eceNotice 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/05/2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has reconsidered rejection presented to claims 2-11 and 14-20 and deemed the claims eligible under 35 USC 101. As claims 11 and 21 are directed towards a working environment i.e., an apparatus, an abstract idea behind building/composing the environment is not given any patentable weight. Therefore, the limitations identified as abstract are not considered under 35 USC 101, and the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 2-11 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Both claims 11 and 21 are directed towards a working environment, hence the claims are directed towards an apparatus. Furthermore the body of both claims recites a robot and an operator space i.e., components of the apparatus. However, rest of the claims are directed towards how the apparatus is build i.e., a method of building and apparatus. And as such both product and process are claimed. Furthermore, it is unclear if the claims are directed towards an apparatus, or a method.
Examiner interprets the claims as an apparatus and does not give patentable weight to limitations directed towards a method.
Claims 2-10 and 14-20 are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As claims 2-10 precede claim 11, they cannot depend on claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-11 and 14-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 2-10 and 14-21 as being anticipated Zhu (CN 104122199).
For claim 11, Zhu teaches: A working environment comprising: an industrial robot, and an operator space (abstract, disclosing automatic control system for testing explosive impact sensitivity drop hammer, comprising a chassis device, hammer, percussion device and a control system for automatically controlling free landing chassis device is orderly provided with a base device and a bracket device. And the device is remotely operated to protect operator from harmful sound and gas), that is located in a region of harmless robot noise, wherein the operator space is located according to a method comprising: indicating noise emissions of the industrial robot, including: obtaining at least one robot program containing commands to the industrial robot; obtaining a plurality of values of at least one robot- motion parameter; recording, for each of the values of the robot-motion parameter, an acoustic quantity indicative of noise emitted by the industrial robot while executing said at least one robot program; and displaying, by means of a graphical user interface, a visualization of the acoustic quantity, characterized in that the visualization indicates the acoustic quantity as a function of the robot-motion parameter, to obtain an indication of the industrial robot's noise emissions; and locating the operator space relative to the industrial robot on the basis of said indication.
Claim 21 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 11, hence is similarly rejected.
Claims 2-10 and 14-20 do not recite any additional element(s) of the environment and as such, are not given any patentable weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Andersson (US 20220120056 ) teaches of an industrial workspace with a robot and an operator space remotely located. See [0027].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights