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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are addressed below. Claims 8 and 12-15 are withdrawn as directed to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. JP2023-163721 filed on 09/26/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged.
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:
“reverse data generation device that uses...”
“feature amount error calculation unit that learns...”
“machine learning device that infers...”
and “instruction unit that outputs...” in claim 1;
“forward and reverse data accumulation unit that generates...” in claim 4.
“index estimation unit that outputs...” in claim 6;
“instruction understanding unit that understands...” in claim 7;
“measurement unit that measures...”
“driving unit that is driven...”
“forward data accumulation unit that accumulates...”
“forward and reverse data accumulation unit that associates...” in claim 10 and 11.
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.
In this instant case, the various devices and units are disclosed as comprising software algorithms as described in the instant specification being performed by generic computer components.
The driving unit is disclosed as a motor or other actuator (¶0039).
The measurement unit is disclosed as a sensor as in ¶0039.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1:
The claim recites “robot sensor time series information” and subsequently, “robot sensor information”. It is unclear and indistinct if this robot sensor information is meant to refer to the above robot sensor time series information, or if the terms are distinct.
Further regarding claim 1, in line 5, the phrase “the feature amounts” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear what is meant by “feature amounts”, how they are determined, and what the scope of the term entails.
Additionally, regarding claim 1, it is unclear and indistinct what is meant by “to infer” the association relationship. It is unclear how the relationship is “inferred”. It is additionally unclear if the “inferring” step is positively recited in the claim combination, since the limitation is recited as intended use.
Additionally, the phrase “the association relationship” lacks antecedent basis. The phrase, additionally appears to be redundant.
Further regarding claim 1, in line 11, the phrase “the instruction value” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear if this “instruction value” is meant to be a result from the machine learning device, and what the instruction value is generated based upon.
Regarding claim 2:
The term “complicated” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “complicated” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Further regarding claim 2, it is unclear and indistinct what is meant by “learns a plurality of motion experiences”. It is unclear to what “experiences” refers, or how the device “learns” the experiences.
Regarding claim 3:
It is unclear and indistinct what is meant by “each of the characteristics...”. It is unclear what the scope of the term “characteristics” is meant to cover.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the confidence degree" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7:
It is unclear and indistinct what is meant by “an abstract instruction including voice and a character”. It is unclear what the scope of the term “abstract instruction” is meant to cover. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by “voice and a character”. It is unclear what the term “character” refers to.
The claims are so replete with 112(b) issues that the scope cannot be meaningfully determined, and substantive examination is precluded. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has attempted to apply prior art based on the best understanding of the claim language.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As best understood by the Examiner, claim(s) 1-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bandari et al. (US 2021/0347047).
Regarding claims 1-7 and 9-11:
Bandari teaches a system and method of generating robot trajectories using neural networks, including generating reverse trajectories based on forward trajectory data, utilizing machine learning to generate forward and reverse direction robot trajectories, and outputting the trajectories to a robot (see at least abstract, ¶0030-0052).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights