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 .
Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are pending in the instant application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Amendments filed 07/28/2026 have been entered and fully considered as below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 to claims 1-7 and 21-27 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below, in light of newly found prior art, which was necessitated based on Applicant's amendments which changed the scope of the claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 to claims 28-33 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 103 to claims 28-33 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the amendments raise new issue under this section that is discussed below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the amendments raise new issue under this section that is discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant further provides the claim limitation, “facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot using one or more software services provided by a collection of servers, resulting in a customized physical robot, wherein the customization of the selected physical robot comprises a capability of performing a physical task and a situation-based personality adapted for the physical task”, however, the Applicant’s disclosure fails to teach in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable one skilled in the art how the respective limitation is implemented (i.e. performed, executed, etc.), and therefore claim 1 is rejected under this section. The claim amendment introduces new matter into the claim. Paragraphs 0039 and 0051 of the specification do not specifically support how “… facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot… wherein the customization of the selected physical robot comprises a capability of performing a physical task and a situation-based personality adapted for the physical task …”. The specification provides that the customization is in accordance with user profile. The specification does not provide specific customization that includes a capability of performing a physical task and a situation-based personality adapted for the physical task. The customization does not dictate which aiding robot is being selected. The connection to smart network or multiple servers also does not explain how a robot’s capability is customized to perform a physical task and further how a robot’s situation-based personality is customized adapted to the physical task. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 21, the Applicant provides the claim limitation, “selecting a robot capability package for the selected physical robot from an app store; deploying the robot capability package to the selected physical robot; facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot using robot capability package, resulting in a customized physical robot, wherein the customization of the selected physical robot comprises a capability of performing a physical task and a situation-based personality adapted for the physical task”, however, the Applicant’s disclosure fails to teach in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable one skilled in the art how the respective limitation is implemented (i.e. performed, executed, etc.), and therefore claim 21 is rejected under this section. Specifically, the specification is silent as to the particular support for claimed phrase “robot capability package” and “… selecting a robot capability package for the selected physical robot from an app store; deploying the robot capability package to the selected physical robot; facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot using robot capability package, resulting in a customized physical robot, wherein the customization of the selected physical robot comprises a capability of performing a physical task and a situation-based personality adapted for the physical task …” Paragraph 0035 of the specification indicates the app store for robot capabilities (including real and virtual) can help the homeowner(s), commerce, communities, and/or metaverse world to pick and choose what they want. However, there is no detail from the specification describing how the robot capability package is selected for the selected physical robot from an app store, and further how the robot capability package is deployed to the selected physical robot. The specification does not describe how to facilitate a customization of the selected physical robot using robot capability package, and further the customization comprises a capability of performing a physical task and a situation-based personality adapted for the physical task. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 28, the Applicant provides the claim limitation, “obtaining, by the processing system, customization data from a smart community controller via a service management and orchestration (SMO) component configured to retrieve the customization data from an app store; providing, by the processing system, the customization data to the selected physical robot; and reconfiguring, by the processing system, the selected physical robot using the customization data, resulting in a customized physical robot … wherein the customized physical robot comprises a capability of performing the physical task and a situation based personality adapted for the physical task”, however, the Applicant’s disclosure fails to teach in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable one skilled in the art how the respective limitation is implemented (i.e. performed, executed, etc.), and therefore claim 28 is rejected under this section. Specifically, the specification is silent as to the particular support for claimed phrase “… obtaining, by the processing system, customization data from a smart community controller via a service management and orchestration (SMO) component configured to retrieve the customization data from an app store; providing, by the processing system, the customization data to the selected physical robot; and reconfiguring, by the processing system, the selected physical robot using the customization data, resulting in a customized physical robot … wherein the customized physical robot comprises a capability of performing the physical task and a situation based personality adapted for the physical task” There is no detail from the specification describing how the smart community controller reconfigure a selected physical robot by obtaining customization data from an app store and providing the customization data to the selected physical robot, resulting in a customized physical robot, wherein the customized physical robot comprises a capability of performing the physical task and a situation based personality adapted for the physical task. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Claims 2-7, 22-27, and 29-33 are rejected for being dependent on previously rejected based claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-7 and 21-33 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.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant provides the claim limitation, “facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot using one or more software services provided by a collection of servers, resulting in a customized physical robot, wherein the customization of the selected physical robot comprises a capability of performing a physical task and a situation-based personality adapted for the physical task”, however, based on the currently provided claim limitations, it is not clear what software services encompass regarding the facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot. The specification is also silent regarding the customized physical robot comprises a capability of performing the physical task and a situation based personality adapted for the physical task. The claim is therefore indistinct. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 21, the Applicant provides the claim limitation, “selecting a robot capability package for the selected physical robot from an app store; deploying the robot capability package to the selected physical robot; facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot using robot capability package, resulting in a customized physical robot, wherein the customization of the selected physical robot comprises a capability of performing a physical task and a situation-based personality adapted for the physical task”, however, based on the currently provided claim limitations, the metes and bounds of the claimed phrase “robot capability package” cannot be ascertained because the specification is silent regarding the claimed phase “robot capability package”. Moreover, the metes and bounds of the claimed phrase “deploying the robot capability package to the selected physical robot; facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot using robot capability package, resulting in a customized physical robot, wherein the customization of the selected physical robot comprises a capability of performing a physical task and a situation-based personality adapted for the physical task” cannot be ascertained because the specification is silent regarding how to facilitate a customization of the selected physical robot using robot capability package to customize a capability of performing a physical task and a situation-based personality adapted for the physical task. The claim is therefore indistinct. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 28, the Applicant provides the claim limitation, “obtaining, by the processing system, customization data from a smart community controller via a service management and orchestration (SMO) component configured to retrieve the customization data from an app store; providing, by the processing system, the customization data to the selected physical robot; and reconfiguring, by the processing system, the selected physical robot using the customization data, resulting in a customized physical robot, wherein the processing system is a smart home controller or a smart business controller; and directing, by the processing system, the customized physical robot to the first location to aid the first physical robot in completing a task, wherein the customized physical robot comprises a capability of performing the physical task and a situation based personality adapted for the physical task”, however, based on the currently provided claim limitations, the metes and bounds of the claimed phrase “obtaining, by the processing system, customization data from a smart community controller via a service management and orchestration (SMO) component configured to retrieve the customization data from an app store; providing, by the processing system, the customization data to the selected physical robot; and reconfiguring, by the processing system, the selected physical robot using the customization data, resulting in a customized physical robot, wherein the processing system is a smart home controller or a smart business controller … wherein the customized physical robot comprises a capability of performing the physical task and a situation based personality adapted for the physical task” cannot be ascertained because the specification is silent as to the specifics of how the smart home controller or the smart business controller would reconfigure the physical robot by obtaining customization data from the app store via the smart community controller and SMO component. It is not clear what smart home, smart business and smart community encompass regarding the reconfiguration of the selected physical robot using customization data. The specification is also silent regarding the customized physical robot comprises a capability of performing the physical task and a situation based personality adapted for the physical task. The claim is therefore indistinct. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Claims 2-7, 22-27, and 29-33 are rejected for being dependent on previously rejected based claim.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw et al. (US 20200301725 A1, hereinafter “Shaw”), and further in view of Sisbot et al. (US 20170285635 A1, hereinafter “Sisbot”).
Regarding claim 1, Shaw discloses a device comprising:
a processing system including a processor (Shaw, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0090-0092], computer system 500 may include a processor (or controller) 504); and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (Shaw, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0090-0093], memory 526/506/508 stores one or more sets of instructions (e.g., software 524) that, when executed by the processing system 500, facilitate performance of operations), the operations comprising:
obtaining first data from a first physical robot operating in a smart community (any community that utilizes computerized equipment is considered “smart”), the first data comprising a first location of the first physical robot (Shaw, see at least Figs. 1, 2A, par. [0021, 0022, 0037], “server 101 may receive information from each robot 106 in a geographic area (e.g., location, specifications, availability status)”);
obtaining second data from a second physical robot operating in the smart community, the second data comprising a second location of the second physical robot (Shaw, see at least Figs. 1, 2A, par. [0021, 0022, 0037], “server 101 may receive information from each robot 106 in a geographic area (e.g., location, specifications, availability status)”);
obtaining third data from a third physical robot operating in the smart community, the third data comprising a third location of the third physical robot (Shaw, see at least Figs. 1, 2A, par. [0021, 0022, 0037], “server 101 may receive information from each robot 106 in a geographic area (e.g., location, specifications, availability status)”);
obtaining a request for assistance from the first physical robot (Shaw, see at least Fig. 2B, par. [0027], “… At step 121, server 101 may receive information associated with a service to be performed … information from robot 106 (e.g., robot performing a service for a user may require assistance from another robot to fulfill the service)”); and
responsive to obtaining the request for assistance:
selecting a physical robot (Shaw, see at least Fig. 2B, par. [0037, 0041], selecting physical robot based on whether the physical robot 106 within a certain distance from a location of a user, availability, and/or certain capability);
facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot using one or more software services provided by a collection of servers (Shaw, see at least Figs. 1, 2A, 3, par. [0019, 0021, 0030], one or more servers 101 is configured to select and provide one or more specifications and virtual machine, i.e., software or hardware, to facilitate a modification of the selected physical robot 106), resulting in a customized physical robot (Shaw, see at least par. [0030], a customized physical robot with task-specific components, desired specifications, and virtual machine based on task or tasks to be performed), wherein the customization of the selected physical robot comprises a capability of performing a physical task (Shaw, see at least Fig. 2B, par. [0030], the server 101 is configured to determine desired specifications for physical robot 106 to perform a physical task, e.g. threshold height, reach, and maneuverability to perform all of the cleaning tasks) and a situation-based personality adapted for the physical task (Shaw, see at least Fig. 2B, par. [0026], “… an individual robot 106 or a group of robots 106 may be automatically instantiated, modified, evolved … based on, for example, location, time of day, user preference, special event trigger, and/or emergency (e.g., fire, medical emergency, robbery)”; par. [0020, 0044], the physical robot 106 is configured to have different identity based on the physical task, e.g., police officer, bank teller); and
directing the customized physical robot to the first location to aid the first physical robot in completing the physical task (Shaw, see at least Fig. 2B, par. [0031-0032], “In addition, server 101 may also transmit instructions to robot 106 to move from its current location to a destination location to perform the service”).
Shaw teaches a fleet of physical robot but fails to specifically teach determining a first time interval that would be required for the second physical robot to reach the first physical robot at the first location; determining a second time interval that would be required for the third physical robot to reach the first physical robot at the first location; determining which of the first time interval and the second time interval is smaller; in a first case that the first time interval is smaller, selecting as a selected physical robot the second physical robot; in a second case that the second time interval is smaller, selecting as the selected physical robot the third physical robot.
Sisbot teaches upon call request to a servicing location, a collection of servers 124 (Sisbot, see at least Fig. 2, par. [0038]) is configured to select a physical robot 102 based on determining time required for each physical robot 102 to reach the servicing location, and dispatch the selected physical robot 102 having the faster time (Sisbot, see at least Figs. 1, 6A, par. [0029, 0051, 0074]).
In view of Sisbot’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to modify Shaw’s system by applying the teachings of Sisbot so that a robot is chosen based on faster travel time to travel to a servicing location. This modification enables fast respond time to a servicing request made by the selected robot.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shaw and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Shaw and Sisbot further teaches wherein the collection of servers comprises a metaverse (Shaw, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0020, 0044, 0053], servers 101 collectively provide a shared virtual operating platform for multiple virtual appliances and guest operating systems and enable a plurality of different virtual machines (and guest operating systems) to be instantiated and run on computing devices and hardware hosting virtual infrastructure (e.g., robot 106 or mobile device 108)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shaw and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Shaw and Sisbot further teaches wherein the smart community comprises one or more homes, one or more retail businesses, one or more wholesale businesses, one or more factories, or one or more hospitals (Shaw, see at least par. [0025, 0027]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shaw and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Shaw and Sisbot further teaches server 101 is configured to receive location of the physical robots 106 based on sensor data, i.e., latitude/longitude coordinates of GPS data (Shaw, see at least par. [0020, 0022]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shaw and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Shaw and Sisbot further teaches wherein: the first physical robot is a first ground-mobile robot (Shaw, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0021], humanoid robot 106); the second physical robot is a second ground-mobile robot (Shaw, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0021], humanoid robot 106); and the third physical robot is a third ground-mobile robot (Shaw, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0021], humanoid robot 106).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Shaw and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Shaw and Sisbot further teaches wherein: the determining the first time interval is based upon a first distance between the first location and the second location; and the determining the second time interval is based upon a second distance between the first location and the third location (Sisbot, see at least par. [0072, 0074], determining the travel time for each robot unit 102 based on distances of possible navigation paths to reach the user).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw et al. (US 20200301725 A1, hereinafter “Shaw”) further in view of Sisbot et al. (US 20170285635 A1, hereinafter “Sisbot”) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Stadie et al. (US 20180276607 A1, hereinafter “Stadie”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Shaw and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 6. The combination of Shaw and Sisbot further teaches wherein: the determining the first time interval is further based upon a first movement speed of the second physical robot; and the determining the second time interval is further based upon a second movement speed of the third physical robot (Sisbot, see at least par. [0072, 0074], determining the travel time for each robot unit 102 based on the speed of each of the robot unit(s) 102).
The combination of Shaw and Sisbot fails to specifically teach to determine the travel time of the physical robot based on maximum speed of the physical robot.
Stadie teaches calculating “projected path time” to determine which physical robot is closer to the target based on a set of constraints and conditions, e.g. maximum velocity, turning radius, turning speed, maximum acceleration, maximum deceleration of the physical robot (Stadie, see at least par. [0130, 0134]).
In view of Stadie’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to modify the travel time and distance consideration of the combination of Shaw and Sisbot with Stadie’s teachings. This modification allows to mitigate congestion in a shared environment when making determinations about which robot should participate in which tasks for intelligent robots.
Claim 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw et al. (US 20200301725 A1, hereinafter “Shaw”) in view of Erhart et al. (US 20170282375 A1, hereinafter “Erhart”), and further in view of Sisbot et al. (US 20170285635 A1, hereinafter “Sisbot”).
Regarding claim 21, Shaw discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations (Shaw, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0090-0093]), the operations comprising:
obtaining first data from a first physical robot operating in a smart community (any community that utilizes computerized equipment is considered “smart”), the first data comprising a first location of the first physical robot (Shaw, see at least Figs. 1, 2A, par. [0021, 0022, 0037], “server 101 may receive information from each robot 106 in a geographic area (e.g., location, specifications, availability status)”);
obtaining second data from a second physical robot operating in the smart community, the second data comprising a second location of the second physical robot (Shaw, see at least Figs. 1, 2A, par. [0021, 0022, 0037], “server 101 may receive information from each robot 106 in a geographic area (e.g., location, specifications, availability status)”);
obtaining third data from a third physical robot operating in the smart community, the third data comprising a third location of the third physical robot (Shaw, see at least Figs. 1, 2A, par. [0021, 0022, 0037], “server 101 may receive information from each robot 106 in a geographic area (e.g., location, specifications, availability status)”);
obtaining a request for assistance from the first physical robot (Shaw, see at least Figs. 1, 2A, par. [0021, 0022, 0037], “server 101 may receive information from each robot 106 in a geographic area (e.g., location, specifications, availability status)”); and
responsive to obtaining the request for assistance:
selecting a physical robot (Shaw, see at least Fig. 2B, par. [0037, 0041], selecting physical robot based on whether the physical robot 106 within a certain distance from a location of a user, availability, and/or certain capability);
selecting a robot capability package for the selected physical robot (Shaw, see at least Figs. 2A, par. [0020, 0024, 0030, 0052], selecting a robot capability package, i.e. specifications and virtual machine including software package includes desired specifications and/or virtual machine, for the selected physical robot 106 based on event);
deploying the robot capability package to the selected physical robot (Shaw, see at least Figs. 2A, 2B, par. [0024, 0031], provide instructions to activate software package to configure and control the selected physical robot 106 to perform a physical task);
facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot using robot capability package (Shaw, see at least Figs. 1, 2A, 3, par. [0019, 0021, 0030], one or more servers 101 is configured to select and provide one or more specifications and virtual machine, i.e., software or hardware, to facilitate a modification of the selected physical robot 106), resulting in a customized physical robot (Shaw, see at least par. [0030], a customized physical robot with task-specific components, desired specifications, and virtual machine based on task or tasks to be performed), wherein the customization of the selected physical robot comprises a capability of performing a physical task (Shaw, see at least Fig. 2B, par. [0030], the server 101 is configured to determine desired specifications for physical robot 106 to perform a physical task, e.g. threshold height, reach, and maneuverability to perform all of the cleaning tasks) and a situation-based personality adapted for the physical task (Shaw, see at least Fig. 2B, par. [0026], “… an individual robot 106 or a group of robots 106 may be automatically instantiated, modified, evolved … based on, for example, location, time of day, user preference, special event trigger, and/or emergency (e.g., fire, medical emergency, robbery)”; par. [0020, 0044], the physical robot 106 is configured to have different identity based on the physical task, e.g., police officer, bank teller); and
directing the customized physical robot to the first location to aid the first physical robot in completing the physical task (Shaw, see at least Fig. 2B, par. [0031-0032], “In addition, server 101 may also transmit instructions to robot 106 to move from its current location to a destination location to perform the service”).
Shaw teaches a fleet of physical robot but fails to specifically teach determining a first time interval that would be required for the second physical robot to reach the first physical robot at the first location; determining a second time interval that would be required for the third physical robot to reach the first physical robot at the first location; determining which of the first time interval and the second time interval is smaller; in a first case that the first time interval is smaller, selecting as a selected physical robot the second physical robot; in a second case that the second time interval is smaller, selecting as the selected physical robot the third physical robot; an app store.
Erhart teaches a robot application store for providing a robot capability package, i.e. a set of instruction software 110, for the physical robot 102/310 to perform a physical task (Erhart, see at least Figs. 1, 3, par. [0117, 0154]).
In view of Erhart’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to modify Shaw’s system by applying the teachings of Erhart to select a robot capability package for the selected physical robot from an app store. This modification allows a customer to modify a physical robot to perform the physical task.
Sisbot teaches upon call request to a servicing location, a collection of servers 124 (Sisbot, see at least Fig. 2, par. [0038]) is configured to select a physical robot 102 based on determining time required for each physical robot 102 to reach the servicing location, and dispatch the selected physical robot 102 having the faster time (Sisbot, see at least Figs. 1, 6A, par. [0029, 0051, 0074]).
In view of Sisbot’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to modify Shaw’s system by applying the teachings of Sisbot so that a robot is chosen based on faster travel time to travel to a servicing location. This modification enables fast respond time to a servicing request made by the selected robot.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Shaw, Erhart, and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above. The combination of Shaw, Erhart, and Sisbot further teaches wherein the smart community comprises one or more homes, one or more retail businesses, one or more wholesale businesses, one or more factories, or one or more hospitals (Shaw, see at least par. [0025, 0027]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Shaw, Erhart, and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above. The combination of Shaw, Erhart, and Sisbot further teaches information location of the physical robots 106 based on sensor data, i.e., latitude/longitude coordinates of GPS data (Shaw, see at least par. [0020, 0022]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Shaw, Erhart, and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above. The combination of Shaw, Erhart, and Sisbot further teaches wherein: the first physical robot is a first ground-mobile robot (Shaw, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0021], humanoid robot 106); the second physical robot is a second ground-mobile robot (Shaw, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0021], humanoid robot 106); and the third physical robot is a third ground-mobile robot (Shaw, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0021], humanoid robot 106).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Shaw, Erhart, and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above. The combination of Shaw, Erhart, and Sisbot further teaches wherein: the determining the first time interval is based upon a first distance between the first location and the second location; and the determining the second time interval is based upon a second distance between the first location and the third location (Sisbot, see at least par. [0072, 0074], determining the travel time for each robot unit 102 based on distances of possible navigation paths to reach the user).
Claim 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw et al. (US 20200301725 A1, hereinafter “Shaw”) in view of Erhart et al. (US 20170282375 A1, hereinafter “Erhart”), in view of Sisbot et al. (US 20170285635 A1, hereinafter “Sisbot”) as applied to claims 21 and 25 above, and further in view of Stadie et al. (US 20180276607 A1, hereinafter “Stadie”).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Shaw, Erhart, and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claims 21 and 25 as discussed above. The combination of Shaw, Erhart, and Sisbot further teaches wherein: the determining the first time interval is further based upon a first movement speed of the second physical robot; and the determining the second time interval is further based upon a second movement speed of the third physical robot (Sisbot, see at least par. [0072, 0074], determining the travel time for each robot unit 102 based on the speed of each of the robot unit(s) 102).
The combination of Shaw, Erhart, and Sisbot fails to teach to determine the travel time of the physical robot based on maximum speed of the physical robot.
Stadie teaches calculating “projected path time” to determine which physical robot is closer to the target based on a set of constraints and conditions, e.g. maximum velocity, turning radius, turning speed, maximum acceleration, maximum deceleration of the physical robot (Stadie, see at least par. [0130, 0134]).
In view of Stadie’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to modify the travel time and distance consideration of the combination of Shaw, Sisbot, and Erhart with Stadie’s teachings. This modification allows to mitigate congestion in a shared environment when making determinations about which robot should participate in which tasks for intelligent robots.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Shaw, Erhart, Sisbot, and Stadie teaches all the limitations of claims 21, 25 and 26 as discussed above. The combination of Shaw, Erhart, Sisbot, and Stadie further teaches wherein: the determining the second time interval is further based upon a second maximum movement speed of the third physical robot (Stadie, see at least par. [0130, 0134], calculating “projected path time” to determine which physical robot is closer to the target based on a set of constraints and conditions, e.g. maximum velocity, turning radius, turning speed, maximum acceleration, maximum deceleration of the physical robot).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG DANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1049. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 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.
/TRANG DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights