DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss (US Pub. No. 2008/0030588) in view of Michalakis (US Pub. No. 2018/0281179).
As per Claim 1, Boss discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
evaluating (as per security computer system 104 adapted to perform method 800), by one or more processors (402), a manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4), wherein a feature of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) is protected by a trade secret (as per “trade secret” in ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27, 35-36, 60);
evaluating (as per security computer system 104 adapted to perform steps 802-818), by the one or more processors (402), a sensor capability (as per camera 120) of a third-party machine (102) to detect an aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27-30, 35-36, 60-64);
determining (as per disablement area adapted to correspond to secure facility 202), by the one or more processors (402), a set of detection boundaries (as per “area” in step 802) for the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27, 35-36, 60);
determining (as per step 810), by the one or more processors (402), whether the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) can be disabled (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 60-61); and
responsive to determining the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) can be disabled (as per YES at step 810), disabling (as per steps 814, 816), by the one or more processors (402), the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) when the third-party machine (102) enters the set of detection boundaries (as per “area” in step 802) for the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 60-62).
Boss does not expressly disclose:
wherein the third-party machine is robotic; and
wherein the third-party machine is to perform an activity.
Michalakis discloses a robot (120) that includes: one or more cameras (125) for evaluating target objects (162) in an environment (160) and located in a head portion (124); hands (122) adapted for performing tasks on the target objects (162); and a locomotive base (127) for moving the robot (120) throughout the environment (160) (Fig. 1; ¶16-23). The operation environment (160) includes a first room (164) as well as a second room (166) and the target objects (162) are located within the first room (164) (Fig. 4; ¶42). In this way, the robot (120) is adapted to move to specified locations (164, 166) within the environment (160) and perform specified tasks on the target objects (162) (Figs. 1, 4; ¶21-22, 39, 42). Like Boss, Michalakis is concerned with mobile camera systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Boss and Michalakis, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis. Applying the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss would result in a system:
“wherein the third-party machine is robotic” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis; and
“wherein the third-party machine is to perform an activity” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would adapted to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Boss further discloses wherein evaluating (as per security computer system 104 adapted to perform method 800) the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) further comprises:
Identifying (as per security computer system 104 adapted to perform method 800), by the one or more processors (402), the aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27, 35-36, 60-62); and
identifying, by the one or more processors (402), an extent of a propagation of the aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) to a location (as per “area” in step 802) on an industrial floor (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27, 35-36, 60-62).
As per Claim 3, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Boss further discloses wherein the aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) is at least one of a visual aspect (“images” in ¶4) and {a non-visual aspect} (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 60-62).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Boss further discloses wherein the set of detection boundaries (as per “area” in step 802) for the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) are based on at least on one of the extent of the propagation of the aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) and the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) to detect the aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 60-62).
Boss does not expressly disclose wherein the third-party machine is robotic.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
Therefore, from these teachings of Boss and Michalakis, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis. Applying the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss would result in a system “wherein the third-party machine is robotic” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis.
As per Claim 6, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Boss further discloses responsive to determining the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) cannot be disabled (as per NO at step 810), restricting (as per “appropriate security personnel could be notified via either the base stations 204 or security computer system 104 so that normal security precautions with human staff could ensue” in ¶38; as per step 810), by the one or more processors (402), the third-party machine (102) from accessing the set of detection boundaries (as per “area” in step 802) for the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 38, 60-62).
Boss does not expressly disclose wherein the third-party machine is robotic.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
Therefore, from these teachings of Boss and Michalakis, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis. Applying the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss would result in a system “wherein the third-party machine is robotic” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Boss further discloses instructing, by the one or more processors (402), by an ecosystem (204, 104) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4), the third-party machine (102) to relinquish system controls (as per step 814) to the ecosystem (204, 104), wherein the ecosystem (204, 104) provides instructions for performing (as per “disablement command” in step 814) to the third-party machine (102) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 60-62).
Boss does not expressly disclose:
wherein the third-party machine is robotic; and
wherein the third-party machine is to perform the activity.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis. Applying the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss would result in a system:
“wherein the third-party machine is robotic” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis; and
“wherein the third-party machine is to perform the activity” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would adapted to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis.
As per Claim 9, Boss discloses a computer program product (as per “computer program product” in ¶25) comprising:
one or more computer readable storage media (as per “storage devices” in ¶23) and program instructions (as per “sequence of instructions” in ¶23; as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) stored on the one or more computer readable storage media (as per “storage devices” in ¶23), the program instructions (as per “sequence of instructions” in ¶23; as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) comprising:
program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to evaluate (as per security computer system 104 adapted to perform method 800) a manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4), wherein a feature of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) is protected by a trade secret (as per “trade secret” in ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27, 35-36, 60);
program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to evaluate (as per security computer system 104 adapted to perform steps 802-818) a sensor capability (as per camera 120) of a third-party machine (102) to detect an aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27-30, 35-36, 60-64);
program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to determine a set of detection boundaries (as per “area” in step 802) for the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27, 35-36, 60);
program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to determine whether the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) can be disabled (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 60-61); and
responsive to determining the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) can be disabled (as per YES at step 810), program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to disable (as per steps 814, 816) the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) when the third-party machine (102) enters the set of detection boundaries (as per “area” in step 802) for the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 60-62).
Boss does not expressly disclose:
wherein the third-party machine is robotic; and
wherein the third-party machine is to perform an activity.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
Therefore, from these teachings of Boss and Michalakis, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis. Applying the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss would result in a system:
“wherein the third-party machine is robotic” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis; and
“wherein the third-party machine is to perform an activity” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would adapted to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis.
As per Claim 10, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Boss further discloses wherein evaluating (as per security computer system 104 adapted to perform method 800) the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) further comprises:
program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to identify (as per security computer system 104 adapted to perform method 800) the aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27, 35-36, 60-62); and
program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to identify an extent of a propagation of the aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) to a location (as per “area” in step 802) on an industrial floor (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27, 35-36, 60-62).
As per Claim 11, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Boss further discloses wherein the set of detection boundaries (as per “area” in step 802) for the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) are based on at least on one of the extent of the propagation of the aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) and the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) to detect the aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 60-62).
Boss does not expressly disclose wherein the third-party machine is robotic.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
Therefore, from these teachings of Boss and Michalakis, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis. Applying the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss would result in a system “wherein the third-party machine is robotic” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis.
As per Claim 12, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Boss further discloses responsive to determining the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) cannot be disabled (as per NO at step 810), program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to restrict (as per “appropriate security personnel could be notified via either the base stations 204 or security computer system 104 so that normal security precautions with human staff could ensue” in ¶38; as per step 810) the third-party machine (102) from accessing the set of detection boundaries (as per “area” in step 802) for the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 38, 60-62).
Boss does not expressly disclose wherein the third-party machine is robotic.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
Therefore, from these teachings of Boss and Michalakis, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis. Applying the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss would result in a system “wherein the third-party machine is robotic” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis.
As per Claim 14, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Boss further discloses program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to instruct by an ecosystem (204, 104) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4), the third-party machine (102) to relinquish system controls (as per step 814) to the ecosystem (204, 104), wherein the ecosystem (204, 104) provides instructions for performing (as per “disablement command” in step 814) to the third-party machine (102) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 60-62).
Boss does not expressly disclose:
wherein the third-party machine is robotic; and
wherein the third-party machine is to perform the activity.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis. Applying the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss would result in a system:
“wherein the third-party machine is robotic” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis; and
“wherein the third-party machine is to perform the activity” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would adapted to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis.
As per Claim 15, Boss discloses a computer system (400) (Fig. 4; ¶45) comprising:
one or more computer processors (402) (Fig. 4; ¶45-46);
one or more computer readable storage media (as per “storage devices” in ¶23; 404, 406) (Fig. 4; ¶46);
program instructions (as per “sequence of instructions” in ¶23; as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media (as per “storage devices” in ¶23; 404, 406) for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors (402), the stored program instructions (as per “sequence of instructions” in ¶23; as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) comprising:
program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to evaluate (as per security computer system 104 adapted to perform method 800) a manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4), wherein a feature of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) is protected by a trade secret (as per “trade secret” in ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27, 35-36, 60);
program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to evaluate (as per security computer system 104 adapted to perform steps 802-818) a sensor capability (as per camera 120) of a third-party machine (102) to detect an aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27-30, 35-36, 60-64);
program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to determine a set of detection boundaries (as per “area” in step 802) for the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27, 35-36, 60);
program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to determine whether the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) can be disabled (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 60-61); and
responsive to determining the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) can be disabled (as per YES at step 810), program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to disable (as per steps 814, 816) the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) when the third-party machine (102) enters the set of detection boundaries (as per “area” in step 802) for the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 60-62).
Boss does not expressly disclose:
wherein the third-party machine is robotic; and
wherein the third-party machine is to perform an activity.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
Therefore, from these teachings of Boss and Michalakis, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis. Applying the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss would result in a system:
“wherein the third-party machine is robotic” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis; and
“wherein the third-party machine is to perform an activity” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would adapted to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis.
As per Claim 16, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Boss further discloses wherein evaluating (as per security computer system 104 adapted to perform method 800) the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) further comprises:
program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to identify (as per security computer system 104 adapted to perform method 800) the aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27, 35-36, 60-62); and
program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to identify an extent of a propagation of the aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) to a location (as per “area” in step 802) on an industrial floor (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶4, 27, 35-36, 60-62).
As per Claim 17, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Boss further discloses wherein the set of detection boundaries (as per “area” in step 802) for the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) are based on at least on one of the extent of the propagation of the aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) and the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) to detect the aspect (as per “misappropriation of images” in ¶4) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 60-62).
Boss does not expressly disclose wherein the third-party machine is robotic.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
Therefore, from these teachings of Boss and Michalakis, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis. Applying the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss would result in a system “wherein the third-party machine is robotic” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis.
As per Claim 18, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Boss further discloses responsive to determining the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) cannot be disabled (as per NO at step 810), program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to restrict (as per “appropriate security personnel could be notified via either the base stations 204 or security computer system 104 so that normal security precautions with human staff could ensue” in ¶38; as per step 810) the third-party machine (102) from accessing the set of detection boundaries (as per “area” in step 802) for the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 38, 60-62).
Boss does not expressly disclose wherein the third-party machine is robotic.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
Therefore, from these teachings of Boss and Michalakis, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis. Applying the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss would result in a system “wherein the third-party machine is robotic” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis.
As per Claim 20, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Boss further discloses discloses program instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶41, 46) to instruct by an ecosystem (204, 104) of the manufacturing process (as per embodiment for “secure facility 202” in ¶35-36 directed to “factories” as per ¶4), the third-party machine (102) to relinquish system controls (as per step 814) to the ecosystem (204, 104), wherein the ecosystem (204, 104) provides instructions for performing (as per “disablement command” in step 814) to the third-party machine (102) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶27-30, 35, 60-62).
Boss does not expressly disclose:
wherein the third-party machine is robotic; and
wherein the third-party machine is to perform the activity.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis. Applying the teachings of Michalakis to the system of Boss would result in a system:
“wherein the third-party machine is robotic” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis; and
“wherein the third-party machine is to perform the activity” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would adapted to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss (US Pub. No. 2008/0030588) in view of Michalakis (US Pub. No. 2018/0281179), further in view of Weldemariam (US Pub. No. 2020/0143300).
As per Claim 5, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Boss further discloses wherein the sensor capability (as per camera 120) of the third-party machine (102) can be disabled (as per disablement command in step 814 via YES at step 810) using functionality (124) integrated in the third-party machine (102) (Figs. 1, 6, 8; ¶30, 32, 51-54, 60-62).
Boss does not expressly disclose:
wherein the third-party machine is robotic; and
wherein the functionality involves blockchain.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
Weldemariam discloses a network (100) including sensors (104) that produce sensor data (140) for a data capture/validation node or peer (108) (Fig. 1; ¶52). The network (100) also includes an analytics node or peer (132) that obtains sensor-related information, calculates a risk assessment, and provides sensor adjustments (172) to the data capture/validation node or peer (108) which in turn provides sensor adjustments (172) to the sensors (104) (Fig. 1; ¶70-71). In this way, the sensor (104) is adapted to operate in view of blockchain transactions (¶4-5, 56, 70-72). Like Boss, Weldemariam is concerned with sensor systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Boss, Michalakis, and Weldemariam, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis and Weldemariam to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis; and adapting the sensor (120) of Boss to operate with data systems as per Weldemariam. Applying the teachings of Michalakis and Weldemariam to the system of Boss would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the third-party machine is robotic” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis; and
“wherein the functionality involves blockchain” in that the camera (120) of Boss would be configured to operate in view of transactions as per Weldemariam.
Claims 7, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss (US Pub. No. 2008/0030588) in view of Michalakis (US Pub. No. 2018/0281179), further in view of Aksamit (US Pub. No. 2019/0075429).
As per Claim 7, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Boss does not expressly disclose responsive to determining the sensor capability of the third-party robotic machine cannot be disabled, rescheduling, by the one or more processors, a timeline for the third-party robotic machine to perform the activity within the set of detection boundaries.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
Aksamit discloses a mobile phone (100) that includes sensors (111, 121, 122, 131), one of which is a camera (Fig. 1; ¶36, 58, 60). The mobile phone (100) performs a context detection method in which the sensors (111, 121, 122, 131) are switched on and off in accordance with a specific schedule (Fig. 3; ¶68-72). In this way, the mobile phone (100) is configured for energy savings (¶68, 72, 74, 76). Like Boss, Aksamit is concerned with mobile camera systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Boss, Michalakis, and Aksamit, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis and Aksamit to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis; and adapting the mobile device (102) of Boss for energy savings. Applying the teachings of Michalakis and Aksamit to the system of Boss would result in a system that operates: “responsive to determining the sensor capability of the third-party robotic machine cannot be disabled, rescheduling, by the one or more processors, a timeline for the third-party robotic machine to perform the activity within the set of detection boundaries” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis and in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured to receive disablement commands (as per step 814) consistent with the specific schedule as per Aksamit.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Boss does not expressly disclose responsive to determining the sensor capability of the third-party robotic machine cannot be disabled, program instructions to reschedule a timeline for the third-party robotic machine to perform the activity within the set of detection boundaries.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Aksamit.
Therefore, from these teachings of Boss, Michalakis, and Aksamit, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis and Aksamit to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis; and adapting the mobile device (102) of Boss for energy savings. Applying the teachings of Michalakis and Aksamit to the system of Boss would result in a system that operates: “responsive to determining the sensor capability of the third-party robotic machine cannot be disabled, program instructions to reschedule a timeline for the third-party robotic machine to perform the activity within the set of detection boundaries” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis and in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured to receive disablement commands (as per step 814) consistent with the specific schedule as per Aksamit.
As per Claim 19, the combination of Boss and Michalakis teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Boss does not expressly disclose responsive to determining the sensor capability of the third-party robotic machine cannot be disabled, program instructions to reschedule a timeline for the third-party robotic machine to perform the activity within the set of detection boundaries.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Michalakis.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Aksamit.
Therefore, from these teachings of Boss, Michalakis, and Aksamit, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Michalakis and Aksamit to the system of Boss since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the portable device (102) of Boss to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis; and adapting the mobile device (102) of Boss for energy savings. Applying the teachings of Michalakis and Aksamit to the system of Boss would result in a system that operates: “responsive to determining the sensor capability of the third-party robotic machine cannot be disabled, program instructions to reschedule a timeline for the third-party robotic machine to perform the activity within the set of detection boundaries” in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured as a robot (120) to perform specified tasks on target objects (162) as per Michalakis and in that the portable device (102) of Boss would be configured to receive disablement commands (as per step 814) consistent with the specific schedule as per Aksamit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aburai (US Pub. No. 2002/0090953), Sinha (US Pub. No. 2008/0220715), and Onoe (US Pub. No. 2021/0243360) discloses system for restricting functionality of devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights