DETAILED ACTION
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 Remarks
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims provided in the Office Action dated 09/25/2026 (hereafter typically referred to as the previous or prior Office Action or similar) are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 03/25/2026 (hereafter typically referred to as Applicant’s amendments or similar).
Double Patenting
The rejection of the claims provided in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejections of the claims provided in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
The rejection of the claims provided in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. However, the limitations which render these rejections withdrawn are wholly drawn to new matter. See the new rejection(s) under 35 USC § 112(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 6, 9 – 10, and 20, the claims recite the limitation “the robot”. As is shown in other claims such as Claim 12, the robot is referred to its now amended version of “the humanoid robot”. For clarity and consistency, all recitations should likewise read “the humanoid robot”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, the claim recites the limitation “the first huma”. The human is only first introduced (and has been specifically amended to only read) “a human” rather than “a first human”. Human is also missing the letter “n”. It should read “the human”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
General Notes:
Applicant has only provided claims directed towards an apparatus. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP 2114 relates. Applicant has frequently phrased their recitations in a manner wherein what it does is claimed rather than a function or structure of the apparatus, as non-functional limitations which merely recite an intended result, purpose, or function (as opposed to actual function), or wherein the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation is such that it is only a functional limitation of extremely broad scope.
For example, Applicant uses the preposition “for” alone which per English dictionary definition is “a function word to indicate purpose” and “a function word to indicate an intended goal” (Merriam-Webster dictionary accessed online 9/15/2025). In other words, such recitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim recitation indicate a purpose, goal, or other recitation rather than a positively recited limitation. See for example “a proximity sensor for determining a distance…” of Claim 5. Applicant should rephrase such a limitation to “configured to” or similar for clear positive recitation of a functional limitation.
As an example, Applicant uses the preposition “to” in the limitation “the first capacitive touch sensor to detect”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the word is of indicating a purpose, intention, tendency, or result. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of limitations reciting “to”, in such a claim construction, is inclusive of those which render the limitations as non-positively recited limitations. Applicant should rephrase such a limitation to “configured to” or similar for clear positive recitation of a functional limitation.
Additionally, Applicant makes frequent use of numerical adjective “first”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this phrase do not indicate mutual exclusivity from other items, or in other words and even as explicitly illustrated through the existence of Claim 7 and [0011] of Applicant’s originally filed specification, the “first” and “second” of something may be the same or different.
At least Claim 1 uses the term “blind spot” which Applicant appears to explicitly define in [0069] of Applicant’s originally filed Specification with respect to locating sensors which reads “i.e., at locations on the robot where a contact with a human may occur when the human is out of view of the visual sensors, e.g., behind the back of a humanoid robot”.
Additionally, Applicant’s claims rely on the terms “expected” and “unexpected” with respect to “contact”. These terms are well understood in the prior art, but similarly are highly subjective with various methodologies and interpretations with respect to intent, predictions, and categorization between the two. Without specifying within the limitations definitions which clearly identifies the meaning of each term, especially in relation to each other and with respect to “contact”, these terms can be interpreted particularly broadly.
Additionally, Applicant uses the term “contact”. Based on Applicant’s specification, it is clear that the term “contact” is used to provide a broader meaning than would normally be considered under its accepted meaning. Per [0026] and [0027], “contact” refers not only to actual contact as would normally be understood, but additionally predicted/anticipated/expected/potential/non-actualized contact. In other words, real contact is not necessary. This further leaves the modifying adjectives of “expected” and “unexpected” open to interpretation as these are now modifying a condition or state which does not necessarily occur and may merely be predicted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1 – 2, 5 – 6, 9 – 10, 12, and 20 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.
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/25/2026 clearly state “Applicant has made significant amendments to the scope and form of independent claim 1” on at least Page 5. However, Applicant has not pointed out the support for any claim amendments which are considered to have changed the scope of a claim. Per several sections of MPEP 2163 when discussing claim amendments altering the scope of the claim, “Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure”.
Furthermore, while this alone may be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for a rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) (See again MPEP 2163), Examiner has made a best effort to identify support for the amendments to the claims in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure. However, Examiner has found multiple deficiencies in the originally filed disclosure such that the claims as presently constructed are replete with new matter.
In specific and regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitations “a visual sensor carried by the head” and “a capacitive touch sensor carried by the arm”. the claim uses the phrase “a capacitive touch sensor carried by the arm”. While this may indicate “installed” or similar, the equally or more common dictionary definition which would likewise be recognized as such by one of ordinary skill in the art is that of “to move (a person or thing) while holding or supporting” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary accessed 04/06/2026). Applicant does appear to have support for this broad of a use. The term “carried” or similar is not used with respect to these specific components, and they would only be recognized as having complete support under more narrow or specific phrasing. The claim should recite “included in”, “installed within”, or similar.
Additionally, and separately, regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “a capacitive touch sensor carried by the arm and positioned at a blind spot of the visual sensor”. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not appear to disclose the location of the sensor with the same narrowness presently claimed. [0069] of Applicant’s originally filed Specification which is the closest support with respect to locating sensors in relation to blind spots reads “i.e., at locations on the robot where a contact with a human may occur when the human is out of view of the visual sensors, e.g., behind the back of a humanoid robot”. Consequently, Applicant does not appear to disclose any particular location for a capacitive touch sensor other than the back of a humanoid robot. Any location “carried by the arm” is broader than disclosed. At most, arguments may be made for particular portions of the arm being part of the “back” with respect to the division of human anatomy, however the limitations presently again allow for any portion of the arm or even simply being an independent unit “carried”.
Additionally, and separately, regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “determine whether the capacitive touch sensor is in a field of view of the visual sensor”. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not appear to disclose such a feature or even a similar feature in any manner. The closest support appears to be found in [0069] of Applicant’s originally filed Specification with respect to locating sensors which reads “i.e., at locations on the robot where a contact with a human may occur when the human is out of view of the visual sensors, e.g., behind the back of a humanoid robot” and the only location the phrase “field of view” or similar was found, in [0073] which reads “In some implementations, a response by the robot to an unexpected contact includes performing a visual check by at least one of the visual sensors to determine whether a human can be recognized in the field of view of the visual sensor in proximity to the robot”. This does not appear to relate to a check, determination, or similar made with respect to the capacitive touch sensor in relation to the visual sensor.
Additionally, and separately, regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “determine whether the human is in the field of view of the visual sensor”. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not appear to disclose such a feature in the manner claimed. The closest support appears to be found in [0073] of Applicant’s originally filed Specification which reads “In some implementations, a response by the robot to an unexpected contact includes performing a visual check by at least one of the visual sensors to determine whether a human can be recognized in the field of view of the visual sensor in proximity to the robot”.
Consequently, the check appears to be with respect to “whether a human can be recognized” which is not completely equivalent to a human simply being “in the field of view of the visual sensor”. The only English definition of “recognize” that would appear supported in Applicant’s specification appears to be that of “to perceive to be something or someone previously known” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary accessed 04/06/2026) which is more than a mere check of presence or existence claimed presently. In other words, the limitation appears broader than supported. A person may readily be in a field of view but not recognized.
Relatedly but separately, regarding Claim 1, the limitation is not limited to a “visual check by … the visual sensor” and is thus similarly much broader than supported. Presently, any sensor may perform the check using any means.
Additionally, and separately, regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “in response to determining that both the capacitive touch sensor and the first huma are not in the field of view of the visual sensor”. This limitation is not supported for at least the reasons related to the individual determinations noted above. Furthermore, there was especially no originally filed disclosure found by the Examiner related to performing two checks of this manner, let alone their classification as provided in the continuation of the limitation of being “expected” or “unexpected” based thereon.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “in response to determining that both the capacitive touch sensor and the first huma are in the field of view of the visual sensor”. This limitation is not supported for at least the reasons related to the individual determinations noted above. Furthermore, there was especially no originally filed disclosure found by the Examiner related to performing two checks of this manner, let alone their classification as provided in the continuation of the limitation of being “expected” or “unexpected” based thereon.
Therefore, the claim 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 5 – 6, 9 – 10, 12, and 20, the claims depend from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claims 5 – 6, 9 – 10, 12, and 20 are rejected under the same logic presented above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 9, 10, and 20 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 Claims 9, 10, and 20, as touched upon in the Claim Interpretation section above, Applicant makes recitations with respect to what the apparatus does rather than what the apparatus is. In other words, Applicant does not recite clear structural or functional limitations and instead recites limitations which are most appropriate for the statutory category of a process or method. MPEP 2114 relates, see for example, “ “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)”
In specific, Claims 9 and 10 both recite “the capacitive touch sensor detects …” and Claim 20 recites “the contact response system causes …”. These should instead be structured as clear functional or structural limitations. In the interest of compact prosecution, Claims 9 and 10 have been interpreted as reading “the capacitive touch sensor is configured to detect …” or similar. In the case of Claim 1 being amended to recite a functional limitation as discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above rather than a purpose (see again use of “to”), it should read “further configured” for clarity.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Claim 20 has been interpreted as reading:
“the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the contact response system to:
cause …”
or similar.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Einav (US 20190105779 A1), Erickson et al. (Z. Erickson, M. Collier, A. Kapusta and C. C. Kemp, "Tracking Human Pose During Robot-Assisted Dressing Using Single-Axis Capacitive Proximity Sensing," in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 2245-2252, July 2018), and Dalibard et al. (US 20170173791 A1) all recited in previous Office Action(s) to reject prior version of the claims.
Davis et al. (US 20160214261 A1) which discloses a human robot interactive collaborative sytem including a distinction between expected and unexpected contact. See for example [0014] which recites “Contact between one of the robot 12, the end effector 14, if any, and the gripped part 16, if any, and the object 19 may be expected or unexpected. Expected contacts may occur during normal operation of the robot 12. Unexpected contacts may occur when the object 19 has unexpectedly entered the work envelope or environment 17 or is not in its normal position in the work envelope or environment 17”.
Gbouna et al. (Z. V. Gbouna et al., "User-Interactive Robot Skin With Large-Area Scalability for Safer and Natural Human-Robot Collaboration in Future Telehealthcare," in IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 4276-4288, Dec. 2021) which discloses the use of capacitive sensors in human-robot collaboration.
Escobedo et al. (C. Escobedo, M. Strong, M. West, A. Aramburu and A. Roncone, "Contact Anticipation for Physical Human–Robot Interaction with Robotic Manipulators using Onboard Proximity Sensors," 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Prague, Czech Republic, 2021, pp. 7255-7262) which discloses “a framework that unites obstacle avoidance and deliberate physical interaction for robotic manipulators” and allows for “soft contact”.
Golz et al. (S. Golz, C. Osendorfer and S. Haddadin, "Using tactile sensation for learning contact knowledge: Discriminate collision from physical interaction," 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Seattle, WA, USA, 2015, pp. 3788-3794) which discloses means for “discriminat[ing] between intended and unintended contact types”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights