DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 16 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of proper language and format for an abstract (see MPEP § 608.01(b)):
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: the Abstract contains, according to MS Word, 27 words which is fewer than the required minimum length of 50 words; and “means” is the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims and should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
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 1-5 and 7-11 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.
As per Claim 1, “the recovery position data” in line 14, 15-16, and 17 does not clearly relate back to “a predetermined user program recovery position” in line 12. If the same information is at issue, amendment to “the predetermined user program recovery position” in line 14, 15-16, and 17 is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claims 2-5 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 1, “the recovery position data” in line 14, 15-16, and 17 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required. Claims 2-5 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 7, “recovery position data” in line 13 and “the recovery position data” in line 14 and 15 does not clearly relate back to “a predetermined user program recovery position” in line 10-11. If the same information is at issue, amendment to “the predetermined user program recovery position” in line 13, 14, and 15 is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claims 8-11 depending from Claim 7 are therefore rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that the objection to the Abstract should not be maintained because “Applicant has amended the abstract by deleting the term at issue” (page 6 of Amendment). As to the term “The present disclosure provides”, Applicant’s argument is persuasive because this term has been deleted. As to the term “means”, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the amended Abstract does not address this issue identified in the previous Office action (see page 2 of 16 September 2025 Office action). Further, the Abstract as amended contains fewer than the minimum number of words. Accordingly, the Specification is objected to as indicated above.
Applicant argues that claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 6 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 6 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of the cited references in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 102 are not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 6-7 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of the cited references in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 are not maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fujishima (US Pub. No. 2011/0190915), Nishimura (US Pub. No. 2014/0277723), Nakayama (US Pub. No. 2016/0167231), Takahashi (US Pub. No. 2016/0207197), and Hashiguchi (US Pub. No. 2022/0072703) disclose robot control systems.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656