rejected under similar rationale as their corresponding independent claim (claim 8 or claim 15) above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the specification is amended to include actuators as common knowledge in the field of robot control. However whether subject matter is ‘common knowledge’, the issue as the subject matter included in the specification was not inherent as disclosed/described within the applicant’s originally filed specification. As explained above, there are many elements of robot control including internal/logical-execution control of the robot (see at least Fig. 2 for logical flow control), which the specification does disclose, and applicant’s argument that the control must be ‘actuators’ (due to apparent inherency) is not persuasive.
The applicant argues that no new matter was added to the drawings in Fig. 1 for including the term ‘sensors’ and ‘actuators’. The examiner notes that in paragraph 0024 of the original specification, the use of ‘sensors’ are supported and are not considered new matter. However as explained in the rejections above, the use of ‘actuators’ are not supported/disclosed in the originally filed specification. Thus, the applicant’s arguments for Fig. 1 not including any new matter is not persuasive.
Interview
The examiner suggests/invites the applicant contact to set up an interview to discuss and work together to address the remaining items at issue.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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 Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172