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 . 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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimers filed on 06/25/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 11745341 and 12290930 have been reviewed and are accepted. The terminal disclaimers have been recorded.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 05/05/2026. Claims 1-22 are pending and examined below.
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 1-22 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.
Independent claims 1, 13, and 22 recite the limitation of “… the at least one ancillary sensor has reduced uncertainty … compared to the primary sensor”. However, it is unclear what is meant by the ancillary sensor having reduced uncertainty compared to the primary sensor as the specification does not clearly point out uncertainties of each sensor, only in that each sensor may have a certain accuracy (see 0058 in the instant specification). Paragraph 0058 discloses that ancillary sensors are very accurate but noisy compared to the primary sensors, however, it is not clear how uncertainty is related to this as 0058 only discloses that the ancillary sensors are “unreliable” and “noisier” than the primary sensor. This in effect contradicts that claim limitations of the ancillary sensor having ‘reduced uncertainty’ compared to the primary sensor. As such, claims 1, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite.
Claims 8 and 17 recite similar limitations as those seen in above, except for a ‘second ancillary sensor’ and ‘second primary sensor’. Likewise, the instant specification makes no mention of the ‘reduced uncertainty’ and is rejected for similar reasons as seen above in claims 1, 13, and 22.
Claims 2-12 and 14-21 ultimately depend from claims 1, 13, and 22 and contain the same indefinite subject matter as seen above in claims 1, 13, and 22. As such, claims 2-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 1, 13, and 22, the examiner has performed a thorough search and has not found a piece of prior art, either alone or in combination with other prior art, that discloses, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claim limitations. The closest piece of prior art found, ‘Robot End-Effector Sensing with Position Sensitive Detector and Inertial Sensor’ by Wang, discloses a portion of the claim limitations. However, Wang fails to disclose determining a delta value representing an amount of deviation between an initial static position and orientation of the primary sensor and an estimated position and orientation of the primary sensor at the time, wherein the amount of deviation is based on the data related to the position and orientation of the primary sensor at the time, the other data related to the position and orientation of the at least one ancillary sensor at the time, and a static relationship between the primary sensor and the at least one ancillary sensor, and modify execution of the trajectory of the object until a next time that the processor executes the instructions based on the sampling frequency to correct for compliance in the robotic system and/or the object based on the delta value, the data related to the position and orientation of the primary sensor at the time, and a static relationship between an initial static position and orientation of the primary sensor and an initial static position and orientation of a point on the object, wherein the object is moved along the trajectory with the modified execution until the next time. These features are novel in that they allow for highly accurate determination of sensor (and robot) positioning and orientation variances, which can lead to accurate error determinations. This can lead to highly accurate robotic control as these errors may be accounted for on future robotic movements (trajectories) through a process modification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights