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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits, claims 1-10 are currently pending and addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 03/15/2023 has been considered. An initialed copy of the IDS is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1.
A method for controlling multiple robots comprising the steps of:
configuring a plurality of robots to perform tasks in a field as a plurality of groups by a central
control management server, and designating a certain robot included in each group as a leader robot;
calculating a work goal for each group based on the entire task by the central control management server; and
transmitting, by the central control management server, the calculated work goal for each group to the leader robot of each group, so that the leader robot of each group can allocate detailed tasks to be performed by the robots belonging to the corresponding group based on the calculated work goal for each group.
The system in claim 1 (particularly the limitations highlighted above) is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of controlling a many robots that collaborate to complete a task together. These limitations, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, are limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind, and therefore is a mental process. The limitations is equivalent to a group of people controlling many robots to complete a task together. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘Mental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person or a group of people controlling many robots to complete a task together. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1.
A method for controlling multiple robots comprising the steps of:
configuring a plurality of robots to perform tasks in a field as a plurality of groups by a central
control management server, and designating a certain robot included in each group as a leader robot;
calculating a work goal for each group based on the entire task by the central control management server; and
transmitting, by the central control management server, the calculated work goal for each group to the leader robot of each group, so that the leader robot of each group can allocate detailed tasks to be performed by the robots belonging to the corresponding group based on the calculated work goal for each group.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations (particularly the limitations underlined above) that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application (particularly the limitations highlighted above).
The one or more processors and the computer readable medium merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The one or more processors and the computer readable medium are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the aggregating and processing steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The claim does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Aggregating and processing data are fundamental activities performed by computers/processors. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the aggregating and processing are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 5 and 8 are commensurate in scope to claim 1 and are rejected using a similar analysis to claim 1 above.
Dependent claims 2-4, and 6-7 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, In claim 2, the addition limitations of “wherein in the step of designating a certain robot included in each group as a leader robot, the central control management server divides the field into a plurality of zones and configures groups to take charge of each zone.”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using a similar analysis applied to claim 1 above. The method in claim 2, specifically the limitation above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, and abstract idea. It merely consists of having a leader robot in each group, wherein each group take charge in each zone. This is equivalate to a person controlling a robot in a zone and another people controlling another robot in a zone.
As such, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180196404, to Stilwell et al. (hereinafter Stilwell).
Regarding claim 9 Stilwell discloses, A robot comprising: a robot communication unit connected to a network to transmit and receive data; (See at least paragraph [Abstract] “A method of robotic collaboration comprises designating a first robot a lead robot and assigning a first task in a task area to the lead robot. Broadcasting a work query in the task area seeks the presence of subordinate robots configured to perform tasks. Receiving a work confirmation signal from a subordinate robot in the task area answers the work query with an affirmation that the subordinate robot is in the task area to perform tasks. Transmitting a task command to the subordinate robot in response to the work confirmation signal comprises a directive to perform the first task. Receiving a task confirmation signal informs the lead robot of the subordinate robot electronic characteristics comprising processing capabilities, transmit signal profile, receive signal profile, and storage device capabilities. Processing confirms whether the subordinate robot can collaborate with the lead robot to do the first task.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0017] “Robotics collaboration permits a disciplined team of robots to function in an organized, network-aware manner. Instead of “swarming” to reach an objective, the robots are aware of other network members and adjust their actions based on the presence and attributes of other squad members. The robots are also self-aware, with capability to sense and respond to their surroundings”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0023] “robot A1 can comprise a transmit and receive device 2051”).
a driving unit including at least one wheel to move a robot; (See at least paragraph [0037], and [FIG.1 item 2031] “Robot A1 can be prioritized to use caster wheels 2031 for difficult maneuvers”)
a sensing unit having one or more sensors configured to sense at least one among internal information of the robot, information on environment around the robot, and user information; (See at least paragraph [0017] “The robots are also self-aware, with capability to sense and respond to their surroundings.”)
and a robot control unit which is designated as a leader robot of a certain group from a central control management server, receives a control authority of robots belonging to the corresponding group, (See at least paragraph [0040-0044] “robotic collaboration comprises the same steps of designating a first robot a lead robot in step 400 and assigning a first task in a task area to the lead robot in step 401. However, in step 413, the lead robot broadcasts a processing capabilities query in the task area to seek processing capabilities of a subordinate robot in the task area 100. ”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0018] “ A HOL assembly 20 can comprise mechanisms for permitting a human to input required scripts for designating a lead robot in step 400 and assigning a task in step 401.”).
and when receiving a work goal of the corresponding group calculated based on the entire work from the central control management server, allocates detailed tasks to be performed by the robots belonging to the corresponding group on the basis of the work goal of the corresponding group, or controls to perform detailed task allocated from the leader robot. (See at least paragraph [0005] [0025] “designating a first robot a lead robot and assigning a first task in a task area to the lead robot. Broadcasting, from the lead robot, a processing capabilities query in the task area seeks processing capabilities of a subordinate robot in the task area. Receiving, at the lead robot, a processing capabilities confirmation signal from the subordinate robot in the task area informs the lead robot of subordinate robot processing characteristics. Broadcasting, from the lead robot, a work query to the subordinate robot, and receiving, at the lead robot, a work confirmation signal from the subordinate robot, answers the work query with an affirmation that the subordinate robot is in the task area to perform the task. Transmitting, from the lead robot, a task command to the subordinate robot in response to the work confirmation signal, comprises a directive to perform the first task. Receiving at the lead robot, from the subordinate robot, a task confirmation signal comprises first data confirming the subordinate robot physical characteristics and second data confirming the subordinate robot electronic characteristics. Processing the received first data and the received second data confirms whether the subordinate robot can collaborate with the lead robot to do the first task. One or both of the lead robot and the subordinate robot complete at least a portion of the first task.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-6, 8 and 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180196404, to Stilwell et al. (hereinafter Stilwell), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9637310 , to Zou et al (hereinafter Zou).
Regarding claim 1, and commensurate claim 8, and 10, Stilwell disclose, A method for controlling multiple robots comprising the steps of: (See at least paragraph [Abstract] “robotic collaboration comprises designating a first robot a lead robot and assigning a first task in a task area to the lead robot.”). configuring a plurality of robots to perform tasks in a field as a plurality of groups by a central control management server, and designating a certain robot included in each group as a leader robot; (See at least paragraph [0040-0044] “ robotic collaboration comprises the same steps of designating a first robot a lead robot in step 400 and assigning a first task in a task area to the lead robot in step 401. However, in step 413, the lead robot broadcasts a processing capabilities query in the task area to seek processing capabilities of a subordinate robot in the task area 100. ”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0018] “ A HOL assembly 20 can comprise mechanisms for permitting a human to input required scripts for designating a lead robot in step 400 and assigning a task in step 401.”).
and transmitting, by the central control management server, the calculated work goal for each group to the leader robot of each group, so that the leader robot of each group can allocate detailed tasks to be performed by the robots belonging to the corresponding group based on the calculated work goal for each group. (See at least paragraph [0005] [0025] “designating a first robot a lead robot and assigning a first task in a task area to the lead robot. Broadcasting, from the lead robot, a processing capabilities query in the task area seeks processing capabilities of a subordinate robot in the task area. Receiving, at the lead robot, a processing capabilities confirmation signal from the subordinate robot in the task area informs the lead robot of subordinate robot processing characteristics. Broadcasting, from the lead robot, a work query to the subordinate robot, and receiving, at the lead robot, a work confirmation signal from the subordinate robot, answers the work query with an affirmation that the subordinate robot is in the task area to perform the task. Transmitting, from the lead robot, a task command to the subordinate robot in response to the work confirmation signal, comprises a directive to perform the first task. Receiving at the lead robot, from the subordinate robot, a task confirmation signal comprises first data confirming the subordinate robot physical characteristics and second data confirming the subordinate robot electronic characteristics. Processing the received first data and the received second data confirms whether the subordinate robot can collaborate with the lead robot to do the first task. One or both of the lead robot and the subordinate robot complete at least a portion of the first task.”).
Stilwell fails to explicitly disclose, however Zou discloses, calculating a work goal for each group based on the entire task by the central control management server; (See at least paragraph [Abstract] “multiple robots may be operated to move an item. The robots may be allocated to a mobile robot group configured to move the item according to an arrangement of these robots. Tasks for incrementally moving the item and dependencies between the tasks may be generated. Instructions about a first task may be sent to one of the robots. Progress about performing the first task may be received back from the robot. Based on the progress and a dependency from the first task, instructions about a second dependent task may be sent to a second robot. When performed by the respective robots, the first task and the second task may cause an incremental movement of the item by the mobile robot group.”).
Stilwell as modified by Zou, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotic management systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Stilwell which a method of robotic collaboration to incorporate the teachings of Zou such that (See [Abstract] “multiple robots may be operated to move an item. The robots may be allocated to a mobile robot group configured to move the item according to an arrangement of these robots. Tasks for incrementally moving the item and dependencies between the tasks may be generated.” One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motived in order to effectively complete the project in a more time consuming method.
Regarding claim 2, Stilwell as modified by Zou disclose the claimed features of claim 1 disclose, Stilwell fails to explicitly disclose, however Zou discloses, wherein in the step of designating a certain robot included in each group as a leader robot, the central control management server divides the field into a plurality of zones and configures groups to take charge of each zone. (See [Section 6, Lines 21-24] “the robots 210 and 220 are positioned at different locations within an internal space of the macro robot 200 to form an arrangement for moving an item 230.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Stilwell to incorporate the teachings of Zou for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Stilwell as modified by Zou disclose the claimed features of claim 1 disclose, Stilwell fails to explicitly disclose, however Zou discloses, wherein the group includes at least one among a transport mobile robot, an object classification and recognition robot, and an object stacking space recognition robot. (See [Section 16, Lines 32-39] “A mobile drive unit 1120 may be an example of a mobile robot. A group of the mobile drive units 1120 having a specific arrangement may be an example of a macro robot. Mobile drive units 1120 transport inventory holders 1130 between points within a workspace 1170 in response to commands communicated by management module 1115.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Stilwell to incorporate the teachings of Zou for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Stilwell as modified by Zou disclose the claimed features of claim 1 disclose, Stilwell further discloses, further comprising the steps of: determining whether a work goal change event occurs by the central control management server; in a case in which the work goal change event occurs, re-calculating the work goal for each group according to the work goal change by the central control management server; and transmitting, by the central control management server, the recalculated work goal for each group to the leader robot of each group so that the leader robot of each group reallocates detailed tasks to be performed by the robots belonging to the corresponding group according to the recalculated work goal for each group. (See at least paragraph [0046] “predictive mapping is applied to the task area data 503. Predictive mapping can comprise several aspects, but is useful so that assigning a first task in a task area to the lead robot comprises pre-processing task area data and predictive-mapping a sequence of subroutines necessary to complete the first task. Also, the method can comprise collecting and processing additional task area data and iteratively adjusting the sequence of subroutines necessary to complete the first task as the lead robot completes at least a portion of the first task.”).
Regarding claim 5 Stilwell discloses, A method for controlling multiple robots comprising the steps of: designating a certain robot among a plurality of robots as a leader robot for a certain group by a central control management server, .”). configuring a plurality of robots to perform tasks in a field as a plurality of groups by a central control management server, and designating a certain robot included in each group as a leader robot; (See at least paragraph [0040-0044] “ robotic collaboration comprises the same steps of designating a first robot a lead robot in step 400 and assigning a first task in a task area to the lead robot in step 401. However, in step 413, the lead robot broadcasts a processing capabilities query in the task area to seek processing capabilities of a subordinate robot in the task area 100. ”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0018] “ A HOL assembly 20 can comprise mechanisms for permitting a human to input required scripts for designating a lead robot in step 400 and assigning a task in step 401.”).
receiving, by the leader robot, a work goal of the corresponding group calculated based on the entire work from the central control management server; (See at least paragraph [0025] “A method of robotic collaboration is outlined in FIG. 4A and comprises designating a first robot a lead robot in step 400. This can be done by a human via HOL assembly 20, or algorithms discussed more below can be implemented onboard a current squad leader robot SQL or can be implemented at the HOL assembly 20 for result in lead robot designation. FIG. 4 illustrates the designation emanating from HOL assembly 20. HOL assembly 20 also assigns a task in step 401, either via automation programming or via human selection. The task is assigned in a task area 100 to the lead robot, who is also known as the squad leader robot SQL. The method progresses with broadcasting, from the lead robot, a work query in the task area in step 403. This seeks the presence of subordinate robots configured to perform tasks. In the example, robot A1 receives the broadcast and, in step 422, robot A1 transmits a work confirmation signal. The lead robot receives the work confirmation signal from the subordinate robot in the task area in step 405. This answers the work query with an affirmation that a subordinate robot is in the task area to perform tasks.”).
Stilwell fails to explicitly disclose, however Zou discloses, and receiving a control authority of robots belonging to the corresponding group from the central control management server; (See [Column 2, lines 39-52] “ each mobile robot may be flexibly deployed to handle an item individually or in a mobile robot group. Thus, the overall utilization of mobile robots may be increased. To enable such enhancements, changes to the mobile robots may be made. However, such changes may be minimum and may be limited to, typically, control software of the mobile robots rather than hardware updates. A mobile robot group may represent a group of mobile robots organized in an arrangement within the group. A mobile robot group implementing macro robot movement may be referred to herein as a “macro robot” for brevity. A mobile robot may represent a robot that may be mobile and can move between locations within a space. A mobile robot may be referred to herein as a “robot” for brevity.”).
and allocating, by the leader robot, detailed tasks to be performed by the robots belonging to the corresponding group on the basis of the work goal of the corresponding group. (See at least paragraph [Abstract] “multiple robots may be operated to move an item. The robots may be allocated to a mobile robot group configured to move the item according to an arrangement of these robots. Tasks for incrementally moving the item and dependencies between the tasks may be generated. Instructions about a first task may be sent to one of the robots. Progress about performing the first task may be received back from the robot. Based on the progress and a dependency from the first task, instructions about a second dependent task may be sent to a second robot. When performed by the respective robots, the first task and the second task may cause an incremental movement of the item by the mobile robot group.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Stilwell to incorporate the teachings of Zou for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Stilwell as modified by Zou disclose the claimed features of claim 5 disclose, Stilwell further discloses, further comprising the steps of: determining a work execution state in the group by the leader robot; transmitting, by the leader robot, redundant robot information to the central control management server in a case in which there is a redundant robot in the group;
and requesting, by the leader robot, redundant robot information to the central control management server in a case in which the leader robot determines a redundant robot is needed in the group. (See at least paragraph [0004] [0025-0029] “Transmitting, from the lead robot, a task command to the subordinate robot in response to the work confirmation signal comprises a directive to perform the first task. Receiving at the lead robot, from the subordinate robot, a task confirmation signal comprising first data confirming the subordinate robot physical characteristics and second data confirming the subordinate robot electronic characteristics informs the lead robot of the subordinate robot electronic characteristics comprising processing capabilities, transmit signal profile, receive signal profile, and storage device capabilities. Processing the received first data and the received second data confirms whether the subordinate robot can collaborate with the lead robot to do the first task. The lead robot or the subordinate robot completes at least a portion of the first task.”).
Claims 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180196404, to Stilwell et al. (hereinafter Stilwell), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9637310 , to Zou et al (hereinafter Zou), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publicaiton No. 20100256852, to Mudalige et al (hereinafter Mudalige).
Regarding claim 7, Stilwell as modified by Zou disclose the claimed features of claim 5 disclose, Stilwell further discloses, further comprising the steps of: in a case in which the leader robot determines that a redundant robot is needed in the group, (See at least paragraph [0039] “one of reassigning the first task to the lead robot and broadcasting a task support signal seeking task support from a second subordinate robot.”) requesting, by the leader robot, a redundant robot to a leader robot of another group; (See at least paragraph [0086] “a potential Leader Vehicle advertises to other vehicles a desire to form a platoon. Such an advertisement is depicted from the potential Leader Vehicle to another potential Leader Vehicle or Follower Vehicle and at least one potential Follower Vehicle. The advertisement is accompanied by a leadership ambition value. The other potential Leader Vehicle and potential Follower Vehicles can respond, accepting or rejecting the advertisement. Additionally, the responding vehicles can respond with a leadership ambition value or their own. Based upon acceptances and comparisons of leadership ambition, a formation is formed around a Leader Vehicle and communication between the Leader Vehicle and the various Follower Vehicles is managed. Such a formation is depicted, including creation of a formation by the Leader Vehicle, acceptance of the formation by the Follower Vehicles, designation of the Leader Vehicle, and subsequent exchanges of leader and follower extensions or communications.”).
Stilwell fails to explicitly disclose, however Mudalige discloses, and transmitting, the leader robot of the other group, a control authority of the redundant robot to the leader robot when the leader robot of the other group determines whether there is a redundant robot and the redundant robot exists in the group. (See at least paragraph [0087] “the Leader Vehicle can acknowledge the join request with a “Join Granted” message and the new vehicle's assigned position.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0086] “a potential Leader Vehicle advertises to other vehicles a desire to form a platoon. Such an advertisement is depicted from the potential Leader Vehicle to another potential Leader Vehicle or Follower Vehicle and at least one potential Follower Vehicle. The advertisement is accompanied by a leadership ambition value. The other potential Leader Vehicle and potential Follower Vehicles can respond, accepting or rejecting the advertisement. Additionally, the responding vehicles can respond with a leadership ambition value or their own. Based upon acceptances and comparisons of leadership ambition, a formation is formed around a Leader Vehicle and communication between the Leader Vehicle and the various Follower Vehicles is managed. Such a formation is depicted, including creation of a formation by the Leader Vehicle, acceptance of the formation by the Follower Vehicles, designation of the Leader Vehicle, and subsequent exchanges of leader and follower extensions or communications.”).
Stilwell as modified by Mudalige, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotic management systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Stilwell as modified by Zou where Stilwell teaches a method of robotic collaboration to incorporate the teachings of Mudalige such leader to leader slave vehicle exchange will aid in Stilwell teachings in order to add/remove vehicles due to the amount of payload needed for a specific task.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesam Almadhrhi whose telephone number is (571) 270-3844. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESAM NMN ALMADHRHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666