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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 41 be found allowable, claim 46 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 13, 16, 21, 27, 33-35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linn. Linn discloses in the Figures and specification a humanoid robot device 10 comprising a base 50 (see paragraph [0026]), a robotic torso 11 coupled to the base (paragraph [0025]), at least one robotic arm 22, 24 (paragraph [0018]), at least one robotic shoulder coupling the arms and torso (paragraph [0015]), a robotic neck 14 coupled to the torso (paragraph [0015]), and a plurality of actuators configured to move at least a portion of at least one of the torso, arms, shoulders and neck (paragraph [0014]). Linn also discloses in paragraph [0014] that “the robot 10 may be configured to be of a human scale, allowing the robot 10 to share the same workspaces 30 that are typically designed for human workers”, thus suggesting that the components of the humanoid robot deviate less than 25% from respective proportions of a human.
With respect to claims 2, 3, 5 and 6, the above referenced teaching in paragraph [0014] pertaining to the robot being of a “human scale” suggests that each of the recited individual components are between 75% and 15% of the respective proportions of the corresponding human components. With respect to claim 4, Linn discloses at paragraph [0019] that each arm comprises a robotic elbow 32 and robotic wrist 38. While the specific terms “bicep” and “forearm” are not used in the specification of Linn, these features are suggested in Figure 1, which shows upper and lower arm segments connected by the elbow components. With respect to claim 7, Linn discloses at paragraph [0109] the provision of actuators which are configured to actuate the shoulder elements in abduction and adduction movements. With respect to claims 13, 16, 21, 27, 33, 34 and 38, Linn further discloses actuators configured to move each of the specific components of the robot in the manner recited. With respect to claim 35, Linn also discloses an actuator configured to move the neck element in the manner recited. The provision of an upper neck and a lower neck configured for relative rolling movement is considered to be an obvious variation on Linn, which teaches such an actuator at the position where the neck connects to the torso, and amounts to an obvious rearrangement of elements having no new or nonobvious results under MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linn in view of Kamon. Linn discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of an upper torso and lower torso with a pitch actuator as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Kamon at paragraph [0028], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of facilitating relative angular movement of the torso as recited.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12, 14-15, 17-20, 22-26, 28-29, 31-32, 36-37 and 39-45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It remains the examiner’s position that Linn suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that the proportions of the shoulders, arms and neck of its robot do not deviate more than 25% from those of a human being. Firstly, Linn discloses that “the robot may be configured to be of a human scale” (emphasis added), not that only certain portions of the robot may be configured to e of a human scale. The term “the robot” suggests to one of ordinary skill the entire robot. Secondly, the Figures of Linn – in particular Figs. 1 and 5 – show a robot comprising a robotic torso, neck, shoulders and arms, all of which have proportions which roughly correspond to the proportions of a human being. None of the components of the robot are shown to have proportions that differ “wildly” from those of a human. Humanoid robots having proportions roughly commensurate with those of a human are well known in the art, as shown for example not only by Linn but in the Figures of other prior art references cited in the prior Office Action (see e.g. Kamon, Kim, Kawaguchi, Sanders, Tilden and Nagatsuka). Thirdly, there is no teaching or suggestion whatsoever in Linn that certain components of its robot deviate substantially from those of a human being. Applicant’s argument that the device of Linn “can” have wildly differing proportions is entirely speculative. Whether the prior art excludes the possibility of such differing proportions is not the standard for determining whether the claimed invention is obvious over the prior art under MPEP 2144. As a result, claims 1-7, 13, 16, 21, 27, 33-35 and 38 remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights