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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claims 1-2 are amended. Claims 5-9 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
The Examiner does not believe the amendments are compliant with Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Requirements (amendments should be made to dependent claims under the PPH Pilot Program). However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has chosen not to send out a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment and instead has accepted the amendments. The Examiner recommends that Applicant reviews the requirements for amendments under the PPH Pilot Program.
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the Non-Final Rejection dated 20 April 2026.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s assertion “The limitation “joint sensors mounted on joints of the robotic arm” finds support in the specification’s disclosure that “the sensor can obtain the position, the velocity”” persuasive; one of ordinary skill in the art is familiar with other solutions, for example visual servo techniques (a camera obtains the position and velocity of robot, the camera is not “mounted on joints”) and the examiner could not find support indicating that is not a possible implementation of the original disclosure (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) below); “based on feedback from the sensors” is new matter as well because, following the antecedent basis, this refers to joint sensors as well. Furthermore, the Examiner does not find the amendment to “
k
H
*
,
k
f
*
and
k
f
*
respectively represent priori kernel function values corresponding to the inertial force, the Coriolis force, and the frictional force” to “merely conform the claim language to the intended meaning” (see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below).
All claim interpretations from the prior office action under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are withdrawn due to the cancellation of Claim 5. All drawing objections from the prior office action are withdrawn due to the cancellation of Claims 5-9. The claim objections from the prior office action are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
The Examiner finds most arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior office action persuasive. However, the Examiner does not find the argument regarding the kernel function symbols persuasive because Applicant’s remarks do not match the presented amended claim language (see updated rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below).
Amended Claim 1 is interpreted to require actual motion changes of the robot; therefore, there is a practical application, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 from the prior office action are withdrawn for at least that reason (see claim objection below to further clarify there is motion of the robot required and not just intended use). The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument that no judicial exception is recited persuasive; however, the arguments are moot as the rejection is withdrawn. The Examiner does not agree with many of the limitations that Applicant considers additional elements (many of them are abstract ideas); however, the arguments are moot as the rejection is withdrawn. The Examiner does not agree with many of Applicant’s arguments regarding how the claims amount to significantly more; however, the arguments are moot as the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: the first recitation of “the robotic arm” should be “[[the]] a robotic arm”.
Claim 1: “during the physical contact operation” should be “during [[the]] a physical contact operation”.
Claim 1: “sending a control moment to the robot to control motion of the robot” should be “sending a control moment to the robot causing motion of the robot”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitations in Claim 1 “observing a robot state comprising joint position and velocity at a sampling period in real-time via joint sensors mounted on the joints of the robotic arm” / “based on feedback from the sensors” (where “the sensors” is referring to “the joint sensors”) contain new matter. The original disclosure does not provide support for “via joint sensors mounted on the joints of the robotic arm”, there is nothing in the original disclosure that indicates the invention could not be completed by a different type of sensor, for example an image based visual servo system. Since the “joint sensors mounted on the joints of the robotic arm” are not inherent, this is new matter. Claims 2-4 are rejected for being dependent on Claim 1. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In Claim 1 (bottom of page 4 of 19),
k
f
*
is defined as both a priori kernel function value corresponding to the Coriolis force and a priori kernel function value corresponding to the frictional force “
k
H
*
,
k
f
*
and
k
f
*
respectively represent priori kernel function values corresponding to the inertial force, the Coriolis force, and the frictional force”. There is no support in the original disclosure for the claims in view of this amended limitation. Claims 2-4 are rejected for being dependent on Claim 1. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-4 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 regards as the invention. In Claim 1,
k
f
*
is defined as both a priori kernel function value corresponding to the Coriolis force and a priori kernel function value corresponding to the frictional force “
k
H
*
,
k
f
*
and
k
f
*
respectively represent priori kernel function values corresponding to the inertial force, the Coriolis force, and the frictional force”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know the metes and bounds of the claims due to the inconsistencies. Claims 2-4 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner has searched for at least the currently presented claim language to determine if there is prior art that reads on the claims. Appropriate corrections are required.
Prior Art
Claims 1-4, as presented, are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103. There is no prior art combination that discloses, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the limitations of Claim 1.
The closest prior art is U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0391095 (Romeres et al., hereinafter, Romeres) which is directed to using Gaussian Processes for robotics. However, Romeres does not disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious every equation relating to how the structure-consistent Gaussian process is constructed in Claim 1.
Claims 2-4 are dependent on Claim 1, and do not have prior art rejections for at least the same reason as Claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights