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 .
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: position information acquisition unit (claim 18), target posture information acquisition unit (claim 18), correction information derivation unit (claim 18), target position derivation unit (claim 18), output unit (claim 18).
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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “…the acquiring the position information…” at the start of the second paragraph should be changed to “…the acquiring the respective position information…”.
The limitation “…the deriving the target positions…” at the start of the third paragraph should be changed to “…the deriving the m+n target positions…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “…the third drive range…” in the first paragraph of claim 6 should be changed to “…a third drive range…”.
The limitation “…the deriving the target positions…” at the start of the third paragraph should be changed to “…the deriving the m+n target positions…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “…the acquiring the position information…” at the start of the second paragraph should be changed to “…the acquiring the respective position information…”.
The limitation “…the deriving the target positions…” at the start of the third paragraph should be changed to “…the deriving the m+n target positions…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-8 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.
Regarding claim 6 recites the limitation "the acquiring" at the start of the second paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “acquiring” is this is referring to. “[A]cquiring respective position information” is mentioned in claim 1, “acquiring target posture information” is mentioned in claim 1, and “acquiring the first position information” is mentioned in claim 3. It is unclear which (if any) of these “the acquiring” in claim 6 is referring to.
In addition, claim 6 recites the limitation “a first target position”, “a second target position”, and “a third target position”. If these are to refer to the corresponding first, second, and third target positions in claim 3, they should be referred to as “the first target position”, “the second target position”, and “the third target position” respectively. If these refer to a different first, second, and third target positions, they should be renamed to be different than the first, second, and third target positions mentioned in claim 3. (See also how this affects claim 7 below).
Regarding claim 7, it recites the limitation "the first target position", “the second target position”, and “the third target position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As explained above with respect to claim 6, a new set of first, second, and third target positions are introduced. Therefore, there are two sets of first, second, and third target positions mentioned in claims 3 and 6. It is unclear which of these "the first target position", “the second target position”, and “the third target position” in claim 7 is referring to.
Regarding claim 8, it depends from claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 7).
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “A computer readable storage medium” is broad enough to encompass a carrier wave which is does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium…” to overcome this rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 9-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 20, the closest prior art of record fails to disclose “deriving m+n target positions of the movable member for the m+n control circuits, based on m degrees of freedom components indicated in the target posture information, the corrective component indicated in the correction information, and a set of coefficients predefined according to positions of the movable member to be applied to the corrective component; and outputting respective target position information indicating each of the target positions to each of the m+n control circuits to bring the movable member into a target posture”.
Kiyamura (JP 2019-045699 A) discloses reducing crosstalk between position sensors caused by an excess degree of freedom by using mechanical means.
Maede (JP 2019-028340 A) discloses reducing crosstalk between position sensors caused by an excess degree of freedom, but do not derive the target positions using a set of coefficients predefined according to positions of the movable member to be applied to the corrective component.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maede (US 2018/0343393 A1) discloses reducing crosstalk between position sensors caused by an excess degree of freedom, but do not derive the target positions using a set of coefficients predefined according to positions of the movable member to be applied to the corrective component.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BERARDESCA whose telephone number is (571)270-3579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 10-8, Fri 10-2.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
PAUL M. BERARDESCA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/PAUL M BERARDESCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 12/22/2025