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 .
Pursuant to communications filed on 03/15/2025, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits wherein claims 1-21 (wrongly filed as 1-20 due to a numbering issue – repeated claim 8), are currently pending in the instant application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns / lines numbers or figures in the reference(s) 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. Examiner has also cited references in PTO-892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In the filed claims, applicant has filed “claim 8” - “an apparatus”. However, the next claim in line has been wrongly numbered as “claim 8” - “a robot”. Hence all the consecutive numbering in the claim chain has been affected and wrongly numbered including the dependencies.
For example, see the image below:
PNG
media_image1.png
386
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, the following corrections are requested:
1)-. Original independent claim 8 - “A robot” should be written as “claim 9” - “A robot”.
2)-. Original claim 9 should be written as “claim 10” as a dependent of new claim 9.
3)-. Original claim 10 should be written as “claim 11” as a dependent of new claim 10.
4)-. Original claim 11 should be written as “claim 12” as a dependent of new claim 10.
5)-. Original claim 12 should be written as “claim 13” as a dependent of new claim 9.
6)-. Original claim 13 should be written as “claim 14” as a dependent of new claim 13.
7)-. Original claim 14 should be written as “claim 15” as a dependent of new claim 9.
8)-. Original independent claim 15 - “A Non-transitory” should be written as “claim 16” - “A Non-transitory”.
9)-. Original claim 16 should be written as “claim 17” as a dependent of new claim 16.
10)-. Original claim 17 should be written as “claim 18” as a dependent of new claim 17.
11)-. Original claim 18 should be written as “claim 19” as a dependent of new claim 17.
12)-. Original claim 19 should be written as “claim 20” as a dependent of new claim 16.
13)-. Original claim 20 should be written as “claim 21” as a dependent of new claim 20.
Appropriate corrections are earnestly requested.
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:
1. – an obtaining module configured …In claim 8.
2. – a determination module configured …In claim 8.
3. – a control module configured …In claim 8.
4. – Regarding claim 1, the claim uses step-plus-function limitations, notably "obtaining…, a target position," "determining a target motion mode," and "controlling... one or more target movable parts.". However, because these steps describe purely functional outcomes without reciting specific computer-executable algorithms (e.g., specific kinematics or optimization equations) to achieve the functions, it can be argued that these functions are purely unpatentable algorithmic steps.
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.
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.
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 1-21 (corrected numbering) 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. In the instant case:
1)-. Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 (corrected numbering) recite the terms “whole-body space reachability information" and "subspace reachability information". These terms are considered, subjective terms of degree which renders the claims indefinite. The terms “whole-body space reachability information" and "subspace reachability information" are 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. The claims are indefinite because asserting that the scope of these terms is not reasonably clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). The specification fails to outline objective boundaries, parameters or units of measurement for what constitutes "reachability".
Furthermore, the claims fail to articulate how the whole-body and subspace metrics mathematically translate or map to one another, leaving a gap in the sequence of controlling the humanoid robot.
Appropriate corrections are earnestly requested.
2)-. Claims 1, 8, 9 and 16 (corrected numbering) recite the term determining a “target motion mode” from "a plurality of basic operation modes," but it does not specify what these basic operation modes are. It is a broad phrasing that acts as a “nose of wax”. It covers any mode without structurally or algorithmically limiting the claim. This creates ambiguity over exactly which hardware or software states satisfy this limitation.
Appropriate corrections are earnestly requested.
3)-. Claims 1, 8, 9 and 16 (corrected numbering) can be seen as having overbroad method steps - The claims simply state what must be achieved (e.g., "controlling... to perform a target operation"), but lacks the specific sequence of operations, mathematical calculations, or sensory feedback loops necessary to safely operate a humanoid robot.
Appropriate corrections are earnestly requested.
4)-. Claims 1, 8, 9 and 16 (corrected numbering) can be seen as indefinite because it is unclear from the face of the claim HOW the humanoid robot updates its whole-body state, or HOW the basic operation modes are mapped to movable parts. A person of ordinary skill in the art may struggle to discern the metes and bounds of these specific limitations, rendering them vague.
Appropriate corrections are earnestly requested.
5)-. Claim 16 (corrected numbering) is indefinite because the preamble defines "A non- transitory computer readable storage medium ... "), but the body recites actions ("obtaining ... ", "determining ... ", "controlling ... "). While claiming a computer-readable medium with stored instructions is generally acceptable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the claim is indefinite because there is a lack of a computer/ processor / controller to execute claimed steps.
