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 .
Response to Remarks/Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 18/025,162 last filed on August 28th, 2025.
Claims 1, 5, and 7-11 were amended.
Claim 12 was newly added.
Claims 1-12 remain pending and have been examined, directed to ANALYSIS APPARATUS, ANALYSIS METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM.
Upon further review of the latest claim amendments along with the applicant’s representative’s response, the examiner reviewed the applied references and respectfully disagrees and remain unpersuaded.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, using Dupuis, and using amended independent claim 1 for example, the applicant’s representative primarily argued about the amended claim language, arguing that Dupuis does not disclose or describe of the system authorizing or denying access control to data, with respect to different combinations of data patterns.
In response, the Examiner reviewed the Dupuis reference again for synonyms related to a system authorizing and/or deny access to data, because it would have been unreasonable for an overall system within Dupuis’ teachings to be completely void of this concept. And the Examiner found enough that would teach of the concept and so the Examiner remains unpersuaded. The first and second patterns were reviewed given the amended language, but ultimately also fail to persuade the Examiner. Dupuis’ teachings with respect to the dynamic or elastic changes that can occur with each of the robot’s routes and actions taken would mean, changing the robot’s access to different data sets, and the system would make these decisions and either allow or deny these updates, such as when unexpected obstacles are detected and reported back to the system. Making changes or updates the routing means providing each robot with new routing plans with new datapoints, or in other words, getting approving access to the data (e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 46, 48, and 54, amongst other sections for example, all disclose in some variation of the server providing new routing data).
The other independent claims 10 and 11 were similarly amended and argued following claim 1 and thus were similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Newly added dependent claim 12 was reviewed and addressed.
The previous § 112 rejection towards claims 8 and 9 was withdrawn in view of the amendments and an updated response was provided.
The remaining dependent claims were not specifically argued at this time.
Applicant's arguments were considered but they were not found persuasive. See the following claim rejections for further clarifications with added emphasis on the points previously disclosed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0338733 A1 to Dupuis et al. (referred to hereafter as “Dupuis”).
As to claim 1, Dupuis further discloses an analysis apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (, e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 121-124); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 121-124) to:
acquire at least a data set in which a plurality of combinations are defined and a second pattern of one or more elements indicating attributes of access requesting data in a network that change over time, the plurality of combinations being combinations of a first pattern of one or more elements indicating attributes of access requesting data in the network and an action of access control corresponding to the first pattern and indicating information on authorizing or denying access to the data in the network (Dupuis discloses of an overall system that can make determinations (or in other words acquire information) on how to map and plan out multiple (or a plurality of) possible routes for one or more (or multiple) robots. That would be the plurality of combinations. Each robot’s planned route would be a different pattern with different features/attributes. In a scenario with multiple robots all planning different routes, a second pattern can be interpreted as a planned route, say for a single first/second/third/etc. robot, and that route is elastic or can be changed dynamically over time with respect to changes in its own route or in response to changes in the routes of other robots. Additionally, the plurality of combinations is a combination of multiples routes (or elements or features that all need access to the data/routes) can be interpreted as the “first pattern,” which also includes features of the system approving/allowing all the dynamic changes to each of the routes for the plurality of robots. Dupuis describes of the concept and uses the term “allow*” throughout, as the system allows each robot to elastically/dynamically update their already determined pathing when unexpected obstacles appear in the planned routing. Some proposed changes would get allowed, while others may be allowed with more constraints/restrictions or less elastic. This results in each robot getting authorized/allowed to have access to the new data or new pathing information (e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 38-42, 46, 48, 50, 54-55, 63, 69-73, 76, 91-92, and 97-98 and Figs. 1, 3, and 4));
evaluate an execution cost in a case where an action is changed over time by using at least transition information indicating a state transition in the one or more elements indicating attributes of access, and the second pattern, the action corresponding to the second pattern and indicating information on authorizing or denying access to the data in the network (Dupuis discloses that the system can evaluate costs associated with various routes as well, depending on various factors. Following the same example, the second pattern refers to a planned route for any single robot and can include one or more states and transitions, all with different cost value, depending on their obstacles and pathing, re-routing, timing, and various other factor details. And once again, the system would be allowing those proposed re-routes, which in turn means allowing the robots to have access to the new updated data/pathing information, e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 40-42, 50, 55, 71-73, 76, 97-98, 103-104, and 107-108); and
determine the action corresponding to the second pattern by using at least a result of the evaluation and the data set (Following the above same interpretations and examples, with at least two paths that are routed, the system would have settled on a planned route for each of the elastic/dynamic routes, based upon the determination/evaluation and the associated costs. More specifically, for the second pattern that refers to any , e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 69-73, 91-92, 97-98 and 103-104).
As to claim 2, Dupuis further discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
acquire a third pattern of one or more elements indicating attributes of access, the third pattern defining at least one of an order of degree of influence of the elements on the action and a magnitude of degree of influence of the elements on the action (Following claim 1’s interpretations, Dupuis further discloses of force vectors to represent various obstacles within a planned routing path, which defines the magnitude and degree of influence concerning that obstacle/element, e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 46, 55, and 60-61), and
determine the action by further using the third pattern (The system can make a determination to utilize this “third” pathing if so desired).
As to claim 3, Dupuis further discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
in the third pattern, execute, with regard to at least one of the order of degree of influence on the action and the magnitude of degree of influence on the action, at least one of a process of giving a positive effect to a setting of the same action before and after an elapse of time and a process of giving a negative effect to a setting of an action after an elapse of time different from an action before the elapse of time (Following claims 1 and 2, the system can attribute each obstacle’s force vector(s) more positively (increase) or negatively (decrease), and it can be over a period of time, due to timing issues around other robots, , e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 60-61 and 114), and
determine the action by further using the third pattern to which at least one of the positive effect and the negative effect is given (Following the above adjustments, that would be the finalized “third” planned routing, e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 60-61 and 114).
As to claim 4, Dupuis further discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the action corresponding to the second pattern by further using information indicating at least one of a level of needs required in the second pattern and a level of security required in the second pattern (The system takes into account various constraints, many of which can be characterized as a certain level of “need” and preference(s), such as timing, elasticity, distance, etc. and there is also a level of security or safety considerations, , e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 45, 99, and 114).
As to claim 5, Dupuis further discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
evaluate feasibility of changing an action over time (The system can determine and make adjustments over any time intervals, e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 75, 80, 99, and 114), and
determine, in a case where the feasibility is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold, the action corresponding to the second pattern so that it satisfies both the level of needs required in the second pattern and the level of security required in the second pattern (The system can adhere to thresholds in the decision making, in addition to the other characteristics following claims 1 and 4, e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 75, 80, 99, and 114), and
in a case where the feasibility is less than a predetermined threshold, determine, based on both the level of needs required in the second pattern and the level of security required in the second pattern, whether the level of needs required in the second pattern or the level of security required in the second pattern is to be satisfied, and then determines the action corresponding to the second pattern so that the determined level is satisfied (Following the above, once again, the system can make any necessary adjustments with respect to any established thresholds and/or constraints, e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 75, 80, 99, and 114).
As to claim 6, Dupuis further discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to acquire or generate, as the transition information, a log or a model indicating a change of the attributes of access over time, and evaluate the execution cost by using at least the transition information and the second pattern (There is a server database for storing pathing data and the system is capable of determining costs. Any changes or transitions, due to various constraints like other moving robots or obstacles for example would be all captured by the system, e.g., ¶¶ 77 and 103-104).
As to claim 7, Dupuis further discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case in which the at least one processor determines, by referring to the transition information, that a probability that the attributes of access related to the second pattern are transitioned over time from a first state to a second state is higher than a probability that the attributes of access related to the second pattern are transitioned over time from the first state to a third state, the at least one processor is further configured to evaluate, in a case where the attributes are in the first state, the execution cost so that the execution cost of executing an action different from the action defined in the data set in a case where the attributes are in the second state is higher than the execution cost of executing an action different from the action defined in the data set in a case where the attributes are in the third state (In a certain scenario, the system considers the likelihood of something happening, which is in other words a determination on probabilities of either this or that happening, with respect to any laid out pathing, or a “second pattern” for example. This can be incorporated within the calculations with respect to the rest of the variables like costs and other constraints, e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 45, 96, 99, 103-104, and 108).
As to claim 8, Dupuis further discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: in a case where there is an access in which a time interval at which the attributes of access related to the second pattern are transitioned over time from a first state to a second state is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold and an action defined in the data set in the first state differs from that defined in the data set in the second state, determine the action in the first state in the access and the action in the second state in the access to be the same action (Following claim 1 and similar to claim 5, the system can take into account of various thresholds regarding each planned route, such that the second pattern with respect to the planned route can changed over a time interval, whether it’s planned or unexpected, and can have minimal effects/changes. The scoring is characterized by various aspects within the pathing and if the changes are minimal and ends up being less than or equal to some established threshold, the system can determine that certain changes or adjustments can lead to minimal effects or a plateau, and thus this would mean that even if there were differences in the different states, the actions are the same, with maybe different magnitudes/amplitudes, and the pathing would have minimal adjustments and reaching the same endpoints/destinations, e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 60-62, 74-75, 80, 99, and 114).
As to claim 9, Dupuis further discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine the action corresponding to the second pattern by using a model trained so that it outputs the action corresponding to the second pattern by inputting at least the result of the evaluation and the data set (Similar to claim 1, the system would be able to plan the pathway route and that data can be referred to as a “model” in which it can follow and carry out. Or, similar to the end result from the planning with respect to Figs. 1, 3, and 4, e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 89-90), and
in a case where there is an access in which a time interval at which the attributes of access related to the second pattern are transitioned over time from a first state to a second state is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold and an action defined in the data set in the first state differs from that defined in the data set in the second state, input, to the model as the data set, data in which the action in the first state in the access and the action in the second state in the access are defined as being the same action (Similar to claim 5 and 8, the system can take into account of various thresholds, and the action taken by the robot(s) and/or routing related to a second pattern can be updated over a time interval. The updated routing may require access to new datapoints and so, the actions or steps can still be interpreted as the same, even if it’s possible that there may be differences in magnitude and amplitudes with the various steps involved, but the pathing would have minimal adjustments and end up with the same endpoints/destinations, e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 60-62, 74-75, 80, 99, and 114).
As to claim 10, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 11, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 12, Dupuis further discloses the analysis apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the attribute of access regarding the first and second patterns include a set of a position of a device of an access source and a type of the data requested or an organization that owns the data (Following claim 1’s interpretations, both patterns deal with the routing of the multiple robots, where the robots are communicating with the system/server to get access to the datapoints with respect to the routing, and the system includes GPS and accelerometers that would provide at the very least that type of positioning or location based data, e.g., Dupuis: ¶¶ 77, 79, and 81).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/X.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/ARIO ETIENNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2457