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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/842805 and the preliminary amendments filed on 08/30/2024.
Claims 1-19 and 25 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 8-10, 17, 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 4, 8-10 the phrase “an emission unit capable of” should apparently be “an emission unit is configured for”. Otherwise, it has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of' performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a light receiving unit capable of” should apparently be “a light emitting unit is configured for”. Otherwise, it has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of' performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “the target member is able to be attached” should apparently be “the target member is has been held that the recitation that an element is "able to' performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is directed to “A system” claim depends on claim 1. The applicant is suggested to re-write claim 17 in independent form including all the limitation of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is directed to “A management method” claim depends on claim 1. The applicant is suggested to re-write claim 18 in independent form including all the limitation of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “the measurement target” should apparently be “the movable measurement target” for consistency of wording of the phrase. 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 1-19 and 25 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a position of a movable robot” and “a position of the robot” on lines 1-2, where it is not clear whether “the robot” is referred to “movable robot” or different than the movable robot. If the robot is different than “movable robot” then it lacks sufficient antecedent basis the claim because there is no prior citation of “a robot”. Therefore, further clarification and/or claim amendment is required to overcome the rejection.
Claim 1 further cites the limitation “acquiring information relating to a position in a rotation direction around….on the basis of light reception results acquired by the light receiving unit” on lines 10-13, where there is no prior citation of “light reception results acquired by the light receiving unit”, and therefore, a necessary step of “the light receiving unit is configured to acquire light reception results” is missing before acquiring information relating to a position in a rotation direction around…axis”.
Claims 1 and 25 cites the phrase “light reception results”, claim 2 cites the phrase “imaging results”, claim 7 cites the phrase “measurement results” , where “light reception results”, “imaging results” and “measurement results” are vague because the specification fails to further define light reception results”, “imaging results” and “measurement results”.
Claim 5 cites the phrase “the emission direction”, which lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim because there is no prior citation of emission direction in the claim(s).
Claim 19 cites “target member”, where specification, in para. [0199] cites “the three reflective elements (the reflective elements 41, 42, and 43) are attached to the target member 4”. It is not further defined what is this target member? Is it an attachment mechanism or a mechanical part to hold reflective elements? Further clarification is required.
Claims 2-19 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-19 and 25 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 25 cites the phrase “light reception results”, claim 2 cites the phrase “imaging results”, claim 7 cites the phrase “measurement results” , where “light reception results”, “imaging results” and “measurement results”, is not being specifically further defined within the specification. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 7 and 25 do not satisfy the written description requirement.
Claim 19 cites “target member”, where specification, in para. [0199] cites “the three reflective elements (the reflective elements 41, 42, and 43) are attached to the target member 4”, and in Para. [0204] cites “three reflective elements (reflective elements 41, 42, and 43) included in a target member 4 attached to the robot T1”. However, the target member is not further defined in the specification whether it is an attachment mechanism or any mechanical part. Therefore, claim 19 does not satisfy the written description requirement.
Claims 2-18 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim(s).
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: “emission unit” in Claims 1, 4, 8-10; “light receiving unit” in claims 1, 13; “position acquiring unit” in claims 1, 7, 16; “imaging unit” in claim 2; have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
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. A review of the specification filed on 08/30/2024, in Para. [00201], “the measurement device 1 according to this embodiment is a measurement device that measures a position of the movable robot T1 and a position thereof in the rotation direction and includes the emission unit 201, the light receiving unit 202, and the position acquiring unit 206. On the basis of light reception results acquired by the light receiving unit 202, the position acquiring unit 206 acquires position information relating to the first axis (the x axis in this embodiment) of the robot T1, position information relating to the second axis (the y axis in this embodiment) intersecting with the first axis (the x axis in this embodiment), and position information relating to the third axis (the z axis in this embodiment) intersecting with the first axis (the x axis in this embodiment) and the second axis (the y axis in this embodiment) and information relating to a position in the rotation direction around the first axis (the x axis in this embodiment), information relating to a position (position information in this embodiment) in the rotation direction around the second axis (the y axis in this embodiment), and information relating to a position (direction information in this embodiment) in the rotation direction around the third axis (the z axis in this embodiment). In Para. [0202], cites “By employing this configuration, the measurement device 1 according to this embodiment can acquire information relating to position information and a position in the rotation direction on the basis of light reception results”. In Para. [0223], cites “the measurement device 1 acquires only position information out of the position information and the direction information, direction information may be calculated by an arithmetic operation device separated from the measurement device l on the basis of the position information acquired by the measurement device 1.” In Para. [0225], cites “the position acquiring unit 206 and the control unit 21 may be realized by a computer. In that case, by recording a program for realizing this control function on a computer-readable recording medium and causing a computer system to read and execute this program recorded on the recording medium, the position acquiring unit 206 and the control unit 21 may be realized.” Therefore, there is no specific structure defined in the specification for “position acquiring unit”.
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements “position acquisitor unit ” in claims 1, 7 and 16 is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claim function and the specification does not provide sufficient details such as one of ordinary skills in the art would understand which structures perform(s) the claim function. In particular, the specification filed on 08/30/2024, in Para. [00201], “the measurement device 1 according to this embodiment is a measurement device that measures a position of the movable robot T1 and a position thereof in the rotation direction and includes the emission unit 201, the light receiving unit 202, and the position acquiring unit 206. On the basis of light reception results acquired by the light receiving unit 202, the position acquiring unit 206 acquires position information relating to the first axis (the x axis in this embodiment) of the robot T1, position information relating to the second axis (the y axis in this embodiment) intersecting with the first axis (the x axis in this embodiment), and position information relating to the third axis (the z axis in this embodiment) intersecting with the first axis (the x axis in this embodiment) and the second axis (the y axis in this embodiment) and information relating to a position in the rotation direction around the first axis (the x axis in this embodiment), information relating to a position (position information in this embodiment) in the rotation direction around the second axis (the y axis in this embodiment), and information relating to a position (direction information in this embodiment) in the rotation direction around the third axis (the z axis in this embodiment). In Para. [0202], cites “By employing this configuration, the measurement device 1 according to this embodiment can acquire information relating to position information and a position in the rotation direction on the basis of light reception results”. In Para. [0223], cites “the measurement device 1 acquires only position information out of the position information and the direction information, direction information may be calculated by an arithmetic operation device separated from the measurement device l on the basis of the position information acquired by the measurement device 1.” In Para. [0225], cites “the position acquiring unit 206 and the control unit 21 may be realized by a computer. In that case, by recording a program for realizing this control function on a computer-readable recording medium and causing a computer system to read and execute this program recorded on the recording medium, the position acquiring unit 206 and the control unit 21 may be realized.” The specification fails to specifically defined whether the position acquisition unit is a computer or a recoded program to execute by the computer to perform acquisition.
Therefore, the claims 1, 7 and 16 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because of its dependency on the rejected claims.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above from the 112(f) interpretation and 112 (b) rejection, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure for “position acquisition unit” as cited in claims 1, 7 and 16 to perform the corresponding claimed function(s) in claims 1, 7 and 16. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Therefore, the claims 1, 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph because of its dependency on the rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1-19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis (Claim 1)
Step 1: Statutory Category-Yes
The claim 1 is directed to "A measurement device”. Therefore, the claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicially Exception Recited-Yes
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in 2019 PEG, claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The claim 1 recites the limitations of: the measurement device comprising: an emission unit capable of emitting measurement light to each of at least three reflective elements attached to the robot;
a light receiving unit capable of receiving reflection light reflected on each of the three reflective elements; and
a position acquiring unit acquiring position information relating to a first axis of the robot, position information relating to a second axis intersecting with the first axis, and position information relating to a third axis intersecting with the first axis and second axis and information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the first axis, information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the second axis, and information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the third axis on the basis of light reception results acquired by the light receiving unit. The highlighted elements above are determining/calculating/measurement steps on the basis of light reception results acquired by the light receiving unit, and are considered to be directed to mental processes, that could be done by pen and paper on the basis of light reception results. Therefore, the highlighted limitation above, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mental process but for the recitation of the underlined limitations above, where the underline limitations are referred to emitting light to reflective element and receiving reflection light reflected from the reflective element, and is insignificant extra solution activity. That is, other than reciting the underlined limitations above, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mental process.
Step 2A—Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application-No
The claim recites additional elements, such as, “an emission unit capable of emitting measurement light to each of at least three reflective elements attached to the robot;
a light receiving unit capable of receiving reflection light reflected on each of the three reflective elements”, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept-No
Claims 1 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (see the court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)) indicate determining whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Accordingly, a conclusion that “an emission unit capable of emitting measurement light to reflective elements; and a light receiving unit capable of receiving reflection light reflected on the reflective element” is well-understood, routine, conventional. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-18 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea based on similar rationale since no feature in the claims alter the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 1-18 are ineligible UNDER 35 USC 101 and are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Analysis (Claim 25)
Step 1: Statutory Category-Yes
The claim 25 is directed to "A measurement method”.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicially Exception Recited-Yes
The claim 25 recites the limitations of: the measurement method comprising:
emitting measurement light to each of at least three reflective elements attached to the robot; receiving reflection light reflected on each of the three reflective elements; and acquiring position information relating to a first axis of the robot, position information relating to a second axis intersecting with the first axis, and position information relating to a third axis intersecting with the first axis and second axis and information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the first axis, information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the second axis, and information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the third axis on the basis of light reception results acquired by the receiving of light. The highlighted elements above are determining/calculating/measurement steps on the basis of light reception results acquired by the light receiving unit, and are considered to be directed to mental processes, that could be done by pen and paper on the basis of light reception results. Therefore, the highlighted limitation above, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mental process but for the recitation of the underlined limitations above, where the underline limitations are referred to emitting light to reflective element and receiving reflection light reflected from the reflective element, and is insignificant extra solution activity. That is, other than reciting the underlined limitations above, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mental process.
Step 2A—Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application-No
The claim recites additional elements, such as, “an emission unit capable of emitting measurement light to each of at least three reflective elements attached to the robot;
a light receiving unit capable of receiving reflection light reflected on each of the three reflective elements”, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept-No
Claims 1 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (see the court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)) indicate determining whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Accordingly, a conclusion that “an emission unit capable of emitting measurement light to reflective elements; and a light receiving unit capable of receiving reflection light reflected on the reflective element” is well-understood, routine, conventional. The claim is ineligible.
Therefore, Claim 25 is ineligible UNDER 35 USC 101 and are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Analysis (Claim 19)
Step 1: Statutory Category-No
The claim 19 is directed to "A target member”.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicially Exception Recited-Yes
The claim 19 recites the limitations of: A target member comprising a first reflective element, a second reflective element, and a third reflective element to which measurement light is emitted for acquiring position information relating to a first axis, position information relating to a second axis intersecting with the first axis, and position information relating to a third axis intersecting with the first axis and second axis, and information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the first axis, information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the second axis, and information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the third axis for a movable measurement target, wherein the target member is able to be attached to the measurement target, and wherein a first side joining a first position at which the first reflective element is disposed and a second position at which the second reflective element is disposed, a second side joining the second position and a third position at which the third reflective element is disposed, and a third side joining the third position and the first position have mutually-different lengths. The highlighted elements above are determining/calculating/measurement steps on the basis of light reception results acquired by the light receiving unit, and are considered to be directed to mental processes, that could be done by pen and paper on the basis of light reception results. Therefore, the highlighted limitation above, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mental process but for the recitation of the underlined limitations above, where the underline limitations are referred to emitting light to reflective element and an attachment of measurement target element and the reflective elements, are insignificant extra solution activity, and the other underline limitation “wherein a first side joining a first position at which the first reflective element is disposed and a second position at which the second reflective element is disposed, a second side joining the second position and a third position at which the third reflective element is disposed, and a third side joining the third position and the first position have mutually-different lengths” is is insignificant and can be disposed by human. That is, other than reciting the underlined limitations above, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mental process.
Step 2A—Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application-No
The claim recites additional elements, such as, “a first reflective element, a second reflective element, and a third reflective element to which measurement light is emitted, and an attachment/arrangement for movable measurement target and reflective elements ”, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept-No
Claims 19 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (see the court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)) indicate determining whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Accordingly, a conclusion that “a first reflective element, a second reflective element, and a third reflective element to which measurement light is emitted, and an attachment/arrangement for movable measurement target and reflective elements ” are well-understood, routine, conventional. The claim is ineligible.
Therefore, Claim 19 is ineligible UNDER 35 USC 101 and are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claims 1-19 and 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), 35 U.S.C. 101, and claims objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art, Greenwood et al. (JP2012104136A, this reference is from IDS, and the attached English equivalent translate document of JP2012104136A is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Greenwood) measurement device measuring a position of a movable robot (See Para. [0014], [0025], “the Merry control system calculates the position of the end effector”, and/or see Para. [0097], “determining the position of targets on the machine/robot 830”) and a position of the robot in a rotation direction (See Para. [0097], “one or more trackers 840 measure the position of targets on the machine and on the part, and SOMaC calculates the appropriate scale factor and position adjustment”), the measurement device comprising:
an emission unit capable of emitting measurement light to each of at least three reflective elements attached to the robot (see Para. [0019], discloses “A laser beam is directed from the laser tracker head to a retro-reflective target mounted on the machine's end effector”, and Para. [0097], “There are at least three optical targets 800 [i.e., reflective element] on the machine 800 and part 810”);
a light receiving unit capable of receiving reflection light reflected on each of the three reflective elements; and
a position acquiring unit acquiring position information relating to a first axis of the robot (See Para. [0007], “The X, Y, and Z axes of the machine are each equipped with a linear interferometer as an encoder for precise positioning”, and see Para. [0040], “at least one laser tracker positioned to measure the true position of the end effector”, and/or Para. [0044], “FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating a SOMaC interface operating with an IBM RS6000 controller to enable a conventional machine tool to obtain high accuracy true position”), position information relating to a second axis intersecting with the first axis, and position information relating to a third axis intersecting with the first axis and second axis and information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the first axis, information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the second axis, and information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the third axis on the basis of light reception results acquired by the light receiving unit.
Nevertheless, Greenwood fails to explicitly spell out where, a light receiving unit capable of receiving reflection light reflected on each of the three reflective elements; and a position acquiring unit acquiring position information relating to a third axis intersecting with the first axis and second axis and information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the first axis, information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the second axis, and information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the third axis on the basis of light reception results acquired by the light receiving unit.
Another closest prior art, Sugita et al. (US 2020/0161154A1) (hereinafter Sugita) teaches, a light receiving unit capable of receiving reflection light reflected on each of the three reflective elements (See Para. [0005], [0025], [0027], discloses “optical element is configured to receive reflected light from reflectors”);
Another closest prior art, Milanovic (US 2012/0168605A1) teaches in Para. [0064], “the system can determine the angular position of the photo-detector within one such scan. Two sets of angular positions are therefore obtainable, and the combination of all these acquired angles is used to obtain a true 3D position, e.g., in terms of Cartesian coordinates X, Y, and Z.”.
Nevertheless, the teaching of Greenwood, Sugita and Milanovic as discussed above fails to suggest, disclose or teach individually or in combination to render obvious limitations of “acquiring position information relating to a third axis intersecting with the first axis and second axis and information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the first axis, information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the second axis, and information relating to a position in a rotation direction around the third axis on the basis of light reception results acquired by the light receiving unit” and in combination of other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-18 depends on claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-18 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency.
Claim 19 is a target member claim corresponding to measurement device claim 1 and having the same allowable subject matter, and therefore, claim 19 would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 25 is a measurement method claim corresponding to measurement device claim 1 and having the same allowable subject matter, and therefore, claim 25 would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657