Appropriate corrections are earnestly requested.
6)-. Claims 1, 8, 9 and 16 (corrected numbering) are indefinite due to a lack of support- For example, the claims introduce “an operating object” which it controls. However, it is never clearly established what this object is, where it comes from, or if it is an external object being manipulated versus a tool the robot is holding.
In other words, the term “an operating object” can be seen as vastly broad, and without further qualification, it could cover any physical entity or environment, rendering the claims too expansive to particularly point out the actual invention.
Appropriate corrections are earnestly requested.
7)-. Regarding claims 2-7, 10-15, and 17-20 (corrected numbering) these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claims 1, 8, 9 and 16 and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below, in view of the prior art of record, as best understood by the Examiner in light of the objections, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections provided herein.
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 1, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 16 (corrected numbering) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vahrenkamp et al (NPL “Efficient Inverse Kinematics Computation based on Reachability Analysis” - 2012), hereinafter “Vahrenkamp”.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 (corrected numbering), Vahrenkamp discloses a method / the associated apparatus / the associated robot / the associated non-transitory CRM - for controlling a humanoid robot having a plurality of movable parts (e.g., see abstract disclosing the spatial reachability of the robot's workspace is efficiently encoded by discretized data structures and sampling-based techniques are used to handle arbitrary kinematic chains. The algorithms are employed for single-handed and bimanual grasping tasks with fixed robot base position and methods are developed that allow to efficiently incorporate the search for suitable robot locations. The approach is evaluated in different scenarios with the humanoid robot ARMAR-III), comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
488
974
media_image2.png
Greyscale
obtaining, in response to the humanoid robot updating a whole-body state, a target position of an operating object in whole-body space reachability information of the humanoid robot (see at least section 2.2. Inverse Reachability Distribution (IRD), page 7, last paragraph, and page 8 first and second paragraphs disclosing getting the target pose- angles and orientations – see also at least figures 5-7 showing multiple approaches);
PNG
media_image3.png
162
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
216
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
402
490
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
412
678
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
454
682
media_image7.png
Greyscale
determining a target motion mode based on the target position and subspace reachability information of each of the movable parts, wherein the target motion mode is one of a plurality of basic operation modes each corresponding to one of the movable parts (see at least figures 5-7, see the “Inverse Kinematics” page 9-10 – “sampling” – see section 3.2 Single-Handed Grasping Algorithm 1 and see section “Conclusion”);
PNG
media_image8.png
162
784
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
600
854
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
416
848
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and
controlling, according to the target motion mode, one or more target movable parts among the movable parts to perform a target operation on the operating object (see at least section – Introduction, page 2 - see figures 5-7 showing the control flow of the humanoid robot).
PNG
media_image11.png
336
862
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
462
854
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7 and 15 (corrected numbering), Vahrenkamp discloses, further comprising: configuring a basic operation mode corresponding to each of the movable parts of the humanoid robot (see at least flow charts at figures 5-7 for controlling the kinematic chains K of n joints of the robot), wherein the basic operation mode includes at least one of a biped motion mode, a waist motion mode, a bi-arm motion mode, a left arm motion mode, a right arm motion mode, and head motion mode (see section 3.3 Bimanual Grasping – disclosing the sub-chains).
PNG
media_image13.png
296
850
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
It appears claims 2, 5, 10, 13, 17, and 20 (corrected numbering) would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections, the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, however, further search and consideration may be required upon the submission of claim amendments.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, and 21 (corrected numbering) would be allowed in virtue of their dependency from objected claims 2, 5, 10, 13, 17, and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
1-. Vahrenkamp et al – “Representing the robot’s workspace through constrained manipulability analysis” - 2015
2-. Yang et al – “iDRM: Humanoid Motion Planning with Realtime End–Pose Selection in Complex Environments”- 2016
3-. Burguet et al – “Stance Selection for Humanoid Grasping Tasks
by Inverse Reachability Maps” - 2015
4-. Birr et al – “Oriented Surface Reachability Maps for Robot Placement” - 2022
5-. Zacharias et al – “Workspace Comparisons of Setup Configurations for Human-Robot Interaction” - 2010
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaime Figueroa whose telephone number is (571)270-7620. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Wade Miles can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAIME FIGUEROA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights