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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/21/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 3/21/2023 are approved by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-10 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.
Claim 8 recites, “…the determination unit is configured to perform at least one of fourth
determination…”.
This limitation is unclear in that claim 1 does not recite a third determination.
It appears that claim 8 should depend on claim 2.
Therefore, appropriate clarification or correction is required.
Claims 9 and 10 depend on claim 8.
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.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0232593) in view of Beuschel et al (CA 3091563 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Tani et al disclose: A sensor unit [ taught by figure 3 ] comprising: a sensor configured to measure a distance to an object by observing an electromagnetic wave reflected by the object [ paragraph [0072] teaches a measuring part (12) wherein it states, “…The measuring part 12 measures the distance L between the robot movable area 400B specified by the second specifying part 8 and the human body area 300B specified by the third specifying part 10…” ]; a determination unit configured to perform at least one of first determination of determining whether or not the distance to the object is included in a first distance range from a first predetermined distance to a second predetermined distance longer than the first predetermined distance [ paragraph [0073] states, “…When the input distance L is equal to or less than a predetermined distance Lc (threshold), the restricting part 14 transmits a restricting signal to the robot controller 200 to restrict the movement of the robot 400…” – therefore a first distance of zero to a second distance of Lc ] and second determination of determining whether or not the distance to the object is included in a second distance range from a third predetermined distance longer than the second predetermined distance to a fourth predetermined distance longer than the third predetermined distance [ met by the system not transmitting a restricting signal to the robot when L is more than Lc – third and fourth distances being in the region above Lc ]; a generation unit configured to generate information regarding positional displacement of the object in a case where the distance to the object is determined a predetermined number of times to be included in the first distance range [ the restricting part (14) transmitting a restricting signal to robot controller (200) when measuring part (12) determines a value less than or equal to Lc ] or in a case where the distance to the object is determined a predetermined number of times to be included in the second distance range [ the restricting part (14) not transmitting a restricting signal to robot controller (200) when measuring part (12) determines values greater than Lc ]; and a display configured to display the information regarding positional displacement of the object [ taught by the cameras (4) ].
Tani et al does not teach that the measuring part (12) measure distance via an electromagnetic wave reflected from the object.
Figure 1 of Beuschel et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used the transmission and reflection of electromagnetic waves to have determined the distance of a target object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the detection of electromagnetic waves to perform the function of the measuring part (12) in Tani et al because Beuschel et al taught this was a known means to determine distance of an object.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected by the combination of Tani et al and Beuschel et al, as applied to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights