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 .
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 1-12 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.
For claims 1, the limitation “a frequency component having the frequency of the at least one sinusoid” (emphasis added), on line 22, is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear because “the frequency of the at least one sinusoid”, on line 22, is the same of “the frequency of the at least one sinusoid”, on line 15, or difference one. Clarification is required.
Claim 2-11 are rejected due to dependencies to base claim 1.
For claim 2, the limitation “the amplitude defined by said first parameter vector”, on line 1-2, is indefinite. It is unclear because “the amplitude”, on line 1, is “an amplitude” on line 10 of claim 1 or the “a first feedback amplitude”, on line 16 of claim 1. Clarification is required .
For claim 4, the limitation “extracting the frequency component having the frequency of the at least one sinusoid” (emphasis added), on lines 1-2, is indefinite. It is unclear because “the frequency component”, on line 1, is “frequency component” on line 22 of claim 1 or the “a frequency component”, on line 16 of claim 1. Clarification is required.
For claim 8, the limitation “the frequency of the at least one sinusoid” (emphasis added), on lines 2-3, is indefinite. It is unclear because “the frequency of the at least one sinusoid”, on lines 2-3, is “the frequency of the at least one sinusoid” on lines 15-16 of claim 1 or the “the frequency of the at least one sinusoid”, on line 22 of claim 1. Clarification is required.
For claim 9, the limitation “the rotation frequency”, on lines 1-2, is indefinite. It is unclear because “the rotation frequency”, on lines 1-2, is “the rotation frequency of the motor” on lines 7-8 of claim 1 or the “the rotation frequency of the distal portion”, on line 9 of claim 1. Clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the reduction gear”, on lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For claims 12, the limitation “a frequency component having the frequency of the at least one sinusoid” (emphasis added), on lines 23-24, is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear because “a frequency component having the frequency of the at least one sinusoid”, on lines 23-24, is the same of “one frequency component having the frequency of the at least one sinusoid”, on line 16-17, or difference one. Furthermore, limitation “said frequency component”, on line 25, is “said frequency component”, on line 18, or “a frequency component” on line 23. Clarification is required.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-12 are ineligible.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1-11 are a method and claim 12 is an apparatus. The machine/apparatus and method involve multiple mental steps.
Step 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claims recites an apparatus (claim 12) and a method (claims 1-11). Thus, the claim 12 is machine and claims 1- 11 are process, which are one of statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Limitations receiving data (i.e., “an evaluation signal received from the joint” (emphasis added), on lines 14 and 21 of claim 1; “obtain a third parameter”, on line 29 of claim 1; “a position input”, on line 6 of claim 12; an evaluation signal received from the joint”, on lines 15 and 22 of claim 12) and performing mathematical calculations (i.e. “a sum of at least one sinusoid having a frequency which is a frequency of rotation of the motor or of a periodic event in the reduction gear occurring at a higher frequency than the rotation of the distal portion, or an integer multiple” (emphasis added), on lines 7-9 of claim 1; “determining a first feedback vector”, on line 16 of claim 1; “a sum of the standard speed and a second kinematic correction” (emphasis added), on line 19 of claim 1; “subtracting said fist feedback vector from said second feedback vector”, on line 25 of claim 1; “a cutoff frequency optionally being lower than the motor frequency and higher than the motor frequency multiplied with the reduction ratio of the reduction gear”(emphasis added), on lines 3-4 of claim 4; “the frequency of the at least one sinusoid is if/ic times the rotation frequency of the motor or an integer multiple thereof” (emphasis added), on line 2-3 of claim 8; “the integer multiple is 2 if/ic times the rotation frequency” (emphasis added), on lines 1-2 of claim 9; “the kinematic correctio is a sum of two or more sinusoids”(emphasis added), on line 1-2 of claim 10; “a kinematic correction, which is a sum of at least one sinusoid having a frequency which is a frequency of rotation of the motor or of a periodic event in the reduction gear occurring at a higher frequency than the rotation of the distal portion, or an integer multiple thereof” (emphasis added), on lines 7-10 of claim 12; “determining a first feedback vector” ” (emphasis added), on line 17 of claim 12; “a sum of the standard speed and a second kinematic correction”, on line 20 of claim 12; “determining a second feedback vector” on line 24 of claim 12; “subtracting said first feedback vector from said second feedback vector” (emphasis added), on lines 26 of claim 12), in claims 1-12, are all mental steps as evident from the disclosure. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical relationships” and “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, these limitations recite a concept that falls into the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas.
These limitations also fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving algebraic equations in their minds using a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii) and (iii).
As explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 Update, in situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II), and October 2019 Update at Section I.B. Thus, for purposes of further discussion, this example considers these limitations as a single abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section Ill(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional elements “controller” and/or “processor”, in claims 1-12, which uses controller and/or processor to perform the recited steps. The controller or the processor in the above steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. An evaluation of whether limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong Two analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well- understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation is well- known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, these additional elements are recited so generically that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(d). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the short primary linear motor does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(l) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as whole amounts 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. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of using a processor/controller to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. A processor to no more than well-understood, routine or conventional which is notoriously well-known. Also, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Such as “determining”, “subtracting”, etc.). The claims are not patent eligible.
Thus, claims 1-12 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at (571)272-2060. 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.
/THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Jul 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights