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.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Amendments filed 02/05/2026 have been entered and fully considered as below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 to claims 1-7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that the references do not teach facilitating customization of the robots in accordance with user profile. Applicant argued that the references do not teach profile-based customization of the selected robot’s operation. This argument is not persuasive because applicant’s original specification failed to provide explicit support for how profile-based customization of selected robot is done. Paragraph 0039 of applicant’s specification indicates that customization based on user profile is the result of using different software services by the robot. Paragraph 0038 generally mentioned “customization” without providing what specific of how customization via user profile is done after the selection of the selected robot. The claimed invention is mainly concerned with picking a robot with shortest traveling time to a requested robot for aid and not based on any customization. There is no disclosure of dynamic reprogramming, personality tailoring, or profile-driven from a server collection to customize the selected robot for particular user from the original specification. Contrary to applicant arguments, reference to High does disclose that each specialized robot 22 is uniquely identified and customized via corresponding software provided by a collection of servers. High teaches that each selected robot is associated with unique ID “user profile” corresponding to unique identification and associated technician software task (see at least paragraph [0024]). Therefore, the rejection under 35 US 103 to claims 1-7 are maintained as discussed below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 to claims 21-33 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.
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 provides the claim limitation, “in a first case that the first time interval is smaller, selecting as a selected physical robot the second physical robot, wherein the second physical robot is associated with a first user profile; in a second case that the second time interval is smaller, selecting as the selected physical robot the third physical robot, wherein the third physical robot is associated with a second user profile”, 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. The specification failed to provide specific support for “… selecting as a selected physical robot the second physical robot, wherein the second physical robot is associated with a first user profile … selecting a selected physical robot the third physical robot, wherein the third physical robot is associated with a second user profile...” The original specification and drawings only mentioned the selection of the third robot when the time travel is shorter. The specification does not have specific support for selecting robot based on user profile. It is not known from the original specification how user profile is being applied in the robot selection process. Based on the specification, the robot selection process is done without associating with user profile. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
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, in accordance with the respective user profile associated with the selected physical robot, resulting in a customized physical robot”, 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. Paragraph 0039 of the specification does not specifically support how “… facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot…in accordance with the respective user profile associated with the selected physical robot…”. The specification does not provide specific customization steps for the selected robot based on user profile. 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 is customized to a user profile. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 21, 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 facilitating the customization comprises interacting with a service management and orchestration (SMO) component including one or more rApps to perform configure and publish functions with at least one intelligent controller associated with the collection of servers, wherein the collection of servers comprises a metaverse”, 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 “… facilitating the customization comprises interacting with a service management and orchestration (SMO) component including one or more rApps to perform configure and publish functions with at least one intelligent controller associated with the collection of servers …” There is no detail from the specification describing how the interacting with the SMO and associated components would facilitate customization of the robot. The specification does not describe what is “configure and publish functions” and how configure and publish functions facilitate customization of the robot. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 28, the Applicant provides the claim limitation, “facilitating, by the processing system, 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 processing system is a smart home controller or a smart business controller, wherein the one or more software services provided by a collection of servers comprises a service management and orchestration (SMO) component, wherein the processing system and the SMO component each are in bi-directional communication with a smart community controller, and wherein the facilitating the customization comprises the processing system obtaining customization data from the SMO component, via the smart community controller, and providing the customization data to the selected physical robot for customization thereof”, 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 “… facilitating, by the processing system … wherein the processing system is a smart home controller or a smart business controller … facilitating the customization comprises the processing system obtaining customization data from the SMO component, via the smart community controller, and providing the customization data to the selected physical robot for customization thereof …” There is no detail from the specification describing how the smart home controller or the smart business controller facilitate customization of the robot by obtaining customization data from the SMO component and providing the customization data to the selected physical robot. 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, it is not known which first profile or second profile the claim is referring. In addition, it appears that paragraph 0039 of the specification only supports the first user profile being associated with the first physical robot and not with the second robot. Similarly, the second user profile being associated with the second physical robot and not with the third robot. Therefore, this renders the claim scope unclear and indistinct. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 21, the Applicant provides the claim limitation, “wherein facilitating the customization comprises interacting with a service management and orchestration (SMO) component including one or more rApps to perform configure and publish functions with at least one intelligent controller associated with the collection of servers”, however, based on the currently provided claim limitations, the metes and bounds of the claimed phrase “… facilitating the customization comprises interacting with a service management and orchestration (SMO) component including one or more rApps to perform configure and publish functions with at least one intelligent controller associated with the collection of servers …” cannot be ascertained because the specification is silent as to the specifics of how interacting with the SMO and associated components would facilitate customization of the robot. It is not clear what interaction encompasses in regards to facilitating customization of the selected robot. The claim is therefore indistinct. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 28, the Applicant provides the claim limitation, “facilitating, by the processing system, 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 processing system is a smart home controller or a smart business controller, wherein the one or more software services provided by a collection of servers comprises a service management and orchestration (SMO) component, wherein the processing system and the SMO component each are in bi-directional communication with a smart community controller, and wherein the facilitating the customization comprises the processing system obtaining customization data from the SMO component, via the smart community controller, and providing the customization data to the selected physical robot for customization thereof”, however, based on the currently provided claim limitations, the metes and bounds of the claimed phrase “… facilitating, by the processing system … wherein the processing system is a smart home controller or a smart business controller … the facilitating the customization comprises the processing system obtaining customization data from the SMO component, via the smart community controller, and providing the customization data to the selected physical robot for customization thereof” cannot be ascertained because the specification is silent as to the specifics of how the smart home controller or the smart business controller would facilitate customization of the robot by obtaining data from the SMO component via the smart community controller. It is not clear what smart home, smart business and smart community encompass in regards to facilitating customization of the selected robot. 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, 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High et al. (US 20190389064 A1, hereinafter “High”), and further in view of Sisbot et al. (US 20170285635 A1, hereinafter “Sisbot”).
Regarding claim 1, High discloses a device comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions (High, see at least Fig. 1 – a diagnostic device or diagnostic component 12 or a central server 14 with inherent memory and software) that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining first data from a first physical robot 10 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 (High, see at least par. [0016], “…diagnostic component 12 may communicate to the central server 14 … the location of the robot 10 …”);
obtaining second data from a second physical robot 22 operating in the smart community, the second data comprising a second location of the second physical robot (High, see at least par. [0025, 0027, 0016], fleet of servicing robot 22 is constructed per robot 10 and robot 10 can identify and communicate its location);
obtaining third data from a third physical robot 22 operating in the smart community, the third data comprising a third location of the third physical robot (High, see at least par. [0023, 0025, 0027, 0016], fleet of servicing robot 22 is constructed per robot 10 and the robot 10 comprising servicing alignment engine 18 configured to monitor locations of the fleet of servicing robot 22);
obtaining a request for assistance from the first physical robot 10 (High, see at least par. [0026], “… robot 10 may send a request to the central server …”); and responsive to obtaining the request for assistance: selecting a physical robot 22; wherein the second physical robot is associated with a first user profile; wherein the third physical robot is associated with a second user profile (High, see at least par. [0024], each selected robot is associated with unique ID “user profile” corresponding to unique identification and associated technician software task);
facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot using one or more software services provided by a server 14, in accordance with the respective user profile associated with the selected physical robot (High, see at least par. [0024], each selected robot is associated with unique ID “user profile” corresponding to unique identification and associated technician software task), resulting in a customized physical robot; and directing the customized physical robot to the first location to aid the first physical robot in completing a task (High, see at least par. [0026, 0027], “… the auxiliary robot 22 may navigate to … robot 10 in need of servicing…”, “…there may be a fleet of auxiliary robots 22 where each auxiliary robot 22 is equipped to perform a particular action or service (e.g., a recharging robot, a debugging robot, an equipment repair robot, etc.) or a subset of actions or services…”; par. [0026] teaches that each specialized robot 22 is customized via corresponding software provided by server (par. [0029], “auxiliary robot 22 may have mirror component…component may be located on a remote server…”)).
High teaches fleet of servicing robots 22 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; facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot using one or more software services provided by a collection of servers.
Sisbot teaches upon call request to a servicing location, e.g., a user’s location, a collection of servers 124 (Sisbot, see at least Fig. 2, par. [0038]) is configured to determine time required for each robot unit 102 to reach the servicing location and send a selected robot unit 102 having the faster travel time (Sisbot, see at least Figs. 1, 6A, par. [0029, 0051, 0074]); the collection of servers 124 is configured to further assign the selected robot unit 102 to the user based on user profile 228 using guidance engine 112 (Sisbot, see at least Figs. 1, 2A, par. [0038, 0042, 0047, 0061]).
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 High’s system by applying the teachings of Sisbot so that a robot is chosen based on faster travel time and user’s profile to travel to a servicing location. This modification enables fast respond time to a servicing request made by the selected robot.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of High and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of High 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 (High, see at least par. [0020], a warehouse or retail store).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of High and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of High and Sisbot further teaches wherein: the first physical robot is a first ground-mobile robot (High, see at least par. [0010], “The robot 10 may be ... any vehicle or device that operates autonomously …”); the second physical robot is a second ground-mobile robot; and the third physical robot is a third ground-mobile robot (High, see at least par. [0027], “... there may be a fleet of auxiliary robots 22 where each auxiliary robot 22 is equipped to perform a particular action or service (e.g., a recharging robot, a debugging robot, an equipment repair robot, etc.) or a subset of actions or services”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of High and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of High 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High et al. (US 20190389064 A1, hereinafter “High”) further in view of Sisbot et al. (US 20170285635 A1, hereinafter “Sisbot”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hartmann et al. (US 20250144812 A1, hereinafter “Hartmann”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of High and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of High and Sisbot fails to specifically teach wherein the collection of servers comprises a metaverse.
Hartmann teaches a collection of servers comprises a metaverse for an operator to remotely control a robot (Hartmann, see at least Figs. 1, 7, par. [0050, 0052, 0142, 0173, 0175]). In view of Hartmann’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 combination of High and Sisbot by applying the teachings of Hartmann so that a collection of servers comprises a metaverse. This modification would allow to enable the operator to efficiently control the automated process in a hands-free manner.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High et al. (US 20190389064 A1, hereinafter “High”) further in view of Sisbot et al. (US 20170285635 A1, hereinafter “Sisbot”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jau et al. (US 12203773 B1, hereinafter “Jau”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of High and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of High and Sisbot further teaches diagnostic component 12 of the physical robot 10/22 configured to communicate location of the first physical robot 10/the fleet of physical robot 22 (e.g. with GPS) to the user 16 (High, see at least par. [0021]), but fails to specifically teach wherein: the first location is indicated in the first data as first latitude/longitude coordinates, as a first postal address, as a first specific room in a building, or as a first combination thereof; the second location is indicated in the second data as second latitude/longitude coordinates, as a second postal address, as a second specific room in a building, or as a second combination thereof; the third location is indicated in the third data as third latitude/longitude coordinates, as a third postal address, as a third specific room in a building, or as a third combination thereof.
Jau teaches determining a position of an autonomous ground vehicle, e.g., a latitude and a longitude corresponding to a ground-based position of the autonomous ground vehicle, or a latitude, a longitude and an elevation of a position of the autonomous ground vehicle in three-dimensional space based on a geocode or other data regarding a location of the autonomous ground vehicle at an associated level of accuracy or tolerance, including but not limited to one or more GPS sensors (Jau, see at least col. 9, lines 17-40, col. 15, lines 27-39).
In view of Jau’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 combination of High and Sisbot to include wherein: the first location is indicated in the first data as first latitude/longitude coordinates; the second location is indicated in the second data as second latitude/longitude coordinates; the third location is indicated in the third data as third latitude/longitude coordinates with Jau’s teachings. This modification would allow to determine location of physical robot at a specific point to within a certain degree of accuracy or tolerance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High et al. (US 20190389064 A1, hereinafter “High”) 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 High and Sisbot teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 6. The combination of High 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 High 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 High and Sisbot with Stadie’s teachings. This modification would allow to mitigate congestion in a shared environment when making determinations about which robot should participate in which tasks for intelligent robots.
Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 28-30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High et al. (US 20190389064 A1, hereinafter “High”), in view of Sisbot et al. (US 20170285635 A1, hereinafter “Sisbot”), and further in view of Thyagaturu et al. (US 20230006889 A1, hereinafter “Thyagaturu”).
Regarding claim 21, High discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor (High, see at least Figs. 1 – a diagnostic device or diagnostic component 12 or a central server 14 with inherent hardware, memory and software), facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining first data from a first physical robot 10 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 (High, see at least par. [0016], “…diagnostic component 12 may communicate to the central server 14 … the location of the robot 10 …”);
obtaining second data from a second physical robot 22 operating in the smart community, the second data comprising a second location of the second physical robot (High, see at least par. [0025, 0027, 0016], fleet of servicing robot 22 is constructed per robot 10 and robot 10 can identify and communicate its location);
obtaining third data from a third physical robot 22 operating in the smart community, the third data comprising a third location of the third physical robot (High, see at least par. [0023, 0025, 0027, 0016], fleet of servicing robot 22 is constructed per robot 10 and the robot 10 comprising servicing alignment engine 18 configured to monitor locations of the fleet of servicing robot 22);
obtaining a request for assistance from the first physical robot 10 (High, see at least par. [0026], “…robot 10 may send a request to the central server …”); and responsive to obtaining the request for assistance: selecting a physical robot 22 (High, see at least par. [0024], each selected robot is associated with unique ID “user profile” corresponding to unique identification and associated technician software task)
facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot using one or more software services provided by a server 14 collection of servers, resulting in a customized physical robot; and directing the customized physical robot to the first location to aid the first physical robot in completing a task (High, see at least par. [0026, 0027], “… the auxiliary robot 22 may navigate to … robot 10 in need of servicing…”, “…there may be a fleet of auxiliary robots 22 where each auxiliary robot 22 is equipped to perform a particular action or service (e.g., a recharging robot, a debugging robot, an equipment repair robot, etc.) or a subset of actions or services…”; par. [0026] teaches that each specialized robot 22 is customized via corresponding software provided by server (par. [0029], “auxiliary robot 22 may have mirror component…component may be located on a remote server…”)).
High fails to explicitly 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; facilitating a customization of the selected physical robot using one or more software services provided by a collection of servers; wherein facilitating the customization comprises interacting with a service management and orchestration (SMO) component including one or more rApps to perform configure and publish functions with at least one intelligent controller associated with the collection of servers, wherein the collection of servers comprises a metaverse.
Sisbot teaches upon call request to a servicing location, e.g., a user’s location, a collection of servers 124 (Sisbot, see at least Fig. 2, par. [0038]) is configured to determine time required for each robot unit 102 to reach the servicing location and send a selected robot unit 102 having the faster travel time (Sisbot, see at least Figs. 1, 6A, par. [0029, 0051, 0074]); the collection of servers 124 is configured to further assign the selected robot unit 102 to the user based on user profile 228 using guidance engine 112 (Sisbot, see at least Figs. 1, 2A, par. [0038, 0042, 0047, 0061]).
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 High’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.
The combination of High and Sisbot fails to explicitly teach wherein facilitating the customization comprises interacting with a service management and orchestration (SMO) component including one or more rApps to perform configure and publish functions with at least one intelligent controller associated with the collection of servers, wherein the collection of servers comprises a metaverse.
Thyagaturu teaches an endpoint device 610, i.e., a robot (Thyagaturu, see at least Figs. 2, 6, 10, par. [0030, 0292]) is in communication with an intelligent server 640 with SMO 645 and rApp via one or more radio access networks 620 (Thyagaturu, see at least Figs. 2, 6, 10, par. [0056, 0102]), wherein the SMO is in communication with a collection of servers comprises augmented reality/virtual reality 1132/1134 to fulfill requests and responses for various endpoint devices 1110 (Thyagaturu, see at least Fig. 11, par. [0170-0175]).
In view of Thyagaturu’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 combination of High and Sisbot to include, wherein facilitating the customization comprises interacting with a service management and orchestration (SMO) component including one or more rApps to perform configure and publish functions with at least one intelligent controller associated with the collection of servers, wherein the collection of servers comprises a metaverse. This modification enables communication between multiple endpoint devices and a collection of servers comprises a metaverse.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu teaches all the limitations of claim 21. The combination of High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu 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 (High, see at least par. [0020], a warehouse or retail store).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu teaches all the limitations of claim 21. The combination of High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu further teaches wherein: the first physical robot is a first ground-mobile robot (High, see at least par. [0010], “The robot 10 may be ... any vehicle or device that operates autonomously …”); the second physical robot is a second ground-mobile robot; and the third physical robot is a third ground-mobile robot (High, see at least par. [0027], “... there may be a fleet of auxiliary robots 22 where each auxiliary robot 22 is equipped to perform a particular action or service (e.g., a recharging robot, a debugging robot, an equipment repair robot, etc.) or a subset of actions or services”).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu teaches all the limitations of claim 21. The combination of High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu 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).
Regarding claim 28, High discloses a method (High, see at least par. [0005], “… a method for supporting an autonomous robot …”) comprising:
obtaining, by a processing system including a processor (High, see at least Fig. 1 – a diagnostic device or diagnostic component 12 or a central server 14 with inherent memory and software), first data from a first physical robot 10 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 (High, see at least par. [0016], “…diagnostic component 12 may communicate to the central server 14 … the location of the robot 10 …”);
obtaining, by the processing system, second data from a second physical robot 22 operating in the smart community, the second data comprising a second location of the second physical robot (High, see at least par. [0025, 0027, 0016], fleet of servicing robot 22 is constructed per robot 10 and robot 10 can identify and communicate its location);
obtaining, by the processing system, third data from a third physical robot 22 operating in the smart community, the third data comprising a third location of the third physical robot (High, see at least par. [0023, 0025, 0027, 0016], fleet of servicing robot 22 is constructed per robot 10 and the robot 10 comprising servicing alignment engine 18 configured to monitor locations of the fleet of servicing robot 22);
obtaining, by the processing system, a request for assistance from the first physical robot 10 (High, see at least par. [0026], “… robot 10 may send a request to the central server …”); and responsive to obtaining the request for assistance: selecting a physical robot 22; facilitating, by the processing system, a customization of the selected physical robot using one or more software services provided by a server 14, resulting in a customized physical robot; and directing, by the processing system, the customized physical robot to the first location to aid the first physical robot in completing a task (High, see at least par. [0026, 0027], “… the auxiliary robot 22 may navigate to … robot 10 in need of servicing…”, “…there may be a fleet of auxiliary robots 22 where each auxiliary robot 22 is equipped to perform a particular action or service (e.g., a recharging robot, a debugging robot, an equipment repair robot, etc.) or a subset of actions or services…”; par. [0026] teaches that each specialized robot 22 is customized via corresponding software provided by server (par. [0029], “auxiliary robot 22 may have mirror component…component may be located on a remote server…”)), wherein the processing system is a smart business controller (High, see at least Fig. 1 – a diagnostic device or diagnostic component 12 or a central server 14 with inherent hardware and software; par. [0020], a warehouse or retail store that utilizes computerized equipment is considered “smart”).
High fails to explicitly teach determining, by the processing system, a first time interval that would be required for the second physical robot to reach the first physical robot at the first location, wherein the determining the first time interval is based upon a first distance between the first location and the second location; determining, by the processing system, a second time interval that would be required for the third physical robot to reach the first physical robot at the first location, wherein the determining the second time interval is based upon a second distance between the first location and the third location; determining, by the processing system, 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, by the processing system, as a selected physical robot the second physical robot; in a second case that the second time interval is smaller, selecting, by the processing system, as the selected physical robot the third physical robot; facilitating, by the processing system, a customization of the selected physical robot using one or more software services provided by a collection of servers, wherein the one or more software services provided by a collection of servers comprises a service management and orchestration (SMO) component, wherein the processing system and the SMO component each are in bi-directional communication with a smart community controller, and wherein the facilitating the customization comprises the processing system obtaining customization data from the SMO component, via the smart community controller, and providing the customization data to the selected physical robot for customization thereof.
Sisbot teaches upon call request to a servicing location, e.g., a user’s location, a collection of servers 124 (Sisbot, see at least Fig. 2, par. [0038]) is configured to determine time required for each robot unit 102 to reach the servicing location and send a selected robot unit 102 having the faster travel time (Sisbot, see at least Figs. 1, 6A, par. [0029, 0051, 0074]); the collection of servers 124 is configured to further assign the selected robot unit 102 to the user based on user profile 228 using guidance engine 112 (Sisbot, see at least Figs. 1, 2A, par. [0038, 0042, 0047, 0061]).
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 High’s system by applying the teachings of Sisbot so that a robot is chosen based on faster travel time and user’s profile to travel to a servicing location. This modification enables fast respond time to a servicing request made by the selected robot.
The combination of High and Sisbot fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more software services provided by a collection of servers comprises a service management and orchestration (SMO) component, wherein the processing system and the SMO component each are in bi-directional communication with a smart community controller, and wherein the facilitating the customization comprises the processing system obtaining customization data from the SMO component, via the smart community controller, and providing the customization data to the selected physical robot for customization thereof.
Thyagaturu teaches an endpoint device 610, i.e., a robot (Thyagaturu, see at least Figs. 2, 6, 10, par. [0030, 0292]) is in communication with an intelligent server 640 with SMO 645 and rApp via one or more radio access networks 620 (Thyagaturu, see at least Figs. 2, 6, 10, par. [0056, 0102]), wherein the SMO is in communication with a collection of servers comprises augmented reality/virtual reality 1132/1134 to fulfill requests and responses for various endpoint devices 1110 (Thyagaturu, see at least Fig. 11, par. [0170-0175]).
In view of Thyagaturu’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 combination of High and Sisbot to include, wherein facilitating the customization comprises interacting with a service management and orchestration (SMO) component including one or more rApps to perform configure and publish functions with at least one intelligent controller associated with the collection of servers, wherein the collection of servers comprises a metaverse. This modification enables communication between multiple endpoint devices and a collection of servers comprises a metaverse.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of High, Sisbot, and Thyagaturu teaches all the limitations of claim 28. The combination of High, Sisbot, and Thyagaturu further teaches wherein the collection of servers comprises a metaverse (Thyagaturu, see at least Fig. 11, par. [0170-0175], the SMO is in communication with a collection of servers comprises augmented reality/virtual reality 1132/1134 to fulfill requests and responses for various endpoint devices 1110).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of High, Sisbot, and Thyagaturu teaches all the limitations of claim 28. The combination of High, Sisbot, and Thyagaturu 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 (High, see at least par. [0020], a warehouse or retail store).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of High, Sisbot, and Thyagaturu teaches all the limitations of claim 28. The combination of High, Sisbot, and Thyagaturu further teaches wherein: the first physical robot is a first ground-mobile robot (High, see at least par. [0010], “The robot 10 may be ... any vehicle or device that operates autonomously …”); the second physical robot is a second ground-mobile robot; and the third physical robot is a third ground-mobile robot (High, see at least par. [0027], “... there may be a fleet of auxiliary robots 22 where each auxiliary robot 22 is equipped to perform a particular action or service (e.g., a recharging robot, a debugging robot, an equipment repair robot, etc.) or a subset of actions or services”).
Claims 23 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High et al. (US 20190389064 A1, hereinafter “High”), in view of Sisbot et al. (US 20170285635 A1, hereinafter “Sisbot”), in view of Thyagaturu et al. (US 20230006889 A1, hereinafter “Thyagaturu”) as applied to claims 21 and 28 above, and further in view of Jau et al. (US 12203773 B1, hereinafter “Jau”).
Regarding claims 23 and 31, the combination of High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu further teaches diagnostic component 12 of the physical robot 10/22 configured to communicate location of the first physical robot 10/the fleet of physical robot 22 (e.g. with GPS) to the user 16 (High, see at least par. [0021]), but fails to specifically teach wherein: the first location is indicated in the first data as first latitude/longitude coordinates, as a first postal address, as a first specific room in a building, or as a first combination thereof; the second location is indicated in the second data as second latitude/longitude coordinates, as a second postal address, as a second specific room in a building, or as a second combination thereof; the third location is indicated in the third data as third latitude/longitude coordinates, as a third postal address, as a third specific room in a building, or as a third combination thereof.
Jau teaches determining a position of an autonomous ground vehicle, e.g., a latitude and a longitude corresponding to a ground-based position of the autonomous ground vehicle, or a latitude, a longitude and an elevation of a position of the autonomous ground vehicle in three-dimensional space based on a geocode or other data regarding a location of the autonomous ground vehicle at an associated level of accuracy or tolerance, including but not limited to one or more GPS sensors (Jau, see at least col. 9, lines 17-40, col. 15, lines 27-39).
In view of Jau’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 combination of High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu to include wherein: the first location is indicated in the first data as first latitude/longitude coordinates; the second location is indicated in the second data as second latitude/longitude coordinates; the third location is indicated in the third data as third latitude/longitude coordinates with Jau’s teachings. This modification would allow to determine location of physical robot at a specific point to within a certain degree of accuracy or tolerance.
Claims 26-27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High et al. (US 20190389064 A1, hereinafter “High”), in view of Sisbot et al. (US 20170285635 A1, hereinafter “Sisbot”), in view of Thyagaturu et al. (US 20230006889 A1, hereinafter “Thyagaturu”) 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 High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu teaches the limitations of claims 21 and 25. The combination High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu further teaches wherein: the determining the first time interval is further based upon a first movement speed of the second 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 High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu 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 High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu with Stadie’s teachings. This modification would allow 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 High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu teaches the limitations of claims 21 and 25. The combination High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu further teaches wherein: the determining the second time interval is further based upon a second maximum 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 High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu 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 High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu with Stadie’s teachings. This modification would allow to mitigate congestion in a shared environment when making determinations about which robot should participate in which tasks for intelligent robots.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu teaches the limitations of claim 28. The combination High, Sisbot and Thyagaturu 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).
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 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