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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 10/20/2025 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings are informal and do not describe the claimed subject matter. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In the drawings dated 10/20/2025, the Applicant provided informal drawings with boxes and no information. The claimed subject matter was not described in the drawings.
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 1, 4, 8, 9, 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.
Dependent claims 3, 6, 7 are rejected based on their dependency.
The claim 1 language states recognizing the working area but then only describes the non-working area. The claim does not clearly define the working area;
“the step of recognizing the working area according to magnitude relations of the first parameter and the second parameter with preset parameter thresholds comprises:
if maxH>H1 and N1 >M1 are satisfied simultaneously, determining as the non-working area; or
if maxH::s;H2 and N1 >M2 are satisfied simultaneously, determining as the non-working area,
wherein H1 =H2, and M1 <M2.”
The claim 4 language states recognizing the working area but then only describes the non-working area. The claim does not clearly define the working area;
“wherein the step of recognizing the working area according to magnitude relations of the first parameter, the third parameter, and the fourth parameters with preset parameter values comprises one of:
if H3<maxH<H4, P1 <01, DL>Le1, N3>M3, and P2<02 are satisfied simultaneously, determining as the non-working area:
if H3<maxH<H4, P1 <01, DL>Le1, N3>M4, and P2<03 are satisfied simultaneously, determining as the non-working area:
if H3<maxH<H4, P1 <01, DL>Le1, N3>M5, and P2<04 are satisfied simultaneously, determining as the non-working area;
if H3<maxH<H4, P1 <01, DL>Le1, N3>M6, and P2<05 are satisfied simultaneously, determining as the non-working area; or
if H3<maxH<H4, P1 <06, DL>Le1, N3>M6, and P2<07 are satisfied simultaneously, determining as the non-working area,
wherein M3<M4<M5<M6, 02<03<04<05<07, and 01 >06.”
The claim 8 language states recognizing the working area but then only describes the non-working area. The claim does not clearly define the working area;
“the recognizing the working area according to magnitude relations of the first parameter and the second parameter with preset parameter thresholds comprises:
if maxH>H1 and N1 >M1 are satisfied simultaneously, determining as the non-working area; or
if maxH::s;H2 and N1 >M2 are satisfied simultaneously, determining as the non-working area,
wherein H1 =H2, and M1 <M2.”
The claim 9 language states recognizing the working area but then only describes the non-working area. The claim does not clearly define the working area;
“wherein the recognizing the working area according to magnitude relations of the first parameter, the third parameter, and the fourth parameters with preset parameter values comprises one of:
if H3<maxH<H4, P1 <Q1, DL>Le1, N3>M3, and P2<Q2 are satisfied simultaneously, determining as the non-working area;
if H3<maxH<H4, P1 <Q1, DL>Le1, N3>M4, and P2<Q3 are satisfied simultaneously, determining as the non-working area;
if H3<maxH<H4, P1 <Q1, DL>Le1, N3>M5, and P2<Q4 are satisfied simultaneously, determining as the non-working area;
if H3<maxH<H4, P1 <Q1, DL>Le1, N3>M6, and P2<Q5 are satisfied simultaneously, determining as the non-working area; or
if H3<maxH<H4, P1 <Q6, DL>Le1, N3>M6, and P2<Q7 are satisfied simultaneously, determining as the non-working area,
wherein M3<M4<M5<M6, Q2<Q3<Q4<Q5<Q7, and Q1 >Q6.”
Claim 10 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding robot.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights