DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9-10, filed 11/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1, 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the newly amended limitations of the independent claims. Applicant argues that Sanchez’s transitions do not qualify as an initial singular action associated with commands causing parts to move together. Regardless of whether this is the case, Examiner argues that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Sanchez nonetheless teaches these limitations. In Sanchez, the user specifies the series of events (actions) and controls their execution (conditions of the actions). These events are translated to the graph, which is an abstraction of the series of events input by the user. The graph is implemented through Petri Nets with Active Transitions, which is ultimately an abstraction of the user-defined actions and reactions. In the example shown in Fig. 5, the initial singular action may be the events occurring between AT7 and AT8, while the plurality of subsequent actions may be DA14 and DA15. During a "first tick," agent 300A executes DA.sub.11 and DA.sub.13 while agent 300B executes DA.sub.12 (i.e. the robots move together). Once these actions are satisfied (determining that the initial singular action is satisfied), Transition AT.sub.8 activates, which causes agent 300A to execute DA.sub.14 while agent 300B does nothing. Once DA.sub.14 is complete, transition AT.sub.9 is activated and agent 300B executes DA.sub.15 while agent 300A does nothing. DA.sub.14 and DA.sub.15 are a plurality of actions in which the robots move independently of each other (plurality of subsequent user defined actions). The above will be elaborated in the rejections to follow.
Response to Amendment
In Applicant’s submission dated 8/11/2026, claim 19 is labeled as (Previously Presented), but the claim language has been amended. Examiner assumes that the (Previously Presented) label was made in error, and that the claim is meant to be labeled (Currently Amended). The language marked in the 8/11/2026 version of claim 19 will be entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 13 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.
Claims 4 and 13 recite, in relevant part,
… wherein the initial singular action is associated with commands that cause the plurality of parts of the robot to move together,
and wherein each of the plurality of actions is associated with one or more respective commands that cause each part of the plurality of parts of the robot to move independently.
It is unclear what the above plurality of actions refers to. Independent claims 1 and 10 introduce an initial singular action and a plurality of subsequent user defined actions. It is unclear whether the plurality of actions of claims 4 and 13 refers to the plurality of subsequent user defined actions, or if the plurality of actions includes both the plurality of subsequent user defined actions and the initial singular action. For the above reasons, the claims are indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims each recite, in relevant part,
… wherein the initial singular action is associated with commands that cause the plurality of parts of the robot to move together,
and wherein each of the plurality of actions is associated with one or more respective commands that cause each part of the plurality of parts of the robot to move independently.
Examiner notes that claims 1 and 10 (the claims from which claims 4 and 13 depend, respectively) recite, in relevant part,
…wherein the initial singular action is associated with commands that cause the plurality of parts of the robot to move together
and wherein each of the plurality of subsequent user-defined actions is associated with one or more respective commands that cause each part of the plurality of parts of the robot to move independently
The above passages from the independent claims are substantially identical to the above passages from the dependent claims. The only distinction is that the dependent claims refer to the “ plurality of subsequent user-defined actions” introduced in the independent claims simply as “plurality of actions” See rejections above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez (US 20210197394 A1) in view of Scholan (US 20230390009 A1) and Shah (US-20200276708-A1).
Claim 1
Sanchez teaches
receiving user input that specifies:
(i) a real-time session with a robot …
(Sanchez - [0019] The present development provides a system (100) implementing a multi-agent BDI architecture to control robotic devices (200), operating in a work area (700), in a concurrent and cooperative manner.
[0065] According to the present development, the system (100) disclosed herein further comprises an interpreting BDI agent (500) through which a user can interact with the system (100), define the series of events (900), control it in an asynchronous manner and receive information in real-time on their execution. According to a preferred embodiment, the interaction between the user and the interpreting BDI agent (500) is intuitively conducted by using natural language, whereby the user does not need specific technical knowledge. The interpreting BDI agent (500) comprises an authoring module (510) that has a user interface (511) through which the user of the system (100) specifies the series of events (900).)
EXAMINER NOTE: The user interacts with the interpreting BDI agent in real time through an interface. Because the interpreting BDI agent communicates with the system in real time, this indicates the existence of a real-time session.
… robot having a plurality of parts,
(Sanchez - [0021] … Finally, the lowest level of abstraction corresponds to the signals that executing BDI agents (300) send to robotic devices (200) to activate their actuators (210).
[0079] In the case of robotic drama, robots can be anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, or otherwise. Actuators usually move parts that resemble arms, legs and fingers, although it is also very common for the main locomotion mechanism to be wheels.
[0043] … For example, two robotic devices synchronize their actions to build a brick wall. The first robotic device is responsible for spreading the cement and the second device is responsible for placing the bricks. When the first robotic device finishes its task, it informs the second robotic device to place the bricks. When the second robotic device finishes placing the bricks, it informs the other device to spread another layer of cement.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Each of the above passages indicates the presence of robots having a plurality of parts.
(ii) code defining an initial singular action and a plurality of subsequent user- defined actions,
(Sanchez - [0021] As shown in FIG. 1, the system (100) disclosed herein is characterized in that it comprises one or more executing BDI agents (300) in charge of controlling actions of robotic devices (200) so that it may execute the series of events, a director BDI agent (400) responsible for configuring each executing BDI agent (300) and monitoring the execution of actions they execute, and an interpreting BDI agent (500) through which a user of the system defines the series of events, monitors its status and progress, and sets control instructions. FIGS. 2 to 4 show detailed diagrams of the system (100) wherein each module constituting BDI agents (300, 400, 500), robotic devices (200) and the communication channel (610, 620, 630) are identified.)
EXAMINER NOTE: A "series of events" indicates the presence of at least two events (actions). In the context of a robotic environment, control instructions are conveyed to the robotic device through machine code, which is derived and specified from user input. Initial singular action and a plurality of subsequent user-defined actions are discussed in the following citation.
wherein the initial singular action is associated with commands that cause the plurality of parts of the robot to move together,
and wherein each of the plurality of subsequent user-defined actions is associated with one or more respective commands that cause each part of the plurality of parts of the robot to move independently
(Sanchez - [0045] - In FIG. 5, the transition AT.sub.2 will only activate after actions DA.sub.1 and DA.sub.2 have completed; at this moment, the execution of action DA.sub.3 will begin which, upon completion, will activate transition AT.sub.3, thereby simultaneously starting actions DA.sub.4, DA.sub.5 and DA.sub.6. Transition AT.sub.4 begins actions UA7, of undefined duration, and DA.sub.8, of defined duration. Action UA.sub.7 will be executed until the active transition AT.sub.5 orders its completion as the execution of the action of defined duration DA.sub.8 was completed or because subsequent actions UA.sub.9 and UA.sub.10 meet their activation conditions.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The above behavior extends to the events following AT.sub.6. See annotated Fig. 5 below. During the "first tick," agent 300A executes DA.sub.11 and DA.sub.13 while agent 300B executes DA.sub.12 (i.e. the robots move together). Once these actions are satisfied (determining that the initial singular action is satisfied), Transition AT.sub.8 activates, which causes agent 300A to execute DA.sub.14 while agent 300B does nothing. Once DA.sub.14 is complete, transition AT.sub.9 is activated and agent 300B executes DA.sub.15 while agent 300A does nothing . DA.sub.14 and DA.sub.15 are a plurality of actions in which the robots move independently of each other.
(iii) at least one custom reaction that specifies a condition of the initial singular action under which a real-time robotics control layer should initiate a real-time change in behavior involving the plurality of subsequent user-defined actions;
(Sanchez - [0008] … an interpreting BDI agent including an authoring module having a user interface through which system users specify the series of events and control their execution, a translation module translating the series of events to the graph, and a monitoring module of the execution of the series of events.
[0043] Thus, according to a preferred embodiment of the invention, the graph (910) is implemented through an extension of Petri Nets with Active Transitions. … The active transition nodes (AT) are used to synchronize actions in the series of events (900). This type of node has two main purposes: first, to synchronize actions that a single robotic device (200) must carry out. For example, a robotic device can fly over a field while taking pictures and releasing marking marks at specific locations, all at the same time. The second purpose of the active transition nodes (AT) is to synchronize actions executed by two or more robotic devices (200). For example, two robotic devices synchronize their actions to build a brick wall. The first robotic device is responsible for spreading the cement and the second device is responsible for placing the bricks. When the first robotic device finishes its task, it informs the second robotic device to place the bricks. When the second robotic device finishes placing the bricks, it informs the other device to spread another layer of cement.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The user specifies the series of events (actions) and controls their execution (conditions of the actions). These events are translated to the graph, which is an abstraction of the series of events input by the user. The graph is implemented through Petri Nets with Active Transitions, which is ultimately an abstraction of the user-defined actions and reactions. In the example shown in Fig. 5, the initial singular action may be the events occurring between AT7 and AT8, while the plurality of subsequent actions may be DA14 and DA15. See Annotated Fig. 5 below.
executing, by the real-time robotics control layer, a real-time session, including, at each tick of a real-time control cycle of the real-time session defined by the user input, …
(Sanchez - [0044] Action line nodes (DA, UA), which determine actions to be executed, have two types of duration: defined and undefined. Action line nodes (AD) of defined duration are associated with actions that run during a limited, predictable time interval. …)
EXAMINER NOTE: See Annotated Fig. 5 below. Action line nodes have a defined duration. This duration is essentially a time window (a tick).
PNG
media_image1.png
877
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
… performing operations comprising:
executing, during the real-time session defined by the user input, one or more respective commands for the initial singular action,
determining, by the real-time robotics control layer during the real-time session defined by the user input, whether the condition of the initial singular action is satisfied, and
in response to the real-time robotics control layer determining that the condition of the initial singular action is satisfied, switching, within the same real-time session defined by the user input, from executing the initial singular action during a current tick of the real-time control cycle of the real-time session to executing the plurality of subsequent user-defined actions on the next tick of the real- time control cycle during the same real-time session,
(Sanchez - [0045] - In FIG. 5, the transition AT.sub.2 will only activate after actions DA.sub.1 and DA.sub.2 have completed; at this moment, the execution of action DA.sub.3 will begin which, upon completion, will activate transition AT.sub.3, thereby simultaneously starting actions DA.sub.4, DA.sub.5 and DA.sub.6. Transition AT.sub.4 begins actions UA7, of undefined duration, and DA.sub.8, of defined duration. Action UA.sub.7 will be executed until the active transition AT.sub.5 orders its completion as the execution of the action of defined duration DA.sub.8 was completed or because subsequent actions UA.sub.9 and UA.sub.10 meet their activation conditions.)
EXAMINER NOTE: During the top interval (tick) between AT.sub.1 and AT.sub.2, DA.sub.1 is performed. Once DA.sub.1 and DA.sub.2 have completed (condition), DA.sub.3 begins during the next time interval (next tick). Because the time interval is "limited" (see [0044] cited above), it meets applicant's definition of a "tick" (see p.6, lines 5-12). Note that this behavior extends to the events happening from AT.sub.6 onwards. See annotated Fig. 5 above. During the "first tick," agent 300A executes DA.sub.11 and DA.sub.13 while agent 300B executes DA.sub.12 (i.e. the robots move together). Once these actions are satisfied (determining that the initial singular action is satisfied), Transition AT.sub.8 activates, which causes agent 300A to execute DA.sub.14 while agent 300B does nothing. Once DA.sub.14 is complete, transition AT.sub.9 is activated and agent 300B executes DA.sub.15 while agent 300A does nothing (i.e. switching to the plurality of actions in which the robots move independently of each other).
(Sanchez - [0007] The present development relates to a system implementing a multi-agent BDI architecture to control in real time, and in a concurrent and cooperative manner, robotic devices reproducing a series of events defined by a user.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The control is done in real time.
Sanchez alone may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, Scholan teaches
wherein the robot is configured to enter a fault state if one or more commands are not received from the real-time robotics control layer within each tick of the real-time control cycle of the real-time session.
(Scholan - [0044] … Specifically, the safety device 314 can prevent communications between the main controller 312 and one or more of the components 302, 304 (or parts or components thereof) when it has been detected that the surgical robot system 300 is in a fault state. In some cases, the components or devices in the system that communicate with the main controller 312 may be configured to: receive communications from the main controller at a predetermined interval or frequency, and automatically transition into a safe state if they cease to receive such communications for a period of time (e.g. a predetermined number of intervals). Accordingly, cutting off communication between the main controller and a component or device may automatically cause that component or device to transition to a safe state.)
While Sanchez and Scholan may not explicitly state that the real-time session is defined by user input, this aspect is notoriously well-known in the art. As an example, Shah teaches a system wherein a user interacts with a device to provide inputs and start a control session.
(Shah - [0016] … The user 105 interacts with the robot simulation server 130 using the primary client device 110 in order to initialize, customize, begin, run, and monitor a robot simulation session. … The users 120 interact with the robot simulation server 130 using the user-controlled client devices 115, for instance by providing inputs to control the robot via the user-controlled client devices 115.
[0019] It should be noted that in various embodiments, the primary client device 110, the user-controlled client devices 115, and the machine-controlled client devices 125 overlap. For instance, the primary client device 110 can be used by the user 105 to request a robot simulation session, but can include an autonomous robot control program configured to control a robot during the simulation session autonomously. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the system taught by Sanchez on the computing hardware described by Larsen in order to provide a means for implementing the processes, and to implement fault states as taught by Scholan in order to prevent undesired outcomes during malfunctions.
(Scholan - [0005] … If the system is not operating as expected there can be severe, if not, catastrophic consequences. Accordingly, it may be desirable to implement one or more safety mechanisms which are able to determine if there is a fault with the surgical robot system, and the control system 128 in particular, and if a fault is detected, put the system, or one or more components of the system, into a safe state.)
Regarding the aspect of a session defined by user input, Shah illustrates that this concept is not new, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be more than capable of making the session instantiable by the user, and the invention would have yielded the same predictable result.
Claim 2
Modified Sanchez teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Sanchez further teaches
wherein each action of the plurality of actions causes the real-time robotics control layer to issue the one or more respective commands to different respective parts of the plurality of parts of the robot.
(Sanchez - [0075] On the other hand, and according to other embodiments of the present development, executing BDI agents (300) comprise a means-ends management module (390) which controls actions of the executing BDI agent (300) depending on their desires and intentions. The means-ends management module (390) execute intentions of the executing BDI agent (300) and sends signals to the action module (350) to control actuators (210) of the robotic device in a concurrent manner and in real time.)
EXAMINER NOTE: A plurality of actuators indicates different parts of a robot.
Claim 4
Modified Sanchez teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Sanchez further teaches
wherein the initial singular action is associated with commands that cause the plurality of parts of the robot to move together,
and wherein each of the plurality of actions is associated with one or more respective commands that cause each part of the plurality of parts of the robot to move independently.
EXAMINER NOTE: See rejection of the independent claim above, as well as rejection under 112. The limitations of this claim are included in the independent claim.
Claim 6
Modified Sanchez teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Sanchez further teaches
wherein determining, by the real-time robotics control layer during the real-time session defined by the user input, whether the condition of the first action of the plurality of actions is satisfied comprises checking a state of the first action.
(Sanchez - [0041] a) Expropriation: the active transition has control over undefined duration actions (UA) on which it depends, and can end an action that has not been yet completed. To this end, actions subsequent to the active transition can verify if their activation conditions are met, in which case the expropriation mechanism of the active transition is activated.)
Claim 7
Modified Sanchez teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Sanchez further teaches
wherein determining, by the real-time robotics control layer during the real-time session defined by the user input, whether the condition of the first action of the plurality of actions is satisfied comprises checking whether the first action has reached a goal state or has otherwise finished execution.
(Sanchez - [0041] a) Expropriation: the active transition has control over undefined duration actions (UA) on which it depends, and can end an action that has not been yet completed. To this end, actions subsequent to the active transition can verify if their activation conditions are met, in which case the expropriation mechanism of the active transition is activated.)
Claim 8
Modified Sanchez teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Sanchez further teaches
wherein the custom reaction also specifies a second condition of a third action under which the real-time robotics control layer should initiate the real-time change in behavior.
(Sanchez - [0045] - In FIG. 5, the transition AT.sub.2 will only activate after actions DA.sub.1 and DA.sub.2 have completed; at this moment, the execution of action DA.sub.3 will begin which, upon completion, will activate transition AT.sub.3, thereby simultaneously starting actions DA.sub.4, DA.sub.5 and DA.sub.6. Transition AT.sub.4 begins actions UA7, of undefined duration, and DA.sub.8, of defined duration. Action UA.sub.7 will be executed until the active transition AT.sub.5 orders its completion as the execution of the action of defined duration DA.sub.8 was completed or because subsequent actions UA.sub.9 and UA.sub.10 meet their activation conditions.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Upon completion of DA.sub.3, the actions DA.sub4, DA.sub.5, and DA.sub.6 (any of which could be third actions) are initiated.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez, Shah, and Scholan, and further in view of Gilliand (US 6282460 B1).
Claim 5
CLAIM INTERPRETATION NOTE: The examiner interprets a "final singular action" as a command to stop one or more robotic devices after a number of actions have been performed. Support for this interpretation may be found in the instant specification (p.18, ln 21-27). The specification states, "In some cases, user input can further specify: (iv) a final singular action, … For example, after the execution of each action associated with a respective robot arm is finished, the custom reaction can cause the real-time robotics control layer to execute commands associated with the default stop action …"
Modified Sanchez teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Sanchez may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, Gilliand teaches
wherein the user input further specifies:
(iv) a final singular action, and
(Gilliand - [col 8, ln 50-53] The operator can then further modify the programs to insert additional stops or to modify the job of a robot so as to prevent the collision from occurring.)
(v) a custom reaction associated with the plurality of actions that causes the real-time robotics control layer to execute commands associated with the final singular action when the commands associated with the plurality of actions finished executing.
(Gilliand - [col 17, ln 25-40] To avoid collisions between the robots the present invention provides that the operator synchronizes the job programs for the robots. The process of synchronization requires the operator to insert a series of stop commands (stops) into the job for each robot, determine which stops are necessary to prevent collisions, add the conditions under which the program may be resumed, and remove unnecessary stops. Therefore, in the above example, robots 100A-100D would be executing their respective jobs and robots 100B and 100D would be heading for a collision. However, just prior to the collision point, robot 100D would encounter a stop in its job. The other robots 100 would continue in their operations because they had not encountered a stop command. Once these robots have completed the operations which remove them from the danger zone then they encounter a stop command.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement stop commands as taught by Gilliand into the robot control system taught by Sanchez as modified by Scholan in order to further synchronize robots and prevent collisions.
Claims 9-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez, Shah, and Scholan, and further in view of Larsen (US 20230158662 A1).
Claim 9
Modified Sanchez teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Sanchez further teaches
wherein determining, by the real-time robotics control layer during the real-time session defined by the user input, whether the condition of the first action of the plurality of actions is satisfied comprises:
obtaining one or more sensor measurements characterizing a part of the plurality of parts of the robot to which the real-time robotics control layer issues commands associated with the first action; and
(Sanchez - [0030] In the model of Petri Nets with Active Transitions disclosed herein, actions of the series of events (900) can be … so-called defined duration actions (DA), which autonomously end their execution as a consequence of an event detected by robotic device sensors)
Sanchez does not explicitly teach the following limitations. However, Larsen teaches
determining whether the one or more sensor measurements are above a predetermined threshold.
(Larsen - [0080] In some embodiments, the data processing module 110 may include an algorithm for selecting a programmed response to be effected based at least in part on the received data. The algorithm may select a response based entirely or in part on the data from the data input module. In a simple example, a length of time of close proximity (e.g., proximity less than a threshold distance) may be detected by a sensor, and the algorithm may determine a threshold condition (e.g., a threshold time) for action, and may specify the action.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement Larsen’s threshold into Sanchez’s decision making in order to have a quantifiable condition for determining an action.
Claim 10
Sanchez teaches
receiving user input that specifies:
(i) a real-time session with a robot
(Sanchez - [0019] The present development provides a system (100) implementing a multi-agent BDI architecture to control robotic devices (200), operating in a work area (700), in a concurrent and cooperative manner.
[0065] According to the present development, the system (100) disclosed herein further comprises an interpreting BDI agent (500) through which a user can interact with the system (100), define the series of events (900), control it in an asynchronous manner and receive information in real-time on their execution. According to a preferred embodiment, the interaction between the user and the interpreting BDI agent (500) is intuitively conducted by using natural language, whereby the user does not need specific technical knowledge. The interpreting BDI agent (500) comprises an authoring module (510) that has a user interface (511) through which the user of the system (100) specifies the series of events (900).)
EXAMINER NOTE: The user interacts with the interpreting BDI agent in real time through an interface. Because the interpreting BDI agent communicates with the system in real time, this indicates the existence of a real-time session.
…robot having a plurality of parts,
(Sanchez - [0021] … Finally, the lowest level of abstraction corresponds to the signals that executing BDI agents (300) send to robotic devices (200) to activate their actuators (210).
[0079] In the case of robotic drama, robots can be anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, or otherwise. Actuators usually move parts that resemble arms, legs and fingers, although it is also very common for the main locomotion mechanism to be wheels.
[0043] … For example, two robotic devices synchronize their actions to build a brick wall. The first robotic device is responsible for spreading the cement and the second device is responsible for placing the bricks. When the first robotic device finishes its task, it informs the second robotic device to place the bricks. When the second robotic device finishes placing the bricks, it informs the other device to spread another layer of cement.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Each of the above passages indicates the presence of robots having a plurality of parts.
(ii) code defining an initial singular action and a plurality of subsequent user-defined actions,
(Sanchez - [0021] As shown in FIG. 1, the system (100) disclosed herein is characterized in that it comprises one or more executing BDI agents (300) in charge of controlling actions of robotic devices (200) so that it may execute the series of events, a director BDI agent (400) responsible for configuring each executing BDI agent (300) and monitoring the execution of actions they execute, and an interpreting BDI agent (500) through which a user of the system defines the series of events, monitors its status and progress, and sets control instructions. FIGS. 2 to 4 show detailed diagrams of the system (100) wherein each module constituting BDI agents (300, 400, 500), robotic devices (200) and the communication channel (610, 620, 630) are identified.)
EXAMINER NOTE: A "series of events" indicates the presence of at least two events (actions). In the context of a robotic environment, control instructions are conveyed to the robotic device through machine code, which is derived and specified from user input. Initial singular action and a plurality of subsequent user-defined actions are discussed in the following citation.
wherein the initial singular action is associated with commands that cause the plurality of parts of the robot to move together, and wherein each of the plurality of subsequent user-defined actions is associated with one or more respective commands that cause each part of the plurality of parts of the robot to move independently
(Sanchez - [0045] - In FIG. 5, the transition AT.sub.2 will only activate after actions DA.sub.1 and DA.sub.2 have completed; at this moment, the execution of action DA.sub.3 will begin which, upon completion, will activate transition AT.sub.3, thereby simultaneously starting actions DA.sub.4, DA.sub.5 and DA.sub.6. Transition AT.sub.4 begins actions UA7, of undefined duration, and DA.sub.8, of defined duration. Action UA.sub.7 will be executed until the active transition AT.sub.5 orders its completion as the execution of the action of defined duration DA.sub.8 was completed or because subsequent actions UA.sub.9 and UA.sub.10 meet their activation conditions.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The above behavior extends to the events following AT.sub.6. See annotated Fig. 5 below. During the "first tick," agent 300A executes DA.sub.11 and DA.sub.13 while agent 300B executes DA.sub.12 (i.e. the robots move together). Once these actions are satisfied (determining that the initial singular action is satisfied), Transition AT.sub.8 activates, which causes agent 300A to execute DA.sub.14 while agent 300B does nothing. Once DA.sub.14 is complete, transition AT.sub.9 is activated and agent 300B executes DA.sub.15 while agent 300A does nothing . DA.sub.14 and DA.sub.15 are a plurality of actions in which the robots move independently of each other.
and (iii) at least one custom reaction that specifies a condition of the initial singular action under which a real-time robotics control layer should initiate a real- time change in behavior involving the plurality of subsequent user-defined actions;
(Sanchez - [0008] … an interpreting BDI agent including an authoring module having a user interface through which system users specify the series of events and control their execution, a translation module translating the series of events to the graph, and a monitoring module of the execution of the series of events.
[0043] Thus, according to a preferred embodiment of the invention, the graph (910) is implemented through an extension of Petri Nets with Active Transitions. … The active transition nodes (AT) are used to synchronize actions in the series of events (900). This type of node has two main purposes: first, to synchronize actions that a single robotic device (200) must carry out. For example, a robotic device can fly over a field while taking pictures and releasing marking marks at specific locations, all at the same time. The second purpose of the active transition nodes (AT) is to synchronize actions executed by two or more robotic devices (200). For example, two robotic devices synchronize their actions to build a brick wall. The first robotic device is responsible for spreading the cement and the second device is responsible for placing the bricks. When the first robotic device finishes its task, it informs the second robotic device to place the bricks. When the second robotic device finishes placing the bricks, it informs the other device to spread another layer of cement.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The user specifies the series of events (actions) and controls their execution (conditions of the actions). These events are translated to the graph, which is an abstraction of the series of events input by the user. The graph is implemented through Petri Nets with Active Transitions, which is ultimately an abstraction of the user-defined actions and reactions. In the example shown in Fig. 5, the initial singular action may be the events occurring between AT7 and AT8, while the plurality of subsequent actions may be DA14 and DA15. See Annotated Fig. 5 below.
executing, by the real-time robotics control layer, a real-time session, including, at each tick of a real-time control cycle of the real-time session defined by the user input…
(Sanchez - [0044] Action line nodes (DA, UA), which determine actions to be executed, have two types of duration: defined and undefined. Action line nodes (AD) of defined duration are associated with actions that run during a limited, predictable time interval. …)
EXAMINER NOTE: See Annotated Fig. 5 below. Action line nodes have a defined duration. This duration is essentially a time window (a tick).
PNG
media_image1.png
877
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
… performing operations comprising:
executing, during the real-time session defined by the user input, one or more respective commands for the initial singular action,
determining, by the real-time robotics control layer during the real-time session defined by the user input, whether the condition of the initial singular action is satisfied,
and in response to the real-time robotics control layer determining that the condition of the initial singular action is satisfied, switching, within the same real-time session defined by the user input, from executing the initial singular action during a current tick of the real-time control cycle of the real-time session to executing the plurality of subsequent user-defined actions on the next tick of the real-time control cycle during the same real-time session,
(Sanchez - [0045] - In FIG. 5, the transition AT.sub.2 will only activate after actions DA.sub.1 and DA.sub.2 have completed; at this moment, the execution of action DA.sub.3 will begin which, upon completion, will activate transition AT.sub.3, thereby simultaneously starting actions DA.sub.4, DA.sub.5 and DA.sub.6. Transition AT.sub.4 begins actions UA7, of undefined duration, and DA.sub.8, of defined duration. Action UA.sub.7 will be executed until the active transition AT.sub.5 orders its completion as the execution of the action of defined duration DA.sub.8 was completed or because subsequent actions UA.sub.9 and UA.sub.10 meet their activation conditions.)
EXAMINER NOTE: During the top interval (tick) between AT.sub.1 and AT.sub.2, DA.sub.1 is performed. Once DA.sub.1 and DA.sub.2 have completed (condition), DA.sub.3 begins during the next time interval (next tick). Because the time interval is "limited" (see [0044] cited above), it meets applicant's definition of a "tick" (see p.6, lines 5-12). Note that this behavior extends to the events happening from AT.sub.6 onwards. See annotated Fig. 5 above. During the "first tick," agent 300A executes DA.sub.11 and DA.sub.13 while agent 300B executes DA.sub.12 (i.e. the robots move together). Once these actions are satisfied (determining that the initial singular action is satisfied), Transition AT.sub.8 activates, which causes agent 300A to execute DA.sub.14 while agent 300B does nothing. Once DA.sub.14 is complete, transition AT.sub.9 is activated and agent 300B executes DA.sub.15 while agent 300A does nothing (i.e. switching to the plurality of actions in which the robots move independently of each other).
(Sanchez - [0007] The present development relates to a system implementing a multi-agent BDI architecture to control in real time, and in a concurrent and cooperative manner, robotic devices reproducing a series of events defined by a user.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The control is done in real time.
wherein the robot is configured to enter a fault state if one or more commands are not received from the real-time robotics control layer within each tick of the real-time control cycle of the real-time session.
(Scholan - [0044] … Specifically, the safety device 314 can prevent communications between the main controller 312 and one or more of the components 302, 304 (or parts or components thereof) when it has been detected that the surgical robot system 300 is in a fault state. In some cases, the components or devices in the system that communicate with the main controller 312 may be configured to: receive communications from the main controller at a predetermined interval or frequency, and automatically transition into a safe state if they cease to receive such communications for a period of time (e.g. a predetermined number of intervals). Accordingly, cutting off communication between the main controller and a component or device may automatically cause that component or device to transition to a safe state.)
Sanchez may not explicitly teach the following limitations. However, Larsen teaches
A system comprising: one or more computers.
and one or more storage devices storing instructions that when executed by the one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
(Larsen - [0139] Embodiments of the present disclosure may comprise a system having a central processing unit (CPU) 520, a bus 530, a memory unit 540, a power supply unit (PSU) 550, and one or more Input/Output (I/O) units. The CPU 520 coupled to the memory unit 540 and the plurality of I/O units 560 via the bus 530, all of which are powered by the PSU 550. It should be understood that, in some embodiments, each disclosed unit may actually be a plurality of such units for the purposes of redundancy, high availability, and/or performance. The combination of the presently disclosed units is configured to perform the stages any method disclosed herein.)
Sanchez may not explicitly teach the following limitations. However, Scholan teaches
wherein the robot is configured to enter a fault state if one or more commands are not received from the real-time robotics control layer within each tick of the real-time control cycle of the real-time session.
(Scholan - [0044] … Specifically, the safety device 314 can prevent communications between the main controller 312 and one or more of the components 302, 304 (or parts or components thereof) when it has been detected that the surgical robot system 300 is in a fault state. In some cases, the components or devices in the system that communicate with the main controller 312 may be configured to: receive communications from the main controller at a predetermined interval or frequency, and automatically transition into a safe state if they cease to receive such communications for a period of time (e.g. a predetermined number of intervals). Accordingly, cutting off communication between the main controller and a component or device may automatically cause that component or device to transition to a safe state.)
While Sanchez and Scholan may not explicitly state that the real-time session is defined by user input, this aspect is notoriously well-known in the art. As an example, Shah teaches a system wherein a user interacts with a device to provide inputs and start a control session.
(Shah - [0016] … The user 105 interacts with the robot simulation server 130 using the primary client device 110 in order to initialize, customize, begin, run, and monitor a robot simulation session. … The users 120 interact with the robot simulation server 130 using the user-controlled client devices 115, for instance by providing inputs to control the robot via the user-controlled client devices 115.
[0019] It should be noted that in various embodiments, the primary client device 110, the user-controlled client devices 115, and the machine-controlled client devices 125 overlap. For instance, the primary client device 110 can be used by the user 105 to request a robot simulation session, but can include an autonomous robot control program configured to control a robot during the simulation session autonomously. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the system taught by Sanchez on the computing hardware described by Larsen in order to provide a means for implementing the processes, and to implement fault states as taught by Scholan in order to prevent undesired outcomes during malfunctions.
(Scholan - [0005] … If the system is not operating as expected there can be severe, if not, catastrophic consequences. Accordingly, it may be desirable to implement one or more safety mechanisms which are able to determine if there is a fault with the surgical robot system, and the control system 128 in particular, and if a fault is detected, put the system, or one or more components of the system, into a safe state.)
Regarding the aspect of a session defined by user input, Shah illustrates that this concept is not new, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be more than capable of making the session instantiable by the user, and the invention would have yielded the same predictable result.
Claim 11
The combination of Sanchez, Scholan, Shah, and Larsen teaches the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above. Sanchez further teaches
wherein each action of the plurality of actions causes the real-time robotics control layer to issue the one or more respective commands to different respective parts of the plurality of parts of the robot.
(Sanchez - [0075] On the other hand, and according to other embodiments of the present development, executing BDI agents (300) comprise a means-ends management module (390) which controls actions of the executing BDI agent (300) depending on their desires and intentions. The means-ends management module (390) execute intentions of the executing BDI agent (300) and sends signals to the action module (350) to control actuators (210) of the robotic device in a concurrent manner and in real time.)
EXAMINER NOTE: A plurality of actuators indicates different parts of a robot.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION NOTE: The examiner interprets a singular action to mean an action in which multiple robotic devices are coordinated or controlled simultaneously. In the instant specification (see page 11, lines 15-18), the applicant states, "a single action can define, e.g., a coordinated movement of a robotic arm and a conveyor belt. The single action can control, e.g., a motion of the robotic arm picking an object from the conveyor belt and, at the same time, a speed of the conveyor belt." A robotic arm and a conveyor belt are both robotic devices. In the case of Sanchez, the robotic devices are those controlled by BDI agents 300A and 300B, which will be discussed below with respect to Figure 5.
Claim 13
Sanchez, Scholan, Shah, and Larsen teaches the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above. Sanchez further teaches
wherein the initial singular action is associated with commands that cause the plurality of parts of the robot to move together,
and wherein each of the plurality of actions is associated with one or more respective commands that cause each part of the plurality of parts of the robot to move independently.
EXAMINER NOTE: See rejection of the independent claim above, as well as rejection under 112. The limitations of this claim are included in the independent claim.
Claim 15
The combination of Sanchez, Scholan, Shah, and Larsen teaches the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above. Sanchez further teaches
wherein determining, by the real-time robotics control layer during the real-time session defined by the user input, whether the condition of the first action of the plurality of actions is satisfied comprises checking a state of the first action.
(Sanchez - [0041] a) Expropriation: the active transition has control over undefined duration actions (UA) on which it depends, and can end an action that has not been yet completed. To this end, actions subsequent to the active transition can verify if their activation conditions are met, in which case the expropriation mechanism of the active transition is activated.)
Claim 16
The combination of Sanchez, Scholan, Shah and Larsen teaches the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above. Sanchez further teaches
wherein determining, by the real-time robotics control layer during the real-time session defined by the user input, whether the condition of the first action of the plurality of actions is satisfied comprises checking whether the first action has reached a goal state or has otherwise finished execution.
(Sanchez - [0041] a) Expropriation: the active transition has control over undefined duration actions (UA) on which it depends, and can end an action that has not been yet completed. To this end, actions subsequent to the active transition can verify if their activation conditions are met, in which case the expropriation mechanism of the active transition is activated.)
Claim 17
The combination of Sanchez, Scholan, Shah and Larsen teaches the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above. Sanchez further teaches
wherein the custom reaction also specifies a second condition of a third action under which the real-time robotics control layer should initiate the real-time change in behavior.
(Sanchez - [0045] - In FIG. 5, the transition AT.sub.2 will only activate after actions DA.sub.1 and DA.sub.2 have completed; at this moment, the execution of action DA.sub.3 will begin which, upon completion, will activate transition AT.sub.3, thereby simultaneously starting actions DA.sub.4, DA.sub.5 and DA.sub.6. Transition AT.sub.4 begins actions UA7, of undefined duration, and DA.sub.8, of defined duration. Action UA.sub.7 will be executed until the active transition AT.sub.5 orders its completion as the execution of the action of defined duration DA.sub.8 was completed or because subsequent actions UA.sub.9 and UA.sub.10 meet their activation conditions.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Upon completion of DA.sub.3, the actions DA.sub4, DA.sub.5, and DA.sub.6 (any of which could be third actions) are initiated.
Claim 18
The combination of Sanchez, Scholan, Shah and Larsen teaches the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above. Sanchez further teaches
wherein determining, by the real-time robotics control layer during the real-time session defined by the user input, whether the condition of the first action of the plurality of actions is satisfied comprises:
obtaining one or more sensor measurements characterizing a part of the plurality of parts of the robot to which the real-time robotics control layer issues commands associated with the first action; and
(Sanchez - [0030] In the model of Petri Nets with Active Transitions disclosed herein, actions of the series of events (900) can be … so-called defined duration actions (DA), which autonomously end their execution as a consequence of an event detected by robotic device sensors)
Sanchez does not explicitly teach the following limitations. However, Larsen teaches
determining whether the one or more sensor measurements are above a predetermined threshold.
(Larsen - [0080] In some embodiments, the data processing module 110 may include an algorithm for selecting a programmed response to be effected based at least in part on the received data. The algorithm may select a response based entirely or in part on the data from the data input module. In a simple example, a length of time of close proximity (e.g., proximity less than a threshold distance) may be detected by a sensor, and the algorithm may determine a threshold condition (e.g., a threshold time) for action, and may specify the action.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement Larsen’s threshold into Sanchez’s decision making in order to have a quantifiable condition for determining an action.
Claim 19
Sanchez teaches
receiving user input that specifies:
(i) a real-time session with a robot
(Sanchez - [0019] The present development provides a system (100) implementing a multi-agent BDI architecture to control robotic devices (200), operating in a work area (700), in a concurrent and cooperative manner.
[0065] According to the present development, the system (100) disclosed herein further comprises an interpreting BDI agent (500) through which a user can interact with the system (100), define the series of events (900), control it in an asynchronous manner and receive information in real-time on their execution. According to a preferred embodiment, the interaction between the user and the interpreting BDI agent (500) is intuitively conducted by using natural language, whereby the user does not need specific technical knowledge. The interpreting BDI agent (500) comprises an authoring module (510) that has a user interface (511) through which the user of the system (100) specifies the series of events (900).)
EXAMINER NOTE: The user interacts with the interpreting BDI agent in real time through an interface. Because the interpreting BDI agent communicates with the system in real time, this indicates the existence of a real-time session.
…robot having a plurality of parts,
(Sanchez - [0021] … Finally, the lowest level of abstraction corresponds to the signals that executing BDI agents (300) send to robotic devices (200) to activate their actuators (210).
[0079] In the case of robotic drama, robots can be anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, or otherwise. Actuators usually move parts that resemble arms, legs and fingers, although it is also very common for the main locomotion mechanism to be wheels.
[0043] … For example, two robotic devices synchronize their actions to build a brick wall. The first robotic device is responsible for spreading the cement and the second device is responsible for placing the bricks. When the first robotic device finishes its task, it informs the second robotic device to place the bricks. When the second robotic device finishes placing the bricks, it informs the other device to spread another layer of cement.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Each of the above passages indicates the presence of robots having a plurality of parts.
(ii) code defining an initial singular action and a plurality of subsequent user- defined actions,
(Sanchez - [0021] As shown in FIG. 1, the system (100) disclosed herein is characterized in that it comprises one or more executing BDI agents (300) in charge of controlling actions of robotic devices (200) so that it may execute the series of events, a director BDI agent (400) responsible for configuring each executing BDI agent (300) and monitoring the execution of actions they execute, and an interpreting BDI agent (500) through which a user of the system defines the series of events, monitors its status and progress, and sets control instructions. FIGS. 2 to 4 show detailed diagrams of the system (100) wherein each module constituting BDI agents (300, 400, 500), robotic devices (200) and the communication channel (610, 620, 630) are identified.)
EXAMINER NOTE: A "series of events" indicates the presence of at least two events (actions). In the context of a robotic environment, control instructions are conveyed to the robotic device through machine code, which is derived and specified from user input. Initial singular action and a plurality of subsequent user-defined actions are discussed in the following citation.
wherein the initial singular action is associated with commands that cause the plurality of parts of the robot to move together, and wherein each of the plurality of subsequent user-defined actions is associated with one or more respective commands that cause each part of the plurality of parts of the robot to move independently
(Sanchez - [0045] - In FIG. 5, the transition AT.sub.2 will only activate after actions DA.sub.1 and DA.sub.2 have completed; at this moment, the execution of action DA.sub.3 will begin which, upon completion, will activate transition AT.sub.3, thereby simultaneously starting actions DA.sub.4, DA.sub.5 and DA.sub.6. Transition AT.sub.4 begins actions UA7, of undefined duration, and DA.sub.8, of defined duration. Action UA.sub.7 will be executed until the active transition AT.sub.5 orders its completion as the execution of the action of defined duration DA.sub.8 was completed or because subsequent actions UA.sub.9 and UA.sub.10 meet their activation conditions.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The above behavior extends to the events following AT.sub.6. See annotated Fig. 5 below. During the "first tick," agent 300A executes DA.sub.11 and DA.sub.13 while agent 300B executes DA.sub.12 (i.e. the robots move together). Once these actions are satisfied (determining that the initial singular action is satisfied), Transition AT.sub.8 activates, which causes agent 300A to execute DA.sub.14 while agent 300B does nothing. Once DA.sub.14 is complete, transition AT.sub.9 is activated and agent 300B executes DA.sub.15 while agent 300A does nothing . DA.sub.14 and DA.sub.15 are a plurality of actions in which the robots move independently of each other.
and (iii) at least one custom reaction that specifies a condition of the initial singular action under which a real-time robotics control layer should initiate a real- time change in behavior involving the plurality of subsequent user-defined actions;
(Sanchez - [0008] … an interpreting BDI agent including an authoring module having a user interface through which system users specify the series of events and control their execution, a translation module translating the series of events to the graph, and a monitoring module of the execution of the series of events.
[0043] Thus, according to a preferred embodiment of the invention, the graph (910) is implemented through an extension of Petri Nets with Active Transitions. … The active transition nodes (AT) are used to synchronize actions in the series of events (900). This type of node has two main purposes: first, to synchronize actions that a single robotic device (200) must carry out. For example, a robotic device can fly over a field while taking pictures and releasing marking marks at specific locations, all at the same time. The second purpose of the active transition nodes (AT) is to synchronize actions executed by two or more robotic devices (200). For example, two robotic devices synchronize their actions to build a brick wall. The first robotic device is responsible for spreading the cement and the second device is responsible for placing the bricks. When the first robotic device finishes its task, it informs the second robotic device to place the bricks. When the second robotic device finishes placing the bricks, it informs the other device to spread another layer of cement.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The user specifies the series of events (actions) and controls their execution (conditions of the actions). These events are translated to the graph, which is an abstraction of the series of events input by the user. The graph is implemented through Petri Nets with Active Transitions, which is ultimately an abstraction of the user-defined actions and reactions. In the example shown in Fig. 5, the initial singular action may be the events occurring between AT7 and AT8, while the plurality of subsequent actions may be DA14 and DA15. See Annotated Fig. 5 below.
and executing, by the real-time robotics control layer, a real-time session, including, at each tick of a real-time control cycle of the real-time session defined by the user input,
(Sanchez - [0044] Action line nodes (DA, UA), which determine actions to be executed, have two types of duration: defined and undefined. Action line nodes (AD) of defined duration are associated with actions that run during a limited, predictable time interval. …)
EXAMINER NOTE: See Annotated Fig. 5 below. Action line nodes have a defined duration. This duration is essentially a time window (a tick).
PNG
media_image1.png
877
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
… performing operations comprising:
executing, during the real-time session defined by the user input, one or more respective commands for the initial singular action,
determining, by the real-time robotics control layer during the real-time session defined by the user input, whether the condition of the initial singular action is satisfied,
and in response to the real-time robotics control layer determining that the condition of the initial singular action is satisfied, switching, within the same real-time session defined by the user input, from executing the initial singular action during a current tick of the real-time control cycle of the real-time session to executing the plurality of subsequent user-defined actions on the next tick of the real-time control cycle during the same real-time session,
(Sanchez - [0045] - In FIG. 5, the transition AT.sub.2 will only activate after actions DA.sub.1 and DA.sub.2 have completed; at this moment, the execution of action DA.sub.3 will begin which, upon completion, will activate transition AT.sub.3, thereby simultaneously starting actions DA.sub.4, DA.sub.5 and DA.sub.6. Transition AT.sub.4 begins actions UA7, of undefined duration, and DA.sub.8, of defined duration. Action UA.sub.7 will be executed until the active transition AT.sub.5 orders its completion as the execution of the action of defined duration DA.sub.8 was completed or because subsequent actions UA.sub.9 and UA.sub.10 meet their activation conditions.)
EXAMINER NOTE: EXAMINER NOTE: During the top interval (tick) between AT.sub.1 and AT.sub.2, DA.sub.1 is performed. Once DA.sub.1 and DA.sub.2 have completed (condition), DA.sub.3 begins during the next time interval (next tick). Because the time interval is "limited" (see [0044] cited above), it meets applicant's definition of a "tick" (see p.6, lines 5-12). Note that this behavior extends to the events happening from AT.sub.6 onwards. See annotated Fig. 5 above. During the "first tick," agent 300A executes DA.sub.11 and DA.sub.13 while agent 300B executes DA.sub.12 (i.e. the robots move together). Once these actions are satisfied (determining that the initial singular action is satisfied), Transition AT.sub.8 activates, which causes agent 300A to execute DA.sub.14 while agent 300B does nothing. Once DA.sub.14 is complete, transition AT.sub.9 is activated and agent 300B executes DA.sub.15 while agent 300A does nothing (i.e. switching to the plurality of actions in which the robots move independently of each other).
(Sanchez - [0007] The present development relates to a system implementing a multi-agent BDI architecture to control in real time, and in a concurrent and cooperative manner, robotic devices reproducing a series of events defined by a user.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The control is done in real time.
Sanchez may not explicitly teach the following limitations. However, Scholan teaches
wherein the robot is configured to enter a fault state if one or more commands are not received from the real-time robotics control layer within each tick of the real- time control cycle of the real-time session.
(Scholan - [0044] … Specifically, the safety device 314 can prevent communications between the main controller 312 and one or more of the components 302, 304 (or parts or components thereof) when it has been detected that the surgical robot system 300 is in a fault state. In some cases, the components or devices in the system that communicate with the main controller 312 may be configured to: receive communications from the main controller at a predetermined interval or frequency, and automatically transition into a safe state if they cease to receive such communications for a period of time (e.g. a predetermined number of intervals). Accordingly, cutting off communication between the main controller and a component or device may automatically cause that component or device to transition to a safe state.)
Sanchez may not explicitly teach the following limitations. However, Larsen teaches
One or more non-transitory computer storage media storing instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations
(Larsen - [0139] Embodiments of the present disclosure may comprise a system having a central processing unit (CPU) 520, a bus 530, a memory unit 540, a power supply unit (PSU) 550, and one or more Input/Output (I/O) units. The CPU 520 coupled to the memory unit 540 and the plurality of I/O units 560 via the bus 530, all of which are powered by the PSU 550. It should be understood that, in some embodiments, each disclosed unit may actually be a plurality of such units for the purposes of redundancy, high availability, and/or performance. The combination of the presently disclosed units is configured to perform the stages any method disclosed herein.)
While Sanchez and Scholan may not explicitly state that the real-time session is defined by user input, this aspect is notoriously well-known in the art. As an example, Shah teaches a system wherein a user interacts with a device to provide inputs and start a control session.
(Shah - [0016] … The user 105 interacts with the robot simulation server 130 using the primary client device 110 in order to initialize, customize, begin, run, and monitor a robot simulation session. … The users 120 interact with the robot simulation server 130 using the user-controlled client devices 115, for instance by providing inputs to control the robot via the user-controlled client devices 115.
[0019] It should be noted that in various embodiments, the primary client device 110, the user-controlled client devices 115, and the machine-controlled client devices 125 overlap. For instance, the primary client device 110 can be used by the user 105 to request a robot simulation session, but can include an autonomous robot control program configured to control a robot during the simulation session autonomously. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the system taught by Sanchez on the computing hardware described by Larsen in order to provide a means for implementing the processes, and to implement Scholan’s fault states in order to prevent undesired outcomes during malfunctions.
(Scholan - [0005] … If the system is not operating as expected there can be severe, if not, catastrophic consequences. Accordingly, it may be desirable to implement one or more safety mechanisms which are able to determine if there is a fault with the surgical robot system, and the control system 128 in particular, and if a fault is detected, put the system, or one or more components of the system, into a safe state.)
Regarding the aspect of a session defined by user input, Shah illustrates that this concept is not new, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be more than capable of making the session instantiable by the user, and the invention would have yielded the same predictable result.
Claim 20
The combination of Sanchez, Scholan, Shah, and Larsen teaches the limitations of claim 19 as outlined above. Sanchez further teaches
wherein each action of the plurality of actions causes the real-time robotics control layer to issue the one or more respective commands to different respective parts of the plurality of parts of the robot.
(Sanchez - [0075] On the other hand, and according to other embodiments of the present development, executing BDI agents (300) comprise a means-ends management module (390) which controls actions of the executing BDI agent (300) depending on their desires and intentions. The means-ends management module (390) execute intentions of the executing BDI agent (300) and sends signals to the action module (350) to control actuators (210) of the robotic device in a concurrent manner and in real time.)
EXAMINER NOTE: A plurality of actuators indicates different parts of a robot.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Scholan, Shah, and Larsen (US 20230158662 A1), and further in view of Gilliand (US 6282460 B1).
Claim 14
CLAIM INTERPRETATION NOTE: The examiner interprets a "final singular action" as a command to stop one or more robotic devices after a number of actions have been performed. Support for this interpretation may be found in the instant specification (p.18, ln 21-27). The specification states, "In some cases, user input can further specify: (iv) a final singular action, … For example, after the execution of each action associated with a respective robot arm is finished, the custom reaction can cause the real-time robotics control layer to execute commands associated with the default stop action …"
The combination of Sanchez, Scholan, Shah, and Larsen teaches the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above. The cited combination may not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Gilliand teaches
wherein the user input further specifies:(iv) a final singular action,
(Gilliand - [col 8, ln 50-53] The operator can then further modify the programs to insert additional stops or to modify the job of a robot so as to prevent the collision from occurring.)
and (v) a custom reaction associated with the plurality of actions that causes the real-time robotics control layer to execute commands associated with the final singular action when the commands associated with the plurality of actions finished executing.
(Gilliand - [col 17, ln 25-40] To avoid collisions between the robots the present invention provides that the operator synchronizes the job programs for the robots. The process of synchronization requires the operator to insert a series of stop commands (stops) into the job for each robot, determine which stops are necessary to prevent collisions, add the conditions under which the program may be resumed, and remove unnecessary stops. Therefore, in the above example, robots 100A-100D would be executing their respective jobs and robots 100B and 100D would be heading for a collision. However, just prior to the collision point, robot 100D would encounter a stop in its job. The other robots 100 would continue in their operations because they had not encountered a stop command. Once these robots have completed the operations which remove them from the danger zone then they encounter a stop command.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement stop commands as taught by Gilliand into the robot control system taught by Sanchez in order to further synchronize robots and prevent collisions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20210362328-A1, US-20150314440-A1, US-20120010772-A1 and US-20150217449-A1 pertain to rule-based organizing of robot actions, and teach various aspects of the invention – particularly those of claims 1, 2, 6 and 7.
US-9616570-B2 pertains to rules-based organizing of robot actions, and teaches checking conditions of actions (such as in claims 6 and 7), as well as what may be interpreted as “singular actions” such as in claims 3, 4, and 5.
WO 2020130662 A1 and CN 110267773 A also pertain to rules-based organizing of robot actions while specifically using sensor thresholds, and are considered relevant to claim 9.
US 20230185278 A1 pertains to determination of a robot fault state when a command is not received during a given timeframe.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES MILLER WATTS whose telephone number is (703)756-1249. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-TH.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on 571-270-5376. 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.
/JAMES MILLER WATTS III/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights