IQSDETAILED 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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 17/971,345 filed on 10/21/2022.
Claims 4, 13 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on
12/1/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0048186 A1) in view of Fang (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0192867 A1), in further view of Escudero (World Intellectual Property Organization Patent Publication 2021181798 A1), in further view of Deyle (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0234194 A1).
In regard to Claim 1, Sharma teaches a method, comprising:
Maintaining data handling settings at a mobile robot (see Figure 2, Paragraph 72 teaching a system with mobile robots 214 and 216 which each include a local sensor and execution data store 232 or 234 to be used by a plan execution engine 226 or 228, wherein the local sensor and execution data stores are updated with sensor data, which is synchronized with the sensor and execution data store 230 of a cloud management system 202);
Generating operational data at the mobile robot, the operational data defining a current state of the mobile robot (see Paragraph 44 lines 1-6, Paragraph 75 lines 7-12 teaching that the data, such as the robot’s position, may be collected by the device’s sensors); and
Storing the operational data in a memory of the mobile robot (see Figure 2, Paragraph 72 lines 5-7 teaching that the local sensor and execution data stores 232 and 234 are updated with sensor data from robots 214 and 216);
Selecting, based on the data handling settings, a portion of the operational data (see Figure 1, Paragraph 47 lines 1-10 teaching a scenario where the plan execution engine 103 of an autonomous mobile robot 104 sends the robot’s position information during a charging operation);
Transmitting the selected portion of the operational data (see Figure 1, Paragraph 47 lines 1-10 teaching a scenario where the plan execution engine 103 of an autonomous mobile robot 104 sends the robot’s position information during a charging operation).
Here, and in all subsequent claims, the Examiner is interpreting a “data handling setting” according to the broadest reasonable interpretation, including any instruction on a digital or computer device that is used for the purpose of manipulating digital information, including but not limited to: filing, organizing, copying, formatting, transmitting, translating, distributing, archiving, using the data to accomplish a digital task or operation, etc.
The Examiner is also interpreting the process of sending data to inherently include a preceding step of selecting the data to be sent in devices which store data as a primary function, such as in the Instant application and reference. In the example above, wherein “the plan execution engine 103 of an autonomous mobile robot 104 sends the robot’s position information during a charging operation,” the reference clarifies what information is being sent. The relevant position information would have to be selected from the rest of the available sensor information within the execution store 232/234 of the mobile robot 216 (see Figure 2).
Sharma fails to teach wherein the data handling settings include a priority level for each of a plurality of types of the operational data.
However, Fang teaches wherein the data handling settings include a priority level for each of a plurality of types of the operational data (see Figures 53, 58 item 5302, Paragraph 225 lines 1-9, 17-31 teaching a vehicle data management system in which collected vehicle data flows may have different priority levels applied to them, depending on the data management application).
Sharma and Fang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle data management systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sharma’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein collected vehicle data is assigned a priority level as taught by Fang. Doing so could improve the system by ensuring that the most important data is saved, or has memory allocated to it.
Sharma further fails to teach wherein, in response to a determination that the operational data meets a condition, obtaining updated data handling settings; and
Selecting a subsequent portion of the operational data for according to the updated data handling settings.
However, Escudero teaches wherein, in response to a determination that the operational data meets a condition, obtaining updated data handling settings (see Page 4 Paragraph 5, Page 13 Paragraph 13 teaching a robot system wherein if a predetermined condition is satisfied, such as the robot being connected to the network, a control device 100 transmits setting information to the robot controller 250); and
Selecting a subsequent portion of the operational data for according to the updated data handling settings (see Page 18 Paragraph 9 teaching that the robot system generates command values for driving robot axes by referring to transmitted setting information).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting selecting operational data as substantially similar to generating command values for robot operation, since the command values must necessarily be selected from a finite amount of values or value combinations, and commands that implement robot movement controls are directly linked with robot operational data.
Sharma and Escudero are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robots which communicate with management nodes or networks which send operational protocol data to the robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sharma’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a control system could send new setting data to a robot when a condition of collected robot operational data is met, and wherein subsequent operational data is selected based on the new setting data as taught by Escudero. Doing so could improve a robot control system by ensuring that a control system functions according to a protocol where specific data conditions implement new data settings, and those settings implement new data collection rules. This could enable autonomous machines to complete complex tasks with sequential steps, wherein a determination at any step could result in a new or unique command tree.
Sharma further fails to teach transmission of the operational data.
However, Deyle teaches transmission of the operational data (see Paragraph 82 lines 1-7, 25-29 teaching a robot system that can select data to transmit via a network, such as video and audio data).
Sharma and Deyle are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robots that communicate with networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sharma’s invention to incorporate a feature which could select data to be transmitted as taught by Deyle. Doing so could improve robot systems by enabling them to determine which data should be sent to another digital node, and send the data. This application is widely known and utilized in the field of digital communication between computing devices.
In regard to Claim 2, Sharma further teaches transmitting the selected portion to a server or another mobile robot (see Figure 2, Paragraph 63 lines 6-14 teaching that a cloud system 202 can receive data from the robots 214 and 216).
In regard to Claim 3, Sharma further teaches wherein the operational data includes at least one of sensor data, navigational events, or robot status data (see Paragraph 44 lines 3-10 teaching that the information sent to the cloud system can include sensor data collected by the robots).
In regard to Claim 5, Sharma further fails to teach wherein the data handling settings further include a retention time period for each of the types; and
Wherein storing the operational data includes discarding a portion of the operational data having an age greater than the retention period.
However, Fang teaches wherein the data handling settings further include a retention time period for each of the types (see Paragraph 720 lines 10-13, Paragraph 725 lines 1-5 teaching that a type value may be assigned to data, and an expiration data corresponding with the type value may also be assigned); and
Wherein storing the operational data includes discarding a portion of the operational data having an age greater than the retention period (see Paragraph 582 lines 1-5 teaching that vehicle parameter values that are past an expiration schedule are deleted).
Sharma and Fang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle data management systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sharma’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein collected vehicle data is assigned an expiration data depending on its type, and deleted after the expiration period as taught by Fang. Doing so could improve the system by ensuring that old data is deleted in order to free up storage for new data.
In regard to Claim 7, Sharma further fails to teach determining, at the mobile robot, that the operational data meets the condition; and
Retrieving the updated data handling settings from a memory of the mobile robot.
However, Escudero teaches determining, at the mobile robot, that the operational data meets the condition (see Page 13 lines 13 teaching that the operational condition can be that the robot is connected to the network); and
Retrieving the updated data handling settings from a memory of the mobile robot (see Page 4 Paragraph 5 teaching that the storage 110 may store setting information 1106).
Sharma and Escudero are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robots which communicate with management nodes or networks which send operational protocol data to the robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sharma’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a robot makes a determination whether operational data satisfies a condition, and implements setting data stored in a memory as taught by Escudero. Doing so could improve a robot system by enabling it to autonomously make data condition determinations, and by enabling it to acquire setting instructions without needing a connection to another digital node.
In regard to Claim 8, Sharma further fails to teach transmitting a message to a server including the updated data handling settings.
However, Escudero teaches transmitting a message to a server including the updated data handling settings (see Page 18 teaching that the robot’s control system transmits, to a control device, information regarding which configuration, of a plurality of configurations, the robot is operating according to).
Sharma and Escudero are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robots which communicate with management nodes or networks which send operational protocol data to the robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sharma’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a robot transmits configuration or setting information to a server or network as taught by Escudero. Doing so could improve a robot control system by ensuring that the robot advises external network entities as to what configuration the robot is operating according to. This could improve awareness regarding what priorities or tasks the robot is focused on during operation.
In regard to Claim 9, Sharma further teaches wherein the updated handling settings are sent from a server to the electronic device where the settings are to be utilized (see Figure 2, Paragraph 49 lines 20-26 teaching that when the DR module 102 pulls the new navigation plan from the plan catalog 111, and the plan has to be deployed on the robot 104b, the deployment
has to be augmented by mapping or updating the plan variables of the existing navigation plan).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting a navigation plan as a data handling setting. An autonomous robot following a navigation route needs to compare sensor data with route information in order to stay on a prescribed path. Using that data to ensure the robot follows the navigational instructions constitutes a method of “handling” the data.
Sharma further fails to teach receiving, from a server, the updated data handling settings in response to the determination, at the server, that the operational data meets a condition.
However, Escudero teaches receiving, from a server, the updated data handling settings in response to the determination, at the server, that the operational data meets a condition (see Page 2 Paragraph 9, Page 13 Paragraph 9 teaching that the condition triggering the transmission of the setting information is that the control device 100, which is a network-connected device, is activated).
Sharma and Escudero are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robots which communicate with management nodes or networks which send operational protocol data to the robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sharma’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a server or network-connected device makes a determination that an operational condition is satisfied in order to send the robot updated data settings as taught by Escudero. Doing so could improve a robot control system by enabling the condition satisfaction analysis to occur externally to the robot. This could enable the robot to be lighter or more compact by eliminating the need for the computational power for condition-satisfaction analysis at the robot itself.
In regard to Claim 10, Sharma further teaches a memory (see Paragraph 45 lines 7-10 teaching that the mobile robots include a memory) storing data handling settings (see Figure 2, Paragraph 49 lines 20-26 teaching that when the DR module 102 pulls the new navigation plan from the plan catalog 111, and the plan has to be deployed on the robot 104b, the deployment has to be augmented by mapping or updating the plan variables of the existing navigation plan); and
A processor (see Paragraph 45 lines 7-10 teaching that the mobile robots include a processor).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting the term “computing device” to mean any electronic device with some type of processing power, such as a computer.
The rest of Claim 10 is substantially similar to Claim 1. Please refer to rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claim 11 is substantially similar to Claim 2. Please refer to rejection of Claim 2 above for analysis.
Claim 12 is substantially similar to Claim 3. Please refer to rejection of Claim 3 above for analysis.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 5. Please refer to rejection of Claim 5 above for analysis.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 8. Please refer to rejection of Claim 8 above for analysis.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 9. Please refer to rejection of Claim 9 above for analysis.
Claims 6, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0048186 A1) in view of Fang (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0192867 A1), in further view of Escudero (World Intellectual Property Organization Patent Publication 2021181798 A1), in further view of Deyle (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0234194 A1), in further view of Chen (U.S. Patent 9,904,479 B1).
In regard to Claim 6, Sharma further fails to teach wherein the updated data handling settings include an extended retention period.
However, Chen teaches wherein the updated data handling settings include an extended retention period (See Abstract lines 1-2 teaching a method for extending a period of data retention of a flash memory device).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting the process of changing the expiration date of a data set to fall within the category of updating the data handling settings.
Sharma and Chen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data management systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sharma’s invention to incorporate a feature which could extend the retention period of data as taught by Chen. Doing so could improve the system by ensuring that when able, data is preserved instead of destroyed.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 6. Please refer to rejection of Claim 6 above for analysis.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on December 1st, 2025, with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of amended Claim 1 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
All 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s remarks.
With regard to amended Claim 1, the Applicant has argued that the Office has engaged in hindsight bias, and failed to “provid[e] a persuasive reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have been motivated to combine [the Sharma and Feng references] in the claimed manner to solve this specific problem.” The Examiner disagrees. Sharma teaches “[a] system and a method to dynamically update plans and task allocation strategies on at least one or more of [a] cloud and [a] plurality of heterogeneous autonomous mobile devices (e.g. robot[s])” (see Abstract). Feng teaches a vehicle system that assigns priority levels (e.g. high priority v. lower priority) to vehicle subsystems such as a speed management application (see Paragraph 225). Both references teach systems that implement settings within mobile apparatuses (robots and vehicles), and are therefore analogous. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to implement a priority system for settings or data relevant to the implementation of settings for a mobile vehicle.
Feng even gives an example as to why this combination would be useful (see Paragraph 225): “a vehicle speed management application may have a high priority, and a speedometer end point may be associated with the vehicle speed management application. In the example, if the vehicle speed is being communicated to support the vehicle speed management application, then the controller applies a high priority to the vehicle speed message. However, if the vehicle speed is being communicated to support a trip planning flow ( e.g., where a trip planning flow is present and does not have a high priority), the controller may apply a lower priority to the vehicle speed message.” Applying priority levels to settings or settings data would improve many vehicular systems. High-priority data could be collected over low-priority data, safety measures could be implemented over time-saving measures, fuel could be conserved when a vehicle operator or operating system does not intend to operate a vehicle in a high-performance mode or profile, and so on.
The rest of the claims pending in the Instant Application remain rejected for reasons similar to Claim 1, or under the same rationales provided in the previous office action.
The Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome these prior art rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Ganju (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0415336 A1) teaches a system wherein one or more robot devices are used to investigate and conduct maintenance operations within a data or computer facility (see Abstract).
Pathak (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0076433 A1) teaches a system that simulates physical environments, which includes data-controlled robots (see Abstract, Paragraphs 14, 15).
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 PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3667B
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
January 30, 2026