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 action is in reply to the application filed on 7/26/2023, the response and amendments filed 7/11/2025, and the response, amendments, and request for continued examination filed 1/17/2026.
Claims 20, 24, 30, and 33 have been amended.
Claims 16-35 have been previously added.
Claims 1-15 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 16-35 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/17/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 8/01/2025 has been received and considered. The Foreign Patent Document line 4, GB-2019413.0 referenced in the IDS dated 10/11/2023 will remain not considered, but the examiner thanks the applicant for supplying the equivalent US-20230422011 in the more recent IDS, which has been considered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112a rejection and the 112b rejections of claims 20 and 30 regarding the term “to a certain extent” previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 10/23/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8-9 of the remarks filed 1/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 16-30 under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarding the use of the term “short range” is persuasive regarding the applicability of Orthokinetics per MPEP 2173.05(b). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12 of the remarks filed 1/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended independent claims 16, 26, and 35 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered regarding the applicant’s clarification regarding the intended interpretation of “interference.” In light of this interpretation, the previous rejections are withdrawn as moot. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Staub (US 20200252768), Ranasinghe (US 20150332523), Condeixa (US 20170339011), and Zisch (EP 3693821) to better address the intended interpretation of “interference.”
Applicant's argument, see page 11 of the remarks filed 1/17/2026, with respect to the applicability of the Voronoi nodes of El-Damhougy (US 20070299947) to identifying areas of overlap of short-range communications, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As noted within the responding comments, ¶ 0043 of El-Damhougy describes “the Voronoi nodes may be selected as points that are separated by a distance that is closer than a maximum allowable separation to maintain direct communication.” A node within the maximum allowable separation of other nodes inherently describes a node within an overlap region of maximum allowable separation zones of the other nodes.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 1/17/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18/252,919 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16-17, 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staub et al (US 20200252768, hereinafter referred to as Staub) in view of Ranasinghe et al (US 20150332523, hereinafter “Ranasinghe”) and Condeixa et al (US 20170339011, hereinafter “Condeixa”).
Regarding Claim 16, Staub teaches:
A method, comprising: recognizing, by a computing system (Staub ¶ 0018 lines 1-4 “FIG. 2 depicts a block diagram of an exemplary data hauling system 200. Data hauling system 200 may include exemplary processing components of the machines 101, service vehicle 103,” processing components being analogous to a computing system)
of a first robot of at least three robots, (Staub ¶ 0004 lines 1-7 “In one aspect, a system for collecting data from a machine lacking network connectivity may comprise a mobile vehicle. The mobile vehicle may be configured for providing a vehicle communication network to a data hauling device of the machine, the machine being remote from a stationary site having a site-specific communication network,” ¶ 0012 lines 1-6 “FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary system 100 for providing network connectivity. System 100 may include one or more machines 101a-101c (collectively machines 101), a communication network-providing service vehicle 103, and a wireless network 105 providing connectivity to machines 101 near service vehicle 103,” Fig 1 showing 4 vehicles total, and ¶ 0037 lines 8-12 “Since disclosed service vehicle 103 may provide a way for data to be securely and automatically collected, any human driver or automated driver may drive service vehicle 103 to a work site and collect data,” disclosing an automated vehicle, a ‘robot’)
a request for a data transfer from another one of the at least three robots, (Staub ¶ 0016 lines 1-8 “In one embodiment, service vehicle 103 may drive to a location near machine 101a, provide wireless network 105 to machine 101a, and convey the request for a status report to machine 101a. For example, the request may be transmitted from service vehicle 103 to the control module and/or data hauling radio of machine 101a. The data hauling radio of machine 101a may then initiate collection and storage of status report data responding to the request.”)
wherein each robot of the at least three robots comprises a first communication device with a short range communication reach (Staub ¶ 0014 “Each machine 101a, 101b, and 101c may be equipped with a data hauling device, e.g., a data hauling radio. […] The data hauling radio of each machine may be a built-in radio, or a radio retrofitted onto the machine”)
for exchanging data with one of the other robots; […] (Staub ¶ 0020 “Network manager 203 may be installed on a movable device, e.g., service vehicle 103 of FIG. 1. For example, network manager 203 be installed on a vehicle/device equipped with WiFi that can act as a data “mule” for shuttling data between machines 101 and another party […] Network manager 203 may include, for example, controller 205, WiFi radio 207, and database 209. Network manager 203 may detect machines 101 (e.g., via controller 205), download data from machines 101 (e.g., via WiFi radio 207)”)
[…] commanding, by the computing system, the third robot to move to the […] (Staub ¶ 0035 lines 22-25 “Network manager 203 may travel back to machines 101 to convey the request to each engine control module 201, which may begin to store or retrieve data responding to the request (steps 311 and 313).”)
[…] wherein each robot of the at least three robots comprises a second communication device with a long range communication reach […] and wherein the long range communication reach covers a field that contains the robots; (Staub ¶ 0022 lines 1-3 “WiFi radio 207 may include a long range radio, which may provision an area proximate the movable device to detect machines 101.”)
and receiving and sending, by the computing system, data […] (Staub ¶ 0016 lines 1-8 “In one embodiment, service vehicle 103 may drive to a location near machine 101a, provide wireless network 105 to machine 101a, and convey the request for a status report to machine 101a. For example, the request may be transmitted from service vehicle 103 to the control module and/or data hauling radio of machine 101a. The data hauling radio of machine 101a may then initiate collection and storage of status report data responding to the request.”)
Staub does not teach:
[…] determining, by the computing system, an area of interference of the short range communication reach of the first robot and the short range communication reach of a second robot of the at least three robots, when the second robot is out of the short range communication reach of the first robot; determining, by the computing system, a waypoint within the area of interference for a third robot of the at least three robots; […]
[…] waypoint, […]
[…] being greater than the short range communication reach, […]
[…] regarding insufficient free buffer space via the second communication device, wherein the data comprises information related to a detection of insufficient free buffer space of one of the robots.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Ranasinghe teaches:
[…] determining, by the computing system, an area of interference of the short range communication reach of the first robot and the short range communication reach of a second robot of the at least three robots, when the second robot is out of the short range communication reach of the first robot; (Ranasinghe ¶ 0045 lines 1-15 “each autonomous mobile node may have a predefined wireless communication range (e.g., a short range, […]) and autonomously navigates to establish a wireless communication link with an origin node or another autonomous mobile node deployed and detected to be within its wireless communication range or connectivity range. Thus, the one or more autonomous mobile nodes may be used to grow the tentacle to cover a large distance from the origin node 103 to the destination node 113. For example, if the origin node 103 and the destination node 113 are close in proximity to each other, then one autonomous mobile node deployed […] may be needed to establish a wireless communication network between the origin node 103 and the destination node 113,” Teaching a short predefined communication range of each vehicle, and a case of moving a vehicle to be within communication range of both an origin node and destination node, i.e. within an area of overlap)
determining, by the computing system, a waypoint within the area of interference for a third robot of the at least three robots; commanding, by the computing system, the third robot to move to the waypoint […] (Ranasinghe ¶ 0066 lines 3-11 “navigating an autonomous mobile node along one or more tentacles or wireless communication links is based on a profile of fields experienced by each autonomous mobile node. In an aspect of the BioAIR methodology, the autonomous mobile node may hold its position at an edge of its communications range to a neighboring autonomous mobile node based on information on signals (e.g., signal strength, quality of signals, etc.) received from the neighboring autonomous mobile node,” teaching the determination and holding of a position based on being at the edge of determined regions of signal, i.e. at the edge of overlaps of signal from neighboring signal generators, and the position being analogous to a waypoint; ¶ 0082 lines 7-13 “since the autonomous mobile node 109 is damaged (e.g., the autonomous mobile node 109 is down due to a mechanical failure), the autonomous mobile node 111 (or 107) fails to receive any signal and its timer expires. Upon expiration of the timer, the autonomous mobile node 111 (or 107) determines that the autonomous mobile node 109 is damaged or down,” and ¶ 0083 lines 1-7 “As a result, the Free node 133 autonomously moves to the location of the damaged node 109 and takes the place of the damaged node 109 in a tentacle formation. That is, the Free node 133 rebuilds the tentacle (e.g., complete the tentacle) by establishing wireless connectivity with both neighboring nodes, such as the autonomous mobile node 111 and the autonomous mobile node 107,” teaching moving a node to a location determined to be within communication range of both neighboring nodes, i.e. within overlapping communication range)
[…] wherein each robot of the at least three robots comprises a second communication device with a long range communication reach being greater than the short range communication reach […] (Ranasinghe ¶ 0108 lines 3-12 “An autonomous mobile node may include one or more apparatuses 1000 which include at least one processing system 1001. Also, alternatively, the apparatus 1000 can be any communications device embodied in an autonomous mobile node […] a transceiver interface 1006,” and ¶ 0129 lines 4-6 “the transceiver interface 1006 may be configured to support various short and long range wireless communications protocols,” teaching that each mobile robot includes short and long range communication devices.)
Staub and Ranasinghe are both considered analogous because they both relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub with the simple addition Ranasinghe’s short and long-range communication protocols and furthermore Ranasinghe’s leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving the system's ability to detect and respond to anomalous behavior ¶ 0006 lines 8-13) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
The combination of Staub and Ranasinghe does not teach:
[…] regarding insufficient free buffer space via the second communication device,
wherein the data comprises information related to a detection of insufficient free buffer space of one of the robots.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub and Ranasinghe, Zisch teaches:
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub and Ranasinghe, Condeixa teaches:
[…] and receiving and sending, by the computing system, data regarding insufficient free buffer space via the second communication device, wherein the data comprises information related to a detection of insufficient free buffer space of one of the robots. (Condeixa ¶ 0197 “In accordance with aspects of the present disclosure, the total size of the bundles of data in the storage of a network node may be limited such that the sum of the sizes of all bundles of data of listed on all of the bundle lists of a network node cannot exceed a pre-determined maximum threshold amount. […] Bundles of data that are unique to a network node may be managed so as to take into account their uniqueness in regard to communication of such bundles, the storage resources of the network node, and the importance and/or priority of the information contained in the bundle,” describing management of communicating unique data bundles to avoid exceeding maximum threshold amounts, as applied to the status report of Staub)
Staub, Ranasinghe, and Condeixa are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmission request of Staub with the simple substitution of Condeixa’s node data management to avoid exceeding a node data storage threshold. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by ensuring that data collection is performed often enough to ensure that storage capacity is recovered for storage of newly generated bundles of data (Condeixa ¶ 0197 lines 29-34) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, and Condeixa teaches the limitations of claim 16 as described above. Staub does not teach:
wherein the detection of insufficient free buffer space is associated with the buffer space of the first robot.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Condeixa further teaches:
wherein the detection of insufficient free buffer space is associated with the buffer space of the first robot. (Condeixa ¶ 0197 “In accordance with aspects of the present disclosure, the total size of the bundles of data in the storage of a network node may be limited such that the sum of the sizes of all bundles of data of listed on all of the bundle lists of a network node cannot exceed a pre-determined maximum threshold amount. […] Bundles of data that are unique to a network node may be managed so as to take into account their uniqueness in regard to communication of such bundles, the storage resources of the network node, and the importance and/or priority of the information contained in the bundle,” describing management of communicating unique data bundles to avoid exceeding maximum threshold amounts, as applied to the status report of Staub send by the first robot of Staub)
Staub, Ranasinghe, and Condeixa are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmission request of Staub with the simple substitution of Condeixa’s node data management to avoid exceeding a node data storage threshold. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by ensuring that data collection is performed often enough to ensure that storage capacity is recovered for storage of newly generated bundles of data (Condeixa ¶ 0197 lines 29-34) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, and Condeixa teaches the limitations of claim 16 as described above. Staub does not teach:
determining, by the computing system, one of the robots to transfer data with the first robot, wherein the short range communication reach of the one robot and the short range communication reach of the first robot are free of interference; and determining, by the computing system, a target area within the short range communication reach of the first robot and the one robot.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Ranasinghe teaches:
determining, by the computing system, one of the robots to transfer data with the first robot, (Ranasinghe ¶ 0044, especially “The UAV 1 autonomously moves and first comes in contact with the origin node 103, such as Node 1, and searches for a tentacle associated with the origin node 103. If there is no tentacle detected, then the UAV 1 creates a tentacle between the UAV 1 and Node 1, e.g., establishes a wireless communication link 121 (a tentacle) between the UAV 1 and Node 1. Once the UAV 2, UAV 3, and UAV 4 are deployed in the air, in accordance with certain aspects of the present disclosure, the UAV 2, UAV 3, and UAV 4 may autonomously fly towards Node 1 or Node 2. Each of the UAV 2, UAV 3, and UAV 4 searches and detects the tentacle associated with the origin node 103, and operates to grow or extend the tentacle towards the destination node 113, such as Node 2 or Node 3,” teaching a series of autonomous nodes, analogously including a one robot and a first robot, being deployed and connected to one another in order to establish a wireless communication link, i.e. transfer data)
wherein the short range communication reach of the one robot and the short range communication reach of the first robot are free of interference; (Ranasinghe ¶ 0045 lines 4-7 “the autonomous mobile nodes may be launched from anywhere at varying time intervals with some a priori knowledge about the origin node 103 and the destination node 113,” teaching a one robot being launched from “anywhere.” “Anywhere” includes an area outside of the communication reach of the first robot)
and determining, by the computing system, a target area within the short range communication reach of the first robot and the one robot. (Ranasinghe ¶ 0045 lines 1-15 “each autonomous mobile node may have a predefined wireless communication range (e.g., a short range, […]) and autonomously navigates to establish a wireless communication link with an origin node or another autonomous mobile node deployed and detected to be within its wireless communication range or connectivity range. Thus, the one or more autonomous mobile nodes may be used to grow the tentacle to cover a large distance from the origin node 103 to the destination node 113. For example, if the origin node 103 and the destination node 113 are close in proximity to each other, then one autonomous mobile node deployed […] may be needed to establish a wireless communication network between the origin node 103 and the destination node 113,” teaching a short predefined communication range of each vehicle, and a case of moving a vehicle to be within communication range of both an origin node and destination node, i.e. within an area of overlap)
Staub and Ranasinghe are both considered analogous because they both relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub with the simple addition Ranasinghe’s short and long-range communication protocols and furthermore Ranasinghe’s leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving the system's ability to detect and respond to anomalous behavior (Ranasinghe ¶ 0006 lines 8-13) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 18, 19, 21, 23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staub in view of Ranasinghe, Condeixa, and El-Damhougy (US 20070299947, hereinafter “El-Damhougy”).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, and Condeixa teaches the limitations of claim 16 as described above. Staub does not teach:
checking, by the computing system, whether the first and second robots are coverable by the short range communication reach of the third robot at the waypoint; and
commanding, by the computing system, the third robot to move to the waypoint if the first and second robots are coverable by the short range communication reach of the third robot at the waypoint.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Ranasinghe teaches:
[…] commanding, by the computing system, the third robot to move to the waypoint […] the first and second robots are coverable by the short range communication reach of the third robot at the waypoint. (Ranasinghe ¶ 0066 lines 3-11 teaching the determination and holding of a position based on being at the edge of determined regions of signal, i.e. at the edge of overlaps of signal from neighboring signal generators, and the position being analogous to a waypoint; ¶ 0082 lines 7-13 and ¶ 0083 lines 1-7 teaching moving a node to a location determined to be within communication range of both neighboring nodes, i.e. within overlapping communication range, as described above)
Staub and Ranasinghe are both considered analogous because they both relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub with the simple addition Ranasinghe’s short and long-range communication protocols and furthermore Ranasinghe’s leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving the system's ability to detect and respond to anomalous behavior (Ranasinghe ¶ 0006 lines 8-13) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
The combination of Staub and Ranasinghe does not teach pre-checking the waypoint and conditional movement:
checking, by the computing system, whether the first and second robots are coverable by the short range communication reach of the third robot at the waypoint; and […] if […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub and Ranasinghe, El-Damhougy teaches:
checking, by the computing system, whether the first and second robots are coverable by the short range communication reach of the third robot at the waypoint; (El-Damhougy ¶ 0033 lines 1-9 “When two nodes lose communication with each other and a direct link between the two is broken, the NMS and/or the responsible cluster leader may take remedial action. In some instances, such a loss partitions the network or a cluster. Typically, the NMS and/or the responsible cluster leader determine(s) an expected time-to-reconnect, find alternate connection paths, find healing nodes to be repositioned, or decide whether to reconfigure the partitions to heal the MCNN,” ¶ 0036 lines 1-23 “In step 182 potential healing nodes (mobile nodes that can move or change locations) are selected in each partition/cluster together with an associated partition/cluster for reconnecting to, e.g., 140, 144 for reconnecting partition 170 to 172 and 158 for reconnecting partition 172 to 174. In step 184 the selected nodes (140, 144, 158 in this example) are located at initial healing node locations as healing nodes […] In step 188 new optimum locations are identified for healing nodes, weighted by synaptic weights (Wi) that represents the node position coordinates from results of final unsupervised training,” and ¶ 0043 lines 1-11 “So, the Voronoi nodes may be selected as points that are separated by a distance that is closer than a maximum allowable separation to maintain direct communication, i.e., at maximum acceptable propagation loss. So, for example, the Delaunay edges identify linked nodes. Once the coverage area is tessellated and Delaunay edges are generated, healing node locations may be selected, e.g., based on a selected maximum allowable cluster separation,” teaching the determination of healing node locations (analogous to Ranasinghe’s free node being moved to a damaged tentacle location) based on separation by “a distance that is closer than the maximum allowable separation to maintain direct communication,” applying to the directly analogous predetermined communication ranges of Ranasinghe, in combination teaching within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the above claim elements)
and commanding, by the computing system, the third robot to move to the waypoint if the first and second robots are coverable by the short range communication reach of the third robot at the waypoint. (El-Damhougy ¶ 0035 “FIGS. 3A-B show an example of pre-selecting network nodes as healing nodes according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention. The selected healing nodes can be moved into position, whenever possible, to heal the network after it has been partitioned, e.g. by loss of a link from destruction or unavailability of a linking node,” teaching the healing nodes being moved into the position determined above to be within the maximum communication range)
Staub, Ranasinghe, and El-Damhougy are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub and the movement of free nodes to a location in connection with neighbor nodes to repair a damaged communication tentacle of Ranasinghe by the simple addition of the healing node optimum location identification and healing node movement to a determined location within a maximum allowable separation of El-Damhougy. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by compensating for variable link quality within the network (¶ 0008 lines 8-21) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination Staub, Ranasinghe, Condeixa, and El-Damhougy teaches the limitations of claim 18 as described above. Staub does not teach:
determining, by the computing system, a target area within the short range communication reach of the first and the second robots,
when the first and the second robots are out of the short range communication reach of the third robot when the third robot is at the waypoint.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, El-Damhougy teaches:
determining, by the computing system, a target area within the short range communication reach of the first and the second robots, (El-Damhougy ¶ 0048 lines 10-13 “[…] In step 206 the set of available healing positions is checked to determine if any remain; and if available healing nodes remain, returning to step 294, another data node location (x) is selected,” and ¶ 0043 lines 1-11 “So, the Voronoi nodes may be selected as points that are separated by a distance that is closer than a maximum allowable separation to maintain direct communication, i.e., at maximum acceptable propagation loss. So, for example, the Delaunay edges identify linked nodes. Once the coverage area is tessellated and Delaunay edges are generated, healing node locations may be selected, e.g., based on a selected maximum allowable cluster separation,” teaching the determination of healing node locations (analogous to Ranasinghe’s free node being moved to a damaged tentacle location) based on separation by “a distance that is closer than the maximum allowable separation to maintain direct communication,” applying to the directly analogous predetermined communication ranges of Ranasinghe, in combination teaching within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the above claim elements)
when the first and the second robots are out of the short range communication reach of the third robot when the third robot is at the waypoint. (El-Damhougy ¶ 0048 lines 1-10 “Once again, if in step 198, however, the node at x is connected, then in step 208 the network is checked to determine if it is still partitioned, e.g., as described in El-Damhougy III. If the network is not partitioned, the network has been healed; and in step 210 healing ends. Otherwise, if the network is partitioned in step 208, then, in addition to updating the positions of the winner node and its neighbors and connections in step 312, the ages of nodes are updated in step 313 for Voronoi power tessellation and Delaney power triangulation […]”)
Staub and El-Damhougy are both considered analogous because they both relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub and the short and long-range communication protocols and the leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines of Ranasinghe by further including the checking if partitions still exist after healing operation and mapping additional healing nodes if required of El-Damhougy. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by compensating for variable link quality within the network (¶ 0008 lines 8-21) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, and Condeixa teaches the limitations of claim 20 as described above. Staub does not teach:
determining, by the computing system, one of the robots except for the first robot to transfer data with the first robot,
wherein the one robot has a shorter time span to reach the target area than the other robots.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, El-Damhougy teaches:
determining, by the computing system, one of the robots except for the first robot to transfer data with the first robot, (El-Damhougy ¶ 0033 lines 1-8 “When two nodes lose communication with each other and a direct link between the two is broken, the NMS and/or the responsible cluster leader may take remedial action. In some instances, such a loss partitions the network or a cluster. Typically, the NMS and/or the responsible cluster leader determine(s) an expected time-to-reconnect, find alternate connection paths, find healing nodes to be repositioned”)
wherein the one robot has a shorter time span to reach the target area than the other robots. (El-Damhougy ¶ 0038 lines 20-21 “Preferably, the node closest to x is selected from D and moved to the position”)
Staub, Ranasinghe, and El-Damhougy are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub and the leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines of Ranasinghe by the simple addition of El-Damhougy’s determination of an alternate connection path and healing node and moving the closest healing node. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by compensating for variable link quality within the network (¶ 0008 lines 8-21), according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, and Condeixa teaches the limitations of claim 16 as described above. Staub does not teach:
determining, by the computing system, a second waypoint within the area of interference for a third robot at which the first and second robots are covered by the short range communication reach of the third robot;
checking, by the computing system, whether a predefined condition is fulfilled by the third robot;
and commanding, by the computing system, the third robot to move to the second waypoint if the condition is fulfilled by the third robot.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Ranasinghe teaches:
determining, by the computing system, a second waypoint within the area of interference for a third robot at which the first and second robots are covered by the short range communication reach of the third robot; […] commanding, by the computing system, the third robot to move to the second waypoint […] (Ranasinghe ¶ 0066 lines 3-11 teaching the determination and holding of a position based on being at the edge of determined regions of signal, i.e. at the edge of overlaps of signal from neighboring signal generators, and the position being analogous to a waypoint, applying equally as a first or a second; ¶ 0082 lines 7-13 and ¶ 0083 lines 1-7 teaching moving a node to a location determined to be within communication range of both neighboring nodes, i.e. within overlapping communication range, as described above)
Staub and Ranasinghe are both considered analogous because they both relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub with the simple addition Ranasinghe’s short and long-range communication protocols and furthermore Ranasinghe’s leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving the system's ability to detect and respond to anomalous behavior (Ranasinghe ¶ 0006 lines 8-13) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
The combination of Staub and Ranasinghe does not teach pre-checking the waypoint and conditional movement:
[…] checking, by the computing system, whether a predefined condition is fulfilled by the third robot; […] if […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub and Ranasinghe, El-Damhougy teaches:
[…] checking, by the computing system, whether a predefined condition is fulfilled by the third robot; […] (El-Damhougy ¶ 0033 lines 1-9 “When two nodes lose communication with each other and a direct link between the two is broken, the NMS and/or the responsible cluster leader may take remedial action. In some instances, such a loss partitions the network or a cluster. Typically, the NMS and/or the responsible cluster leader determine(s) an expected time-to-reconnect, find alternate connection paths, find healing nodes to be repositioned, or decide whether to reconfigure the partitions to heal the MCNN,” ¶ 0036 lines 1-23 “In step 182 potential healing nodes (mobile nodes that can move or change locations) are selected in each partition/cluster together with an associated partition/cluster for reconnecting to, e.g., 140, 144 for reconnecting partition 170 to 172 and 158 for reconnecting partition 172 to 174. In step 184 the selected nodes (140, 144, 158 in this example) are located at initial healing node locations as healing nodes […] In step 188 new optimum locations are identified for healing nodes, weighted by synaptic weights (Wi) that represents the node position coordinates from results of final unsupervised training,” and ¶ 0043 lines 1-11 “So, the Voronoi nodes may be selected as points that are separated by a distance that is closer than a maximum allowable separation to maintain direct communication, i.e., at maximum acceptable propagation loss. So, for example, the Delaunay edges identify linked nodes. Once the coverage area is tessellated and Delaunay edges are generated, healing node locations may be selected, e.g., based on a selected maximum allowable cluster separation,” teaching the determination of healing node locations (analogous to Ranasinghe’s free node being moved to a damaged tentacle location) based on separation by “a distance that is closer than the maximum allowable separation to maintain direct communication,” which is interpreted here as a predefined condition, applying to the directly analogous predetermined communication ranges of Ranasinghe, in combination teaching within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the above claim elements)
and commanding, by the computing system, the third robot to move to the waypoint if the first and second robots are coverable by the short range communication reach of the third robot at the waypoint. (El-Damhougy ¶ 0035 “FIGS. 3A-B show an example of pre-selecting network nodes as healing nodes according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention. The selected healing nodes can be moved into position, whenever possible, to heal the network after it has been partitioned, e.g. by loss of a link from destruction or unavailability of a linking node,” teaching the healing nodes being moved into the position determined above to be satisfying the predefined condition of being within a maximum communication range)
Staub, Ranasinghe, and El-Damhougy are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub and the movement of free nodes to a location in connection with neighbor nodes to repair a damaged communication tentacle of Ranasinghe by the simple addition of the healing node optimum location identification and healing node movement to a determined location satisfying the predefined condition of being within a maximum allowable separation of El-Damhougy. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by compensating for variable link quality within the network (¶ 0008 lines 8-21) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, Condeixa, and El-Damhougy and further in view of Huang (WO 2015187852, hereinafter referred to as Huang).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, Condeixa, and El-Damhougy teaches the limitations of claim 18 as described above. Staub does not teach:
determining, by the computing system, two target areas,
wherein both target areas comprise a shape of a circular segment,
wherein a first target area of the two areas is covered by a short range communication reach of a different robot than that of a second target area of the two areas, and wherein the first target area is oriented towards a robot of the robots whose short range communication reach covers the second target area.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, El-Damhougy teaches:
determining, by the computing system, two target areas, […] (El-Damhougy ¶ 0036 lines 1-4 “In step 182 potential healing nodes (mobile nodes that can move or change locations) are selected in each partition/cluster together with an associated partition/cluster for reconnecting to,” emphasis added showing multiple required healing node locations)
[…] wherein a first target area of the two areas is covered by a short range communication reach of a different robot than that of a second target area of the two areas, and wherein the first target area is oriented towards a robot of the robots whose short range communication reach covers the second target area. (El-Damhougy ¶ 0036 lines 20-23 “In step 188 new optimum locations are identified for healing nodes, weighted by synaptic weights (Wi) that represents the node position coordinates from results of final unsupervised training,” within the predefined area of communications reach previously established by Ranasinghe ¶ 0045 lines 1-15)
Staub and El-Damhougy are both considered analogous because they both relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub and the leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines of Ranasinghe by the addition of the selection of multiple healing nodes send to multiple new optimum locations of El-Damhougy. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by compensating for variable link quality within the network (¶ 0008 lines 8-21) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
The combination of Staub and El-Damhougy does not teach:
[…] wherein both target areas comprise a shape of a circular segment, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub and El-Damhougy, Huang teaches:
[…] wherein both target areas comprise a shape of a circular segment, […] (Huang ¶ 0083 “In an alternative embodiment, if all the possible data transmission route are determined (e.g., by using the method as described in FIG. 2A-2E), the source node (e.g., the communication node wNode, bNode or the terminal device wTag, bTag), and the destination node (e.g., the switch nodes bwRouter, wRouter or wGateway) can further calculate the distance between each intermediate nodes according to the longitudes, latitudes, and altitudes of the intermediate nodes, and calculate a total length of each data transmission route by adding up the distances between the intermediate nodes. Then, the source node or the destination node select a shortest data transmission route as the best route to transmit the data packets by utilizing a vector-based minimum-included- angle method including the following steps: generating a first vector from the source node to the destination node; generating a second vector from the source node to each of the intermediate nodes that is within a effective communication range of the source node; selecting a second vector having a minimum angle with the first vector, and determining the intermediate node forming the selected second vector with the source node as the best intermediate node to transmit a data packet received from the source node. It should be noticed that the intermediate node receiving the data packet can be regarded as a new source node after receiving the data packet from the original source node. By repeating the above steps to transmit the data packet from node to node, a best data transmission route can be determined by connecting all the best intermediate nodes. It should be noticed that the communication node can be replaced by the switch node, such as bwRouter or wRouter, to achieve best data transmission route,” describing circular segment wedge area between angles for a data a transmission route)
Staub, Ranasinghe, El-Damhougy, and Huang are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub, and the leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines of Ranasinghe, and the mapping of additional healing nodes if required of El-Damhougy by adding the vector-based minimum-included angle method of Huang. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by determining a best data transmission route connecting all the best intermediate nodes (Huang Pg 46 ¶ 0083 lines 11-13) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 24-27, 30, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staub in view of Ranasinghe, Condeixa, and Zisch (EP 3693821, hereinafter “Zisch,” all citations and excerpts taken from the previously supplied machine translation).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, and Condeixa teaches the limitations of claim 16 as described above. Staub does not teach:
determining, by the computing system, a rank order among the robots, wherein the first robot and the second robot have highest and lowest ranks, and the third robot has an intermediate rank; and initiating, by the computing system, a data transfer between the robot of the highest rank and the robot of the lowest rank after the determination of the rank order.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Zisch teaches:
determining, by the computing system, a rank order among the robots, wherein the first robot and the second robot have highest and lowest ranks, (Zisch Pg 2 ¶ 9 lines 3-10 “it is provided that a robot of the robot group is operated as a master robot with regard to communication with the stationary communication unit, which is connected to the stationary communication unit via a long-distance wireless communication interface and to which the security information is transmitted from the stationary communication unit via the long-distance wireless communication interface become. The invention also provides that at least one robot of the robot group is operated as a slave robot with regard to communication with the stationary communication unit, to which the master robot forwards the safety information received from the master robot via a short-range wireless communication interface,” teaching a rank order with a first robot directly connected to the stationary unit as a master, analogous to Staub’s service vehicle and Ranasinghe’s first autonomous mobile backbone node connected to an origin node, and a slave robot analogous to Ranasinghe’s destination node)
and the third robot has an intermediate rank; (Zisch Pg 5 ¶ 8 lines 1-4 “In an advantageous variant of the invention, the robot group comprises at least three mobile robots. In this case, preferably at least one of the slave robots is operated as a submaster robot, to which the safety information received from the master robot is transmitted via a short-range wireless communication interface and from which this information is forwarded via a further short-range wireless communication interface to at least one other slave,” teaching the transmission based on rank order to an intermediate (submaster) robot, analogous to Ranasinghe’s autonomous mobile nodes)
and initiating, by the computing system, a data transfer between the robot of the highest rank and the robot of the lowest rank after the determination of the rank order. (Zisch Pg 2 ¶ 10 line 1 – Pg 3 ¶ 1 line 2 “Because the master robot forwards the safety information received from the stationary communication unit to the slave robot (s) of the robot group, the respective slave robot does not need a direct connection to the stationary communication unit in order to receive the safety information,” teaching the transmission based on rank order (i.e. after determination of rank order) and Pg 5 ¶ 10 lines 1-3 “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, data is forwarded serially between the robots of the robot group. In this case, data is forwarded directly from the respective robot of the robot group to a maximum of one of the other robots of the robot group via a short-range wireless communication interface.”)
Staub, Ranasinghe, and Zisch are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub and the communication tentacle with an origin node, autonomous mobile backbone nodes, and destination node of Ranasinghe by the simple addition of Zisch’s master, submaster, and slave robot ordering of the serial communication, the serial communication being analogous to Staub’s data transfer. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by enabling a comparatively low complexity of data transmission among the robots (Zisch Pg 5 ¶ 10 lines 3-6) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, Condeixa, and Zisch teaches the limitations of claim 24 as described above. Staub does not teach:
initiating a data transfer between robots of intermediate rank
after the buffers of all the robots of intermediate ranks are freed up.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Zisch teaches:
initiating a data transfer between robots of intermediate rank […] (Zisch Pg 5 ¶ 8 lines 1-4 “In an advantageous variant of the invention, the robot group comprises at least three mobile robots. In this case, preferably at least one of the slave robots is operated as a submaster robot, to which the safety information received from the master robot is transmitted via a short-range wireless communication interface and from which this information is forwarded via a further short-range wireless communication interface to at least one other slave,” teaching the transmission based on rank order to an intermediate (submaster) robot)
Staub, Ranasinghe, and Zisch are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub and the communication tentacle with an origin node, autonomous mobile backbone nodes, and destination node of Ranasinghe by the simple addition of Zisch’s master, submaster, and slave robot ordering of the serial communication, the serial communication being analogous to Staub’s data transfer. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by enabling a comparatively low complexity of data transmission among the robots (Zisch Pg 5 ¶ 10 lines 3-6) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
The combination of Staub and Zisch does not teach:
[…] after the buffers of all the robots of intermediate ranks are freed up.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub and Zisch, Condeixa teaches:
[…] after the buffers of all the robots of intermediate ranks are freed up. (Condeixa ¶ 0197 “In accordance with aspects of the present disclosure, the total size of the bundles of data in the storage of a network node may be limited such that the sum of the sizes of all bundles of data of listed on all of the bundle lists of a network node cannot exceed a pre-determined maximum threshold amount. […] Bundles of data that are unique to a network node may be managed so as to take into account their uniqueness in regard to communication of such bundles, the storage resources of the network node, and the importance and/or priority of the information contained in the bundle,” describing management of communicating unique data bundles to avoid exceeding maximum threshold amounts, as applied to the serial data transmission of Zisch)
Staub, Ranasinghe, Zisch, and Condeixa are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmission request of Staub and the serial data transmission of Zisch with the simple addition of Condeixa’s node data management to avoid exceeding a node data storage threshold as a condition of transfer. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by ensuring that data collection is performed often enough to ensure that storage capacity is recovered for storage of newly generated bundles of data (Condeixa ¶ 0197 lines 29-34), according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 26, Staub teaches:
An apparatus of a first robot of a plurality of robots, (Staub ¶ 0004 lines 1-7 “In one aspect, a system for collecting data from a machine lacking network connectivity may comprise a mobile vehicle. The mobile vehicle may be configured for providing a vehicle communication network to a data hauling device of the machine, the machine being remote from a stationary site having a site-specific communication network,” ¶ 0012 lines 1-6 “FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary system 100 for providing network connectivity. System 100 may include one or more machines 101a-101c (collectively machines 101), a communication network-providing service vehicle 103, and a wireless network 105 providing connectivity to machines 101 near service vehicle 103,” Fig 1 showing 4 vehicles total, and ¶ 0037 lines 8-12 “Since disclosed service vehicle 103 may provide a way for data to be securely and automatically collected, any human driver or automated driver may drive service vehicle 103 to a work site and collect data,” disclosing an automated vehicle, a ‘robot’)
comprising a computing system, (Staub ¶ 0018 lines 1-4 “FIG. 2 depicts a block diagram of an exemplary data hauling system 200. Data hauling system 200 may include exemplary processing components of the machines 101, service vehicle 103,” processing components being analogous to a computing system)
configured to: recognize a request for a data transfer from another one of the robots, (Staub ¶ 0016 lines 1-8 “In one embodiment, service vehicle 103 may drive to a location near machine 101a, provide wireless network 105 to machine 101a, and convey the request for a status report to machine 101a. For example, the request may be transmitted from service vehicle 103 to the control module and/or data hauling radio of machine 101a. The data hauling radio of machine 101a may then initiate collection and storage of status report data responding to the request.”)
wherein each robot of the plurality of robots comprises a data storage (Staub ¶ 0014 lines 1-8 “Each machine 101a, 101b, and 101c may be equipped with a data hauling device, e.g., a data hauling radio. The data hauling radio may be configured to collect data associated with each machine's subscription or based on requests received by the machine. For example, the data hauling radio of machine 101a may be prompted by the engine control module of machine 101a to collect and store performance or status data of machine 101a.”)
and a first communication device with a short range communication reach (Staub ¶ 0014 “Each machine 101a, 101b, and 101c may be equipped with a data hauling device, e.g., a data hauling radio. […] The data hauling radio of each machine may be a built-in radio, or a radio retrofitted onto the machine”)
for exchanging data with one of the other robots; […] (Staub ¶ 0020 “Network manager 203 may be installed on a movable device, e.g., service vehicle 103 of FIG. 1. For example, network manager 203 be installed on a vehicle/device equipped with WiFi that can act as a data “mule” for shuttling data between machines 101 and another party […] Network manager 203 may include, for example, controller 205, WiFi radio 207, and database 209. Network manager 203 may detect machines 101 (e.g., via controller 205), download data from machines 101 (e.g., via WiFi radio 207)”)
[…] command the third robot to move to […] (Staub ¶ 0035 lines 22-25 “Network manager 203 may travel back to machines 101 to convey the request to each engine control module 201, which may begin to store or retrieve data responding to the request (steps 311 and 313).”)
[…] wherein each robot of the plurality of robots comprises a second communication device with a long range communication reach […] wherein the long range communication reach covers a field that contains the robots, […] (Staub ¶ 0022 lines 1-3 “WiFi radio 207 may include a long range radio, which may provision an area proximate the movable device to detect machines 101.”)
[…] and receive and send data […] (Staub ¶ 0016 lines 1-8 “In one embodiment, service vehicle 103 may drive to a location near machine 101a, provide wireless network 105 to machine 101a, and convey the request for a status report to machine 101a. For example, the request may be transmitted from service vehicle 103 to the control module and/or data hauling radio of machine 101a. The data hauling radio of machine 101a may then initiate collection and storage of status report data responding to the request.”)
Staub does not teach:
[…] determine an area of interference of the short range communication reach of the first robot and the short range communication reach of a second robot of the plurality of robots, when the second robot is out of the short range communication reach of the first robot; determine a waypoint within the area of interference for a third robot of the plurality of robots; […]
[…] the waypoint, […]
[…] being greater than the short range communication reach, […]
[…] and wherein the first robot is configured as a logistic unit to command the other robots by sending commands via the second communication device; […]
[…] regarding insufficient free buffer space via the second communication device, wherein the data comprises information related to a detection of insufficient free buffer space of one of the robots.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Ranasinghe teaches:
[…] determine an area of interference of the short range communication reach of the first robot and the short range communication reach of a second robot of the plurality of robots, when the second robot is out of the short range communication reach of the first robot; (Ranasinghe ¶ 0045 lines 1-15 “each autonomous mobile node may have a predefined wireless communication range (e.g., a short range, […]) and autonomously navigates to establish a wireless communication link with an origin node or another autonomous mobile node deployed and detected to be within its wireless communication range or connectivity range. Thus, the one or more autonomous mobile nodes may be used to grow the tentacle to cover a large distance from the origin node 103 to the destination node 113. For example, if the origin node 103 and the destination node 113 are close in proximity to each other, then one autonomous mobile node deployed […] may be needed to establish a wireless communication network between the origin node 103 and the destination node 113,” Teaching a short predefined communication range of each vehicle, and a case of moving a vehicle to be within communication range of both an origin node and destination node, i.e. within an area of overlap)
determine a waypoint within the area of interference for a third robot of the plurality of robots; command the third robot to move to the waypoint (Ranasinghe ¶ 0066 lines 3-11 “navigating an autonomous mobile node along one or more tentacles or wireless communication links is based on a profile of fields experienced by each autonomous mobile node. In an aspect of the BioAIR methodology, the autonomous mobile node may hold its position at an edge of its communications range to a neighboring autonomous mobile node based on information on signals (e.g., signal strength, quality of signals, etc.) received from the neighboring autonomous mobile node,” teaching the determination and holding of a position based on being at the edge of determined regions of signal, i.e. at the edge of overlaps of signal from neighboring signal generators, and the position being analogous to a waypoint; ¶ 0082 lines 7-13 “since the autonomous mobile node 109 is damaged (e.g., the autonomous mobile node 109 is down due to a mechanical failure), the autonomous mobile node 111 (or 107) fails to receive any signal and its timer expires. Upon expiration of the timer, the autonomous mobile node 111 (or 107) determines that the autonomous mobile node 109 is damaged or down,” and ¶ 0083 lines 1-7 “As a result, the Free node 133 autonomously moves to the location of the damaged node 109 and takes the place of the damaged node 109 in a tentacle formation. That is, the Free node 133 rebuilds the tentacle (e.g., complete the tentacle) by establishing wireless connectivity with both neighboring nodes, such as the autonomous mobile node 111 and the autonomous mobile node 107,” teaching moving a node to a location determined to be within communication range of both neighboring nodes, i.e. within overlapping communication range)
wherein each robot of the plurality of robots comprises a second communication device with a long range communication reach being greater than the short range communication reach, […] (Ranasinghe ¶ 0108 lines 3-12 “An autonomous mobile node may include one or more apparatuses 1000 which include at least one processing system 1001. Also, alternatively, the apparatus 1000 can be any communications device embodied in an autonomous mobile node […] a transceiver interface 1006,” and ¶ 0129 lines 4-6 “the transceiver interface 1006 may be configured to support various short and long range wireless communications protocols,” teaching that each mobile robot includes short and long range communication devices.)
Staub and Ranasinghe are both considered analogous because they both relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub with the simple addition Ranasinghe’s short and long-range communication protocols and furthermore Ranasinghe’s leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving the system's ability to detect and respond to anomalous behavior (Ranasinghe ¶ 0006 lines 8-13) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
The combination of Staub and Ranasinghe does not teach:
[…] and wherein the first robot is configured as a logistic unit to command the other robots by sending commands via the second communication device; […]
[…] regarding insufficient free buffer space via the second communication device, wherein the data comprises information related to a detection of insufficient free buffer space of one of the robots.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub and Ranasinghe, Condeixa teaches:
[…] and receive and send data regarding insufficient free buffer space via the second communication device, wherein the data comprises information related to a detection of insufficient free buffer space of one of the robots. (Condeixa ¶ 0197 “In accordance with aspects of the present disclosure, the total size of the bundles of data in the storage of a network node may be limited such that the sum of the sizes of all bundles of data of listed on all of the bundle lists of a network node cannot exceed a pre-determined maximum threshold amount. […] Bundles of data that are unique to a network node may be managed so as to take into account their uniqueness in regard to communication of such bundles, the storage resources of the network node, and the importance and/or priority of the information contained in the bundle,” describing management of communicating unique data bundles to avoid exceeding maximum threshold amounts, as applied to the status report of Staub)
Staub, Ranasinghe, and Condeixa are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmission request of Staub with the simple substitution of Condeixa’s node data management to avoid exceeding a node data storage threshold. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by ensuring that data collection is performed often enough to ensure that storage capacity is recovered for storage of newly generated bundles of data (Condeixa ¶ 0197 lines 29-34) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
The combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, and Condeixa does not teach:
[…] and wherein the first robot is configured as a logistic unit to command the other robots by sending commands via the second communication device; […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Ranasinghe, and Condeixa, Zisch teaches:
[…] and wherein the first robot is configured as a logistic unit to command the other robots by sending commands via the second communication device; […] (Zisch Pg 2 ¶ 10 – Pg 3 ¶ 1 lines 1-2 “Because the master robot forwards the safety information received from the stationary communication unit to the slave robot(s) in the robot group, the respective slave robot does not need a direct connection to the stationary communication unit in order to receive the safety information.”)
Staub, Ranasinghe, Condeixa, and Zisch are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval and second long-range radio of Staub and the communication tentacle with an origin node, autonomous mobile backbone nodes, and destination node of Ranasinghe by adding the capability of a master unit which sends information to slave units of Zisch to the analogous service vehicle of Staub, similarly analogous to Ranasinghe’s first autonomous mobile backbone node connected to an origin node. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by removing the need for connections between all units and a central data hub (Zisch Pg 3 ¶ 1 lines 5-9), according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, Condeixa, and Zisch teaches the limitations of claim 26 as described above. Staub does not teach:
wherein the detection of insufficient free buffer space is associated with the buffer space of the first robot.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Condeixa further teaches:
wherein the detection of insufficient free buffer space is associated with the buffer space of the first robot. (Condeixa ¶ 0197 “In accordance with aspects of the present disclosure, the total size of the bundles of data in the storage of a network node may be limited such that the sum of the sizes of all bundles of data of listed on all of the bundle lists of a network node cannot exceed a pre-determined maximum threshold amount. […] Bundles of data that are unique to a network node may be managed so as to take into account their uniqueness in regard to communication of such bundles, the storage resources of the network node, and the importance and/or priority of the information contained in the bundle,” describing management of communicating unique data bundles to avoid exceeding maximum threshold amounts, as applied to the status report of Staub send by the first robot of Staub)
Staub, Ranasinghe, Zisch, and Condeixa are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmission request of Staub with the simple substitution of Condeixa’s node data management to avoid exceeding a node data storage threshold. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by ensuring that data collection is performed often enough to ensure that storage capacity is recovered for storage of newly generated bundles of data (Condeixa ¶ 0197 lines 29-34) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, Condeixa, and Zisch teaches the limitations of claim 26 as described above. Staub does not teach:
wherein the computing system is further configured to: determine one of the robots to transfer data with the first robot, wherein the short range communication reach of the one robot and the short range communication reach of the first robot are free of interference; and determine a target area within the short range communication reach of the first robot and the one robot.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Ranasinghe teaches:
wherein the computing system is further configured to: determine one of the robots to transfer data with the first robot, (Ranasinghe ¶ 0044, especially “The UAV 1 autonomously moves and first comes in contact with the origin node 103, such as Node 1, and searches for a tentacle associated with the origin node 103. If there is no tentacle detected, then the UAV 1 creates a tentacle between the UAV 1 and Node 1, e.g., establishes a wireless communication link 121 (a tentacle) between the UAV 1 and Node 1. Once the UAV 2, UAV 3, and UAV 4 are deployed in the air, in accordance with certain aspects of the present disclosure, the UAV 2, UAV 3, and UAV 4 may autonomously fly towards Node 1 or Node 2. Each of the UAV 2, UAV 3, and UAV 4 searches and detects the tentacle associated with the origin node 103, and operates to grow or extend the tentacle towards the destination node 113, such as Node 2 or Node 3,” teaching a series of autonomous nodes, analogously including a one robot and a first robot, being deployed and connected to one another in order to establish a wireless communication link, i.e. transfer data)
wherein the short range communication reach of the one robot and the short range communication reach of the first robot are free of interference; (Ranasinghe ¶ 0045 lines 4-7 “the autonomous mobile nodes may be launched from anywhere at varying time intervals with some a priori knowledge about the origin node 103 and the destination node 113,” teaching a one robot being launched from “anywhere.” “Anywhere” includes an area outside of the communication reach of the first robot)
and determine a target area within the short range communication reach of the first robot and the one robot. (Ranasinghe ¶ 0045 lines 1-15 “each autonomous mobile node may have a predefined wireless communication range (e.g., a short range, […]) and autonomously navigates to establish a wireless communication link with an origin node or another autonomous mobile node deployed and detected to be within its wireless communication range or connectivity range. Thus, the one or more autonomous mobile nodes may be used to grow the tentacle to cover a large distance from the origin node 103 to the destination node 113. For example, if the origin node 103 and the destination node 113 are close in proximity to each other, then one autonomous mobile node deployed […] may be needed to establish a wireless communication network between the origin node 103 and the destination node 113,” teaching a short predefined communication range of each vehicle, and a case of moving a vehicle to be within communication range of both an origin node and destination node, i.e. within an area of overlap)
Staub and Ranasinghe are both considered analogous because they both relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub with the simple addition Ranasinghe’s short and long-range communication protocols and furthermore Ranasinghe’s leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving the system's ability to detect and respond to anomalous behavior (Ranasinghe ¶ 0006 lines 8-13) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, Zisch, and Condeixa teaches the limitations of claim 26 as described above. Staub does not teach:
wherein the computing system is further configured to: determine a rank order among the robots, wherein the first robot and the second robot have highest and lowest ranks, and the third robot has an intermediate rank; and initiate a data transfer between the robot of the highest rank and the robot of the lowest rank after the determination of the rank order.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Zisch teaches:
wherein the computing system is further configured to: determine a rank order among the robots, wherein the first robot and the second robot have highest and lowest ranks, (Zisch Pg 2 ¶ 9 lines 3-10 “it is provided that a robot of the robot group is operated as a master robot with regard to communication with the stationary communication unit, which is connected to the stationary communication unit via a long-distance wireless communication interface and to which the security information is transmitted from the stationary communication unit via the long-distance wireless communication interface become. The invention also provides that at least one robot of the robot group is operated as a slave robot with regard to communication with the stationary communication unit, to which the master robot forwards the safety information received from the master robot via a short-range wireless communication interface,” teaching a rank order with a first robot directly connected to the stationary unit as a master, analogous to Staub’s service vehicle and Ranasinghe’s first autonomous mobile backbone node connected to an origin node, and a slave robot analogous to Ranasinghe’s destination node)
and the third robot has an intermediate rank; (Zisch Pg 5 ¶ 8 lines 1-4 “In an advantageous variant of the invention, the robot group comprises at least three mobile robots. In this case, preferably at least one of the slave robots is operated as a submaster robot, to which the safety information received from the master robot is transmitted via a short-range wireless communication interface and from which this information is forwarded via a further short-range wireless communication interface to at least one other slave,” teaching the transmission based on rank order to an intermediate (submaster) robot, analogous to Ranasinghe’s autonomous mobile nodes)
and initiate a data transfer between the robot of the highest rank and the robot of the lowest rank after the determination of the rank order. (Zisch Pg 2 ¶ 10 line 1 – Pg 3 ¶ 1 line 2 “Because the master robot forwards the safety information received from the stationary communication unit to the slave robot (s) of the robot group, the respective slave robot does not need a direct connection to the stationary communication unit in order to receive the safety information,” teaching the transmission based on rank order (i.e. after determination of rank order) and Pg 5 ¶ 10 lines 1-3 “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, data is forwarded serially between the robots of the robot group. In this case, data is forwarded directly from the respective robot of the robot group to a maximum of one of the other robots of the robot group via a short-range wireless communication interface.”)
Staub, Ranasinghe, and Zisch are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub and the communication tentacle with an origin node, autonomous mobile backbone nodes, and destination node of Ranasinghe by the simple addition of Zisch’s master, submaster, and slave robot ordering of the serial communication, the serial communication being analogous to Staub’s data transfer. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by enabling a comparatively low complexity of data transmission among the robots (Zisch Pg 5 ¶ 10 lines 3-6) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 34, the combination of Staub, El-Damhougy, Zisch, and Condeixa teaches the limitations of claim 33 as described above. Staub does not teach:
wherein the computing system is further configured to initiate a data transfer between robots of intermediate ranks
after the buffers of all the robots of intermediate ranks are freed up.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Zisch teaches:
wherein the computing system is further configured to initiate a data transfer between robots of intermediate ranks […] (Zisch Pg 5 ¶ 8 lines 1-4 “In an advantageous variant of the invention, the robot group comprises at least three mobile robots. In this case, preferably at least one of the slave robots is operated as a submaster robot, to which the safety information received from the master robot is transmitted via a short-range wireless communication interface and from which this information is forwarded via a further short-range wireless communication interface to at least one other slave,” teaching the transmission based on rank order to an intermediate (submaster) robot)
Staub, Ranasinghe, and Zisch are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub and the communication tentacle with an origin node, autonomous mobile backbone nodes, and destination node of Ranasinghe by the simple addition of Zisch’s master, submaster, and slave robot ordering of the serial communication, the serial communication being analogous to Staub’s data transfer. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by enabling a comparatively low complexity of data transmission among the robots (Zisch Pg 5 ¶ 10 lines 3-6) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
The combination of Staub and Zisch does not teach:
[…] after the buffers of all the robots of intermediate ranks are freed up.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub and Zisch, Condeixa teaches:
[…] after the buffers of all the robots of intermediate ranks are freed up. (Condeixa ¶ 0197 “In accordance with aspects of the present disclosure, the total size of the bundles of data in the storage of a network node may be limited such that the sum of the sizes of all bundles of data of listed on all of the bundle lists of a network node cannot exceed a pre-determined maximum threshold amount. […] Bundles of data that are unique to a network node may be managed so as to take into account their uniqueness in regard to communication of such bundles, the storage resources of the network node, and the importance and/or priority of the information contained in the bundle,” describing management of communicating unique data bundles to avoid exceeding maximum threshold amounts, as applied to the serial data transmission of Zisch)
Staub, Ranasinghe, Zisch, and Condeixa are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmission request of Staub and the serial data transmission of Zisch with the simple addition of Condeixa’s node data management to avoid exceeding a node data storage threshold as a condition of transfer. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by ensuring that data collection is performed often enough to ensure that storage capacity is recovered for storage of newly generated bundles of data (Condeixa ¶ 0197 lines 29-34), according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 35, Staub teaches:
A method, comprising: recognizing. by a computing system of a first robot of at least three robots, (Staub ¶ 0004 lines 1-7 “In one aspect, a system for collecting data from a machine lacking network connectivity may comprise a mobile vehicle. The mobile vehicle may be configured for providing a vehicle communication network to a data hauling device of the machine, the machine being remote from a stationary site having a site-specific communication network,” ¶ 0012 lines 1-6 “FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary system 100 for providing network connectivity. System 100 may include one or more machines 101a-101c (collectively machines 101), a communication network-providing service vehicle 103, and a wireless network 105 providing connectivity to machines 101 near service vehicle 103,” Fig 1 showing 4 vehicles total, and ¶ 0037 lines 8-12 “Since disclosed service vehicle 103 may provide a way for data to be securely and automatically collected, any human driver or automated driver may drive service vehicle 103 to a work site and collect data,” disclosing an automated vehicle, a ‘robot’)
a request for a data transfer from another one of the at least three robots, (Staub ¶ 0016 lines 1-8 “In one embodiment, service vehicle 103 may drive to a location near machine 101a, provide wireless network 105 to machine 101a, and convey the request for a status report to machine 101a. For example, the request may be transmitted from service vehicle 103 to the control module and/or data hauling radio of machine 101a. The data hauling radio of machine 101a may then initiate collection and storage of status report data responding to the request.”)
wherein each robot of the at least three robots comprises a data storage (Staub ¶ 0014 lines 1-8 “Each machine 101a, 101b, and 101c may be equipped with a data hauling device, e.g., a data hauling radio. The data hauling radio may be configured to collect data associated with each machine's subscription or based on requests received by the machine. For example, the data hauling radio of machine 101a may be prompted by the engine control module of machine 101a to collect and store performance or status data of machine 101a.”)
and a first communication device with a short range communication reach (Staub ¶ 0014 “Each machine 101a, 101b, and 101c may be equipped with a data hauling device, e.g., a data hauling radio. […] The data hauling radio of each machine may be a built-in radio, or a radio retrofitted onto the machine”)
for exchanging data with one of the other robots; […] (Staub ¶ 0020 “Network manager 203 may be installed on a movable device, e.g., service vehicle 103 of FIG. 1. For example, network manager 203 be installed on a vehicle/device equipped with WiFi that can act as a data “mule” for shuttling data between machines 101 and another party […] Network manager 203 may include, for example, controller 205, WiFi radio 207, and database 209. Network manager 203 may detect machines 101 (e.g., via controller 205), download data from machines 101 (e.g., via WiFi radio 207)”)
[…] commanding, by the computing system, the third robot to move to […] (Staub ¶ 0035 lines 22-25 “Network manager 203 may travel back to machines 101 to convey the request to each engine control module 201, which may begin to store or retrieve data responding to the request (steps 311 and 313).”)
[…]wherein each robot of the at least three robots comprises a second communication device with a long range communication reach […] wherein the long range communication reach covers a field that contains the robots, […] (Staub ¶ 0022 lines 1-3 “WiFi radio 207 may include a long range radio, which may provision an area proximate the movable device to detect machines 101.”)
[…] and receiving and sending, by the computing system, data […] (Staub ¶ 0016 lines 1-8 “In one embodiment, service vehicle 103 may drive to a location near machine 101a, provide wireless network 105 to machine 101a, and convey the request for a status report to machine 101a. For example, the request may be transmitted from service vehicle 103 to the control module and/or data hauling radio of machine 101a. The data hauling radio of machine 101a may then initiate collection and storage of status report data responding to the request.”)
Staub does not teach:
[…] determining, by the computing system, an area of interference of the short range communication reach of the first robot and the short range communication reach of a second robot of the at least three robots, when the second robot is out of the short range communication reach of the first robot: determining, by the computing system, a waypoint within the area of interference for a third robot of the at least three robots; […]
[…] the waypoint, […]
[…] being greater than the short range communication reach, […]
[…] and wherein the first robot is configured as a logistic unit to command the other robots by sending commands via the second communication device; […]
[…] regarding insufficient free buffer space via the second communication device, wherein the data comprises information related to a detection of insufficient free buffer space of one of the robots.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Ranasinghe teaches:
[…] determining, by the computing system, an area of interference of the short range communication reach of the first robot and the short range communication reach of a second robot of the at least three robots, when the second robot is out of the short range communication reach of the first robot; (Ranasinghe ¶ 0045 lines 1-15 “each autonomous mobile node may have a predefined wireless communication range (e.g., a short range, […]) and autonomously navigates to establish a wireless communication link with an origin node or another autonomous mobile node deployed and detected to be within its wireless communication range or connectivity range. Thus, the one or more autonomous mobile nodes may be used to grow the tentacle to cover a large distance from the origin node 103 to the destination node 113. For example, if the origin node 103 and the destination node 113 are close in proximity to each other, then one autonomous mobile node deployed […] may be needed to establish a wireless communication network between the origin node 103 and the destination node 113,” Teaching a short predefined communication range of each vehicle, and a case of moving a vehicle to be within communication range of both an origin node and destination node, i.e. within an area of overlap)
determining, by the computing system, a waypoint within the area of interference for a third robot of the at least three robots; commanding, by the computing system, the third robot to move to the waypoint, (Ranasinghe ¶ 0066 lines 3-11 “navigating an autonomous mobile node along one or more tentacles or wireless communication links is based on a profile of fields experienced by each autonomous mobile node. In an aspect of the BioAIR methodology, the autonomous mobile node may hold its position at an edge of its communications range to a neighboring autonomous mobile node based on information on signals (e.g., signal strength, quality of signals, etc.) received from the neighboring autonomous mobile node,” teaching the determination and holding of a position based on being at the edge of determined regions of signal, i.e. at the edge of overlaps of signal from neighboring signal generators, and the position being analogous to a waypoint; ¶ 0082 lines 7-13 “since the autonomous mobile node 109 is damaged (e.g., the autonomous mobile node 109 is down due to a mechanical failure), the autonomous mobile node 111 (or 107) fails to receive any signal and its timer expires. Upon expiration of the timer, the autonomous mobile node 111 (or 107) determines that the autonomous mobile node 109 is damaged or down,” and ¶ 0083 lines 1-7 “As a result, the Free node 133 autonomously moves to the location of the damaged node 109 and takes the place of the damaged node 109 in a tentacle formation. That is, the Free node 133 rebuilds the tentacle (e.g., complete the tentacle) by establishing wireless connectivity with both neighboring nodes, such as the autonomous mobile node 111 and the autonomous mobile node 107,” teaching moving a node to a location determined to be within communication range of both neighboring nodes, i.e. within overlapping communication range)
wherein each robot of the at least three robots comprises a second communication device with a long range communication reach being greater than the short range communication reach, […] (Ranasinghe ¶ 0108 lines 3-12 “An autonomous mobile node may include one or more apparatuses 1000 which include at least one processing system 1001. Also, alternatively, the apparatus 1000 can be any communications device embodied in an autonomous mobile node […] a transceiver interface 1006,” and ¶ 0129 lines 4-6 “the transceiver interface 1006 may be configured to support various short and long range wireless communications protocols,” teaching that each mobile robot includes short and long range communication devices.)
Staub and Ranasinghe are both considered analogous because they both relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub with the simple addition Ranasinghe’s short and long-range communication protocols and furthermore Ranasinghe’s leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving the system's ability to detect and respond to anomalous behavior (Ranasinghe ¶ 0006 lines 8-13) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
The combination of Staub and Ranasinghe does not teach:
[…] and wherein the first robot is configured as a logistic unit to command the other robots by sending commands via the second communication device; […]
[…] regarding insufficient free buffer space via the second communication device, wherein the data comprises information related to a detection of insufficient free buffer space of one of the robots.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub and Ranasinghe, Condeixa teaches:
[…] regarding insufficient free buffer space via the second communication device, wherein the data comprises information related to a detection of insufficient free buffer space of one of the robots. (Condeixa ¶ 0197 “In accordance with aspects of the present disclosure, the total size of the bundles of data in the storage of a network node may be limited such that the sum of the sizes of all bundles of data of listed on all of the bundle lists of a network node cannot exceed a pre-determined maximum threshold amount. […] Bundles of data that are unique to a network node may be managed so as to take into account their uniqueness in regard to communication of such bundles, the storage resources of the network node, and the importance and/or priority of the information contained in the bundle,” describing management of communicating unique data bundles to avoid exceeding maximum threshold amounts, as applied to the status report of Staub)
Staub, Ranasinghe, and Condeixa are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmission request of Staub with the simple substitution of Condeixa’s node data management to avoid exceeding a node data storage threshold. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by ensuring that data collection is performed often enough to ensure that storage capacity is recovered for storage of newly generated bundles of data (Condeixa ¶ 0197 lines 29-34) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
The combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, and Condeixa does not teach:
[…] and wherein the first robot is configured as a logistic unit to command the other robots by sending commands via the second communication device; […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Ranasinghe, and Condeixa, Zisch teaches:
[…] and wherein the first robot is configured as a logistic unit to command the other robots by sending commands via the second communication device; […] (Zisch Pg 2 ¶ 10 – Pg 3 ¶ 1 lines 1-2 “Because the master robot forwards the safety information received from the stationary communication unit to the slave robot(s) in the robot group, the respective slave robot does not need a direct connection to the stationary communication unit in order to receive the safety information.”)
Staub, Ranasinghe, Condeixa, and Zisch are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval and second long-range radio of Staub and the communication tentacle with an origin node, autonomous mobile backbone nodes, and destination node of Ranasinghe by adding the capability of a master unit which sends information to slave units of Zisch to the analogous service vehicle of Staub, similarly analogous to Ranasinghe’s first autonomous mobile backbone node connected to an origin node. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by removing the need for connections between all units and a central data hub (Zisch Pg 3 ¶ 1 lines 5-9), according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 28, 29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staub in view of Ranasinghe, Condeixa, Zisch, and El-Damhougy.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, Zisch, and Condeixa teaches the limitations of claim 26 as described above. Staub does not teach:
wherein the computing system is further configured to: check whether the first and second robots are coverable by the short range communication reach of the third robot at the waypoint;
and command the third robot to move to the waypoint if the first and second robots are coverable by the short range communication reach of the third robot at the waypoint.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Ranasinghe teaches:
[…] command the third robot to move to the waypoint […] the first and second robots are coverable by the short range communication reach of the third robot at the waypoint. (Ranasinghe ¶ 0066 lines 3-11 teaching the determination and holding of a position based on being at the edge of determined regions of signal, i.e. at the edge of overlaps of signal from neighboring signal generators, and the position being analogous to a waypoint; ¶ 0082 lines 7-13 and ¶ 0083 lines 1-7 teaching moving a node to a location determined to be within communication range of both neighboring nodes, i.e. within overlapping communication range, as described above)
Staub and Ranasinghe are both considered analogous because they both relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub with the simple addition Ranasinghe’s short and long-range communication protocols and furthermore Ranasinghe’s leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving the system's ability to detect and respond to anomalous behavior (Ranasinghe ¶ 0006 lines 8-13) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
The combination of Staub and Ranasinghe does not teach pre-checking the waypoint and conditional movement:
wherein the computing system is further configured to: check whether the first and second robots are coverable by the short range communication reach of the third robot at the waypoint; […] if […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub and Ranasinghe, El-Damhougy teaches:
wherein the computing system is further configured to: check whether the first and second robots are coverable by the short range communication reach of the third robot at the waypoint; (El-Damhougy ¶ 0033 lines 1-9 “When two nodes lose communication with each other and a direct link between the two is broken, the NMS and/or the responsible cluster leader may take remedial action. In some instances, such a loss partitions the network or a cluster. Typically, the NMS and/or the responsible cluster leader determine(s) an expected time-to-reconnect, find alternate connection paths, find healing nodes to be repositioned, or decide whether to reconfigure the partitions to heal the MCNN,” ¶ 0036 lines 1-23 “In step 182 potential healing nodes (mobile nodes that can move or change locations) are selected in each partition/cluster together with an associated partition/cluster for reconnecting to, e.g., 140, 144 for reconnecting partition 170 to 172 and 158 for reconnecting partition 172 to 174. In step 184 the selected nodes (140, 144, 158 in this example) are located at initial healing node locations as healing nodes […] In step 188 new optimum locations are identified for healing nodes, weighted by synaptic weights (Wi) that represents the node position coordinates from results of final unsupervised training,” and ¶ 0043 lines 1-11 “So, the Voronoi nodes may be selected as points that are separated by a distance that is closer than a maximum allowable separation to maintain direct communication, i.e., at maximum acceptable propagation loss. So, for example, the Delaunay edges identify linked nodes. Once the coverage area is tessellated and Delaunay edges are generated, healing node locations may be selected, e.g., based on a selected maximum allowable cluster separation,” teaching the determination of healing node locations (analogous to Ranasinghe’s free node being moved to a damaged tentacle location) based on separation by “a distance that is closer than the maximum allowable separation to maintain direct communication,” applying to the directly analogous predetermined communication ranges of Ranasinghe, in combination teaching within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the above claim elements)
and command the third robot to move to the waypoint if the first and second robots are coverable by the short range communication reach of the third robot at the waypoint. (El-Damhougy ¶ 0035 “FIGS. 3A-B show an example of pre-selecting network nodes as healing nodes according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention. The selected healing nodes can be moved into position, whenever possible, to heal the network after it has been partitioned, e.g. by loss of a link from destruction or unavailability of a linking node,” teaching the healing nodes being moved into the position determined above to be within the maximum communication range)
Staub, Ranasinghe, and El-Damhougy are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub and the movement of free nodes to a location in connection with neighbor nodes to repair a damaged communication tentacle of Ranasinghe by the simple addition of the healing node optimum location identification and healing node movement to a determined location within a maximum allowable separation of El-Damhougy. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by compensating for variable link quality within the network (El-Damhougy ¶ 0008 lines 8-21) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 29, the combination Staub, Ranasinghe, Zisch, and Condeixa, El-Damhougy teaches the limitations of claim 28 as described above. Staub does not teach:
wherein the computing system is further configured to determine a target area within the short range communication reach of the first and the second robots,
when the first and the second robots are out of the short range communication reach of the third robot when the third robot is at the waypoint.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, El-Damhougy teaches:
wherein the computing system is further configured to determine a target area within the short range communication reach of the first and the second robots, (El-Damhougy ¶ 0048 lines 10-13 “[…] In step 206 the set of available healing positions is checked to determine if any remain; and if available healing nodes remain, returning to step 294, another data node location (x) is selected,” and ¶ 0043 lines 1-11 “So, the Voronoi nodes may be selected as points that are separated by a distance that is closer than a maximum allowable separation to maintain direct communication, i.e., at maximum acceptable propagation loss. So, for example, the Delaunay edges identify linked nodes. Once the coverage area is tessellated and Delaunay edges are generated, healing node locations may be selected, e.g., based on a selected maximum allowable cluster separation,” teaching the determination of healing node locations (analogous to Ranasinghe’s free node being moved to a damaged tentacle location) based on separation by “a distance that is closer than the maximum allowable separation to maintain direct communication,” applying to the directly analogous predetermined communication ranges of Ranasinghe, in combination teaching within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the above claim elements)
when the first and the second robots are out of the short range communication reach of the third robot when the third robot is at the waypoint. (El-Damhougy ¶ 0048 lines 1-10 “Once again, if in step 198, however, the node at x is connected, then in step 208 the network is checked to determine if it is still partitioned, e.g., as described in El-Damhougy III. If the network is not partitioned, the network has been healed; and in step 210 healing ends. Otherwise, if the network is partitioned in step 208, then, in addition to updating the positions of the winner node and its neighbors and connections in step 312, the ages of nodes are updated in step 313 for Voronoi power tessellation and Delaney power triangulation […]”)
Staub and El-Damhougy are both considered analogous because they both relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub and the short and long-range communication protocols and furthermore Ranasinghe’s leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines of Ranasinghe by further including the checking if partitions still exist after healing operation and mapping additional healing nodes if required of El-Damhougy. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by compensating for variable link quality within the network (El-Damhougy ¶ 0008 lines 8-21) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, Condeixa, and Zisch teaches the limitations of claim 30 as described above. Staub does not teach:
wherein the computing system is further configured to determine one of the robots except for the first robot to transfer data with the first robot,
wherein the one robot has a shorter time span to reach the target area than the other robots.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, El-Damhougy teaches:
wherein the computing system is further configured to determine one of the robots except for the first robot to transfer data with the first robot, (El-Damhougy ¶ 0033 lines 1-8 “When two nodes lose communication with each other and a direct link between the two is broken, the NMS and/or the responsible cluster leader may take remedial action. In some instances, such a loss partitions the network or a cluster. Typically, the NMS and/or the responsible cluster leader determine(s) an expected time-to-reconnect, find alternate connection paths, find healing nodes to be repositioned”)
wherein the one robot has a shorter time span to reach the target area than the other robots. (El-Damhougy ¶ 0038 lines 20-21 “Preferably, the node closest to x is selected from D and moved to the position”)
Staub, Ranasinghe, and El-Damhougy are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub and the leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines of Ranasinghe by the simple addition of El-Damhougy’s determination of an alternate connection path and healing node and moving the closest healing node. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by compensating for variable link quality within the network (El-Damhougy ¶ 0008 lines 8-21), according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Staub, Ranasinghe, Zisch, and Condeixa teaches the limitations of claim 26as described above. Staub does not teach:
wherein the computing system is further configured to: determine a second waypoint within the area of interference for a third robot at which the first and second robots are covered by the short range communication reach of the third robot:
check whether a predefined condition is fulfilled by the third robot;
and command the third robot to move to the second waypoint if the condition is fulfilled by the third robot.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub, Ranasinghe teaches:
wherein the computing system is further configured to: determine a second waypoint within the area of interference for a third robot at which the first and second robots are covered by the short range communication reach of the third robot: […] and command the third robot to move to the second waypoint […] (Ranasinghe ¶ 0066 lines 3-11 teaching the determination and holding of a position based on being at the edge of determined regions of signal, i.e. at the edge of overlaps of signal from neighboring signal generators, and the position being analogous to a waypoint, applying equally as a first or a second; ¶ 0082 lines 7-13 and ¶ 0083 lines 1-7 teaching moving a node to a location determined to be within communication range of both neighboring nodes, i.e. within overlapping communication range, as described above)
Staub and Ranasinghe are both considered analogous because they both relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub with the simple addition Ranasinghe’s short and long-range communication protocols and furthermore Ranasinghe’s leveraging of predefined communication ranges to position mobile nodes at the edge of the communication range of neighboring nodes in order to extend and repair communication lines. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving the system's ability to detect and respond to anomalous behavior (Ranasinghe ¶ 0006 lines 8-13) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
The combination of Staub and Ranasinghe does not teach pre-checking the waypoint and conditional movement:
check whether a predefined condition is fulfilled by the third robot; […] if the condition is fulfilled by the third robot.
Within the same field of endeavor as Staub and Ranasinghe, El-Damhougy teaches:
[…] check whether a predefined condition is fulfilled by the third robot; (El-Damhougy ¶ 0033 lines 1-9 “When two nodes lose communication with each other and a direct link between the two is broken, the NMS and/or the responsible cluster leader may take remedial action. In some instances, such a loss partitions the network or a cluster. Typically, the NMS and/or the responsible cluster leader determine(s) an expected time-to-reconnect, find alternate connection paths, find healing nodes to be repositioned, or decide whether to reconfigure the partitions to heal the MCNN,” ¶ 0036 lines 1-23 “In step 182 potential healing nodes (mobile nodes that can move or change locations) are selected in each partition/cluster together with an associated partition/cluster for reconnecting to, e.g., 140, 144 for reconnecting partition 170 to 172 and 158 for reconnecting partition 172 to 174. In step 184 the selected nodes (140, 144, 158 in this example) are located at initial healing node locations as healing nodes […] In step 188 new optimum locations are identified for healing nodes, weighted by synaptic weights (Wi) that represents the node position coordinates from results of final unsupervised training,” and ¶ 0043 lines 1-11 “So, the Voronoi nodes may be selected as points that are separated by a distance that is closer than a maximum allowable separation to maintain direct communication, i.e., at maximum acceptable propagation loss. So, for example, the Delaunay edges identify linked nodes. Once the coverage area is tessellated and Delaunay edges are generated, healing node locations may be selected, e.g., based on a selected maximum allowable cluster separation,” teaching the determination of healing node locations (analogous to Ranasinghe’s free node being moved to a damaged tentacle location) based on separation by “a distance that is closer than the maximum allowable separation to maintain direct communication,” which is interpreted here as a predefined condition, applying to the directly analogous predetermined communication ranges of Ranasinghe, in combination teaching within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the above claim elements)
and command the third robot to move to the second waypoint if the condition is fulfilled by the third robot. (El-Damhougy ¶ 0035 “FIGS. 3A-B show an example of pre-selecting network nodes as healing nodes according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention. The selected healing nodes can be moved into position, whenever possible, to heal the network after it has been partitioned, e.g. by loss of a link from destruction or unavailability of a linking node,” teaching the healing nodes being moved into the position determined above to be satisfying the predefined condition of being within a maximum communication range)
Staub, Ranasinghe, and El-Damhougy are all considered analogous because they all relate to data transmission over mobile ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated data retrieval of Staub and the movement of free nodes to a location in connection with neighbor nodes to repair a damaged communication tentacle of Ranasinghe by the simple addition of the healing node optimum location identification and healing node movement to a determined location satisfying the predefined condition of being within a maximum allowable separation of El-Damhougy. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by compensating for variable link quality within the network (El-Damhougy ¶ 0008 lines 8-21) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20050090201 teaches a mobile ad hoc network that self-forms based on nodes having an intersecting communication range, analogous to the interference of the independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights