DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s response to election/restriction filed on June 23, 2026.
Applicant had elected, without traverse, the invention I (claims 1-9). The requirement is made FINAL.
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II and III.
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: a posture estimation unit configured to estimate posture and body information of a worker based on an image of the worker, …; an object recognition unit configured to recognize a work object article and the worker through an object recognition camera module provided over the worker and to measure a distance between the work object article and the worker; and a collaborative robot configured to transport the work object article in front of the worker .... in claims 1; a posture recognition camera module … configured to photograph a work posture of the worker who is working … the posture and body information estimation unit configured to continuously estimate in what posture the worker is working … the worker state estimation unit configured to confirm whether the worker is in a situation in which the worker requires work assistance … in claim 2; an object recognition camera module configured to photograph a location of the work object article and a work … the object recognizer configured to determine the location of the work object article … the inter-object distance measurement unit configured to confirm the location of the worker … in claim 4.
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 § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakamura (Pub. No.: US 2025/0108508 A1 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura disclose a cooperative robotic system comprising:
a posture estimation unit (e.g., a robot task controller / detection module 115 (par. 35 and Figure 4)) configured to estimate posture and body information of a worker based on an image of the worker (e.g., estimate a skeletal position of the worker ( par 35 and Figure 6) and characteristic of the worker (par. 45)), which is captured through a posture recognition camera module provided on one side of the worker (e.g., using a detected image via a camera 112), and to estimate a state of the worker based on the estimated posture and body information of the worker (e.g., Figures 3 and 6 show a worker standing next to a worktable 103 performing task(s) (par. 35 and Figures 3 and 6) based on estimated skeletal position of the worker ( par 35 and Figure 6) and characteristic of the worker (par. 45));
an object recognition unit (e.g., a robot task controller / detection module 115 ( par. 35)) configured to recognize a work object article and the worker through an object recognition camera module provided over the worker (e.g., to perform recognition of object and worker from image obtain from camera 112 (par. 35)) and to measure a distance between the work object article and the worker (e.g., distance between an operator’s hand and selected destination of a tool / object (par. 36 and Figures 6 and 9a-9b)); and
a collaborative robot (e.g., robotic device controller 107 / goal planning module 120 – par. 31 and 36) configured to transport the work object article in front of the worker by moving (e.g., robotic device controller 107 configured to provide tool 211 or part 221 to the worker (par. 31 and 36 and Figures 2-4)) based on the estimated state of the worker, which is provided by the posture estimation unit (e.g., based on the worker standing next to a worktable 103 (par. 35 and Figures 3 and 6) provided by a robot task controller / detection module 115 (par. 35 and Figure 4)), and the measured distance between the work object article and the worker, which is provided by the object recognition unit (e.g., based on the distance between an operator’s hand and selected destination of a tool / object (par. 36 and Figures 6 and 9a-9b) provided by a robot task controller / detection module 115 (par. 35)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kosuge et al. (US 2011/0184555) is directed to working support robot system for delivering tool / part to a worker.
Inaba (US 2020/0122323 A1) is directed to a robot system for cooperative work with human based on worker action on an object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Khoi H. Tran can be reached at 571 272 6919. 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.
/Jorge O Peche/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights