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 .
Remarks
This final office action is a response to the reply received on 11/10/2025. Claims 15-33 are pending. Claims 20, 23, 26, 29 and 30 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous:
Drawing objections
Claim objections
The 112(a)/112(b) rejections of Claims 29, 31, and 33 with regard to the limitations being interpreted under 112(f), as the applicant has pointed out the support/structure on Page 14 and 17 of the remarks. These limitations are still being interpreted under 112(f), but overcome the 112(a)/112(b) rejections
The 112(b) rejections:
of Claims 15, 18, and dependent claims pertaining to the language of “link” as applicant has clarified on Page 15 of the remarks
of Claim 16 and dependent claims as discussed in the interview conducted on 11/05/2025
of Claims 18, 29, 30, and 33 with regard to the “first link” and “predefined first link” (and similarly for “second link”), as applicant has clarified that these are the same link in the interview conducted on 11/05/2025.
of Claims 20, 23, and 26 regarding the previous language of “signal-processed signal”
of Claims 21, 24, 27 and 28 regarding the term “event”
of Claims 29 and 30’s antecedent basis regarding “the” programming library
of Claim 30 regarding the typographical error
The 101 rejections regarding Claims 15-28 and 30-33.
Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but not persuasive. See below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The claim limitations being interpreted under 112(f) are:
“programming module for specifying the first link” as recited in Claim 29 and 33
“means for determining a time series of first output data values” in Claim 31
“means for at least one of controlling or monitoring the robot application” in Claim 31
Structure/support for the limitations interpreted under 112(f) was clarified in the applicants’ remarks dated 11/10/2025 on Page 14: “the robot controller 2 illustrated in FIG. 3 of the drawings and paragraphs 87, 88, 98, and 109 of the published Application”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 15-33 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.
The language “robot application” (e.g. in Claim 15) was discussed during the interview conducted on 11/05/2025 and was clarified to be intended to be directed towards controlling or monitoring a computer program. Applicant’s reply filed 11/10/2025 also confirms this. However, the claims and specification are so vague that it is unclear what the invention of controlling or monitoring a robot application/computer program actually entails.
It is further unclear from Claim 29 that claims “A programming library for creating a program for controlling and/or monitoring a robot application…”. It is unclear how/why there is a program that controls/monitors another program. The office disagrees that this is well understood in the art as asserted in Page 14 of the remarks. Is this intended to be a fault program/module that is monitoring signals during robot operation to detect any errors? This example would not be a program monitoring another program, and instead might be a program monitoring outputs to detect an error. It is also not clear because Claim 29 uses the language of “program” in addition to “robot application”. If the “robot application” is intended to be a computer program, it is unclear why the language is not consistent.
The applicant also asserts “…the term ‘application’ is understood in the art as being a software program configured to perform a specific task or tasks” on Page 12 of the remarks. The examiner disagrees that the term “application” is understood in the art in this manner. The specification is vague and does not explain specific examples regarding term “application”, so the examiner is still unclear as to what the invention and claims truly entail.
The mentioned example regarding the clamp and force is also vague and it is unclear how this relates to the invention. Is the clamp trying to be attached to the robot? The examiner is still unclear what the invention is trying to accomplish other than generically having data inputs and outputs. With the specification being so vague and the claims being so broad/indefinite, it is difficult to understand the invention enough to be able to effectively perform search.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that specification references to “clamp” and “force” are exemplary embodiments ( App. Resp. 14), it is still unclear what the actual exemplary embodiment is. Again, however, is it checking clamp force when picking up an object, clamp collision with an object that it isn’t picking up, or detecting that the clamp has been properly attached? What are examples of the input/output data values? A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably understand what invention the Applicant had possession of.
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 15-33 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 15 is indefinite because it is unclear what “robot application” entails. The specification does not clear this up either because it seems to flip between robot and robot application, which implies that they might be different or are the same thing. The language of “robot application” was clarified as intended to be a computer program. Controlling or monitoring a program is confusing in wording as it is not clear what that would entail from the specification either. It is further unclear with respect to Claim 29 (as stated above), because Claim 29 is essentially claiming a program to control or monitor another program. The claims with respect to “robot application” are indefinite because it is unclear how/why a program is monitoring another program. In addition, the claims and specification are so vague/broad that it is unclear what the invention actually entails. All dependent claims are also rejected because they do not resolve the parent claim deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Re Claim 29 recites: A programming library for creating a program for controlling and/or monitoring a robot application, wherein the program comprises program code stored on a non-transient, computer-readable medium, the program code, when executed by a computer, configured to perform the method of claim 15, the programming library comprising at least one programming module for specifying the first link.
One of ordinary skill in the art could interpret the programming library as software, per se. As written Claim 29 is not limited to a statutory subject matter and is therefore non-statutory.
The programming library being a program still reads as software per se. The claim needs to state that there is something storing the programming library in order for it to be treated as statutory subject matter (beyond just a program/software per se).
The claim should recite something similar to: “a programming library comprising a computer readable medium containing a program containing code…” in order to be considered statutory subject matter. Alternatively, if supported by the specification, it could be a nontransitory computer readable medium containing a programming library comprising a program.
Regarding the independent claims, the claims were previously rejected under 101 stemming from the 112 rejections. As the claim language has partially been clarified, the 101 rejections for claims 15-28 and 30-33 have been withdrawn. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the “controlling” in the last line of the independent claim(s) overcomes the 101 rejection, but if ever amended to only be “monitoring” (not controlling “and/or”)—then a 101 rejection might be raised due to the monitoring not involving a practical application.
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 KAYLA RENEE DOROS whose telephone number is (703)756-1415. The examiner can normally be reached Generally: M-F (8-5) EST.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/K.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights