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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Applicant’s Amendments
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 1/16/26. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claim 20 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been maintained.
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but have not been found to be persuasive.
Applicants have argued that because the MPEP allows for features to be recited functionally, the claims are not indefinite, as one skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.
Claims may be recited functionally, and it does not render a claim improper. Applicants appear to have conflated an “improper” claim with an “indefinite” claim. The claim(s) can still be indefinite even when recited functionally, especially without any structure claimed, as in this application. Applicants have argued that “there is no requirement that ‘whether it is a motor, a shaft, or something else’ should be recited in the claims.” The rejection is not based on a requirement to recite specific components such as a motor or a shaft, but rather on the failure of the claim to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Further, while claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the specification, Fig. 4 and the offered paragraphs [0037]-[0071] do not define the scope of the “driving parts” and “handling parts.” Even in the argument, Applicants have no defined structure, or specifics to rely on and because multiple interpretations exist, the 112(b) is maintained. It is noted that even the language “parts” has multiple meanings such as a partial/not-whole, or piece, in addition to the previously offered, motor, shaft, or something else, including a software portion. Even in the Applicants response, no specific structure or interpretation is offered as to why this is not indefinite, and instead relies upon a look to the specification response, because claims must be interpreted in light of the specification.
Claim Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-19 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.
Re Claim 1, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “driving parts driving on a driving path in a clean room in an autonomous driving manner” is. In particular it is unclear what a driving parts or handling parts are. It is unclear whether it is a motor, a shaft, or something else. It is also unclear whether a driving path or clean room is being claimed, and what a handling operation is.
Claims 2-19 are rejected as they depend from Claim 1 without curing the deficiencies.
It is unclear what is being claimed, especially in view of the claimed language as it appears that a three-dimensionally articulating robot arm would read on most of the claims. Further examination on the merits is precluded in view of the unascertainable claim scope as described above. However, KR 2021057238 is referenced as it at least appears to teach the moving robot arm with a grip and a measuring unit.
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 JASON Y KO whose telephone number is (571)270-7451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-6:00.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-270-1414. 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.
JASON Y. KO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/JASON Y KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights