DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s request for consideration of the originally presented claims on 05/08/2026 is hereby acknowledged. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but found to be not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Groz US 20210031364 does not contain a “physical” actuator. This argument is not persuasive because Groz ‘364 is a physical robot and the actuators used therein to actuate robot parts are “physical actuators”, see at least figure 3. Fig. 3 clearly shows that each of the plurality of fingers, arms, grippers from 260 and 270 has corresponding actuator in order to facilitate their movement.
Applicant argued that Groz ‘364 does not teach processing system for each robot parts. This argument is not persuasive. It appears that Applicant failed to appreciate that in order for the actuators to respond or move to corresponding issued commands 310/315, they all have “processing system” to process the issued commands. In addition, the claim fails to provide explicit distinction over Groz of what a processing system encompasses.
Applicant argued that Groz ‘364 computing device 150 is not analogous to “processing system” of a robot part. This argument is not persuasive. It appears that Applicant failed to appreciate that in order for the actuators to respond to corresponding issued commands 310/315, they all have “processing system” to process the issued commands. In addition, the claim fails to provide explicit distinction over Groz of what a processing system encompasses.
Applicant argued that Groz ‘364 robot parts do not “host a response-request communication server”. This argument is not persuasive. It appears that Applicant failed to appreciate that in order for the actuators to respond to corresponding issued commands 310/315 the processing system would need to entertain or host a response-request from communication server 230. Per BRI, Groz ‘364 does disclose robot parts having processing system to host a response-request communication server.
Applicant argued that Groz ‘364 does not configured to communicate with other robot parts within the plurality of robot parts. This argument is not persuasive. It appears that Applicant’s interpretation of the broad claim language narrower than the actual claim language. The claim does not require that the robot parts directly communicate with one another or among themselves. Hence, Groz ‘364 does disclose a processing system configure to host communication server configured to communicate with other robot parts within the plurality of robot parts. The claim language is broad enough to interpret that the server is the one that communicate with plurality of robot parts and the processing system is hosting the server.
In regards to claim 10, Applicant argued that Groz ‘364 does not disclose child robot parts. This argument is not persuasive. It appears that Applicant failed to appreciate the Office’s interpretation that fingers, arm, grippers are child robot parts of an entire robot 110. The claim does not structurally distinguish child robot parts from that of Groz ‘364 robot parts. Goz ‘364 also discloses usage of WebRTC (P. 059) for communication. Please refer to the Office’s answers to similar arguments per claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 11, Applicant argued that Groz ‘364 does not disclose “communication module of each child robot parts that host a server. This argument is not persuasive. It appears that Applicant failed to appreciate that in order for the actuators to respond or move to corresponding issued commands 310/315, they all have “communication module” to process the issued commands. In addition, the claim fails to provide explicit distinction over Groz of what a communication module encompasses.
Applicant argued that Groz ‘364 does not disclose that the communication modules do not host a server and a client. This argument is not persuasive. The claim language does not particularly define what hosts means. Hence, per BRI, Groz ‘364 communication modules do communicate/host a server and a client since communication is coming from a server network.
Applicant’s arguments concerning secondary reference to Kaehler et al. (US 2023/0415340) for claims 1, 10 and 11 are not persuasive since primary reference to Groz ‘364 discloses all argued elements as explained above. In addition, claims 1, 10 and 11 were not rejected via secondary reference to Kaehler ‘340.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15. 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Groz US 20210031364.
Regarding claim 1, Groz teaches: A robot (element 110), comprising:- a plurality of robot parts (Figure 3; element 260, 270 – fingers, arms, grippers) each comprising:- a physical actuator (Figure 3; element "command to actuators" – move corresponding robot parts); and - a processing system (Paragraph [12] – Fig. 3 - in order for the actuators of the fingers/arms/grippers to respond to corresponding issued commands 310/315, they all have “processing system” to process the issued commands) configured to:- host a response-request communication server configured to communicate with other robot parts within the plurality of robot parts using a response-request communication protocol (Figure 1; element 140, 150); and - control the physical actuator based on actuator instructions (Figure 3; element 310, 315; Figure 7; element 725), specific to the respective physical actuator (Paragraph [13], "The teleoperation data may include information regarding commands for one or more actuators of the manipulator"), that are translated by the processing system from a standard instruction (Paragraph [63], "In an example embodiment, the task may be in a form of a command sent via the personal computing device 150, a verbal input of the teleoperator 160, e.g., in native language, and so forth"; Paragraph [85], "In response to sending the request, the processor may receive, via the communication unit, teleoperation data from the remote computing device. Based on the teleoperation data, the processor may cause the robot to execute the task.").
Regarding claim 2, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 1, wherein each processing systems of each robot part (Paragraph [13], "In response to the determination that the probability of completing the task is below the threshold, the processor may send, via the communication unit, a request") is further configured to host a response-request communication client (Paragraph [59], "a telecommunication service such as a Web Real Time Communications (WebRTC)") configured to send requests to the response-request communication servers of other robot parts (element 140, 150; Paragraph [13], "a request for operator assistance to a remote computing device"; the claim limitations do not specify that the processing systems are different for each robot part and the broadest reasonable interpretation of this is the processing system shared by all robots hosts a communication client that sends requests to the servers of the robot parts)
Regarding claim 3, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 1, wherein the response-request communication server of at least one robot part of the plurality of robot parts is configured to
communicate with a remote computing system using the response-request communication protocol (Figure 7; element 715).
Regarding claim 4, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 3, wherein the remote computing system further comprises a web-based interface (element 240) wherein the standard instruction is received at the web-based interface and sent to the at least one robot part of the plurality of robot parts
(element 310, 315; Paragraph [59])
Regarding claim 5, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 3, wherein the remote computing system hosts a response- request communication server configured to communicate (Figure 1; element 140, 150) with the at least one robot part of the plurality of robot parts (Figure 1; element 110).
Regarding claim 6, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 1, wherein communication between the plurality of robot parts does not use a publication-subscription communication protocol (Figure 7; element 715).
Regarding claim 7, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 1, wherein communication between the plurality of robot parts only uses the response-request communication protocol (Figure 7; element 715).
Regarding claim 8, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 1, wherein the response-request communication protocol comprises at least one of gRPCor WebRTC (Paragraph [59], "In an example embodiment, a telecommunication service such as aWeb Real Time Communications (WebRTC) service may be used as the remote control interface 240"; Being interpreted in light of "or" as the alternative, comprising only WebRTC).
Regarding claim 9, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 1, wherein the plurality of robot parts are mounted to a common physical base (element 270).
Regarding claim 10, Groz teaches: A robot, comprising: - a main robot part (element 110); and - a plurality of child robot parts connected to the main robot part (Figure 3; element 260, 270 – fingers, arms, grippers), wherein each child robot part comprises: - a physical actuator (Figure 3; element "Actuators"); and a processing system (Paragraph [12]) comprising: - a communications module (element 280; Paragraph [13], "the processor may send, via the communication unit" - Fig. 3 - in order for the actuators of the fingers/arms/grippers to respond to corresponding issued commands 310/315, they all have “communication module” to process the issued commands) configured to communicate with the main robot part using at WebRTC (Paragraph [13], "In response to sending the request, the processor may receive, via the communication unit, teleoperation data from the remote computing device. Based on the teleoperation data, the processor may cause the robot to execute the task"; Paragraph [59], "In an example embodiment, a telecommunication service such as a Web Real Time Communications (WebRTC) service may be used as the remote control interface 240"); and - an actuator module configured to translate actuator instructions in a standard syntax to actuator instructions specific to the physical actuator, wherein the actuator instructions are received using the communications module (Paragraph [85], "In response to sending the request, the processor may receive, via the communication unit, teleoperation data from the remote computing device. Based on the teleoperation data, the processor may cause the robot to execute the task." Paragraph [63], "In an example embodiment, the task may be in a form of a command sent via the personal computing device 150, a verbal input of the teleoperator 160, e.g., in native language, and SO forth").
Regarding claim 11, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 10, wherein each communication
module of each child robot part in the plurality of child robot parts hosts a server (element 140, 150) and a client (Paragraph [59], "a telecommunication service such as a Web Real Time Communications (WebRTC)" - communication modules do communicate/host a server and a client since communication is coming from a server network).
Regarding claim 12, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 10, wherein communication between the main robot part and the plurality of child robot parts does not use a publication-subscription communication architecture (Figure 7; element 715).
Regarding claim 13, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 10, wherein communication between the main robot part and the plurality of child robot parts uses only response-request architectures (Figure 7; element 715), comprising WebRTC (Paragraph [59], "In an example embodiment, a telecommunication service such as a Web Real Time Communications (WebRTC) service may be used as the remote control interface 240"; Being interpreted in light of "or" as the alternative, comprising only WebRTC).
Regarding claim 14, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 10, wherein the main robot part is
connected to a remote computing system using WebRTC (Paragraph [59], "In an example embodiment, a telecommunication service such as a Web Real Time Communications (WebRTC) service may be used as the remote control interface 240"; Being interpreted in light of "or" as the alternative, comprising only WebRTC).
Regarding claim 15, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 14, wherein the remote computing
system comprises a web interface (element 240), wherein the actuator instructions in the standard syntax are received by the remote computing system via the web interface (Paragraph [63], "The teleoperator 160 may provide the task to the robot 110 in a form understandable by the robot 110") and are sent to the main robot part using WebRTC (Paragraph [59], "In an example embodiment, a telecommunication service such as a Web Real Time Communications (WebRTC) service may be used as the remote control interface 240").
Regarding claim 17, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 10, wherein the main robot part comprises a main processing system configured to execute a set of robot logic for the robot, wherein the set of robot logic generates the actuator instructions in the standard syntax (element 210; Paragraph [13], "The request for the operator assistance may include a message describing the task in one or more human languages").
Regarding claim 18, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 10, wherein the plurality of child robot parts and the main robot part are physically mounted to a common physical base (element 270).
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.
Claims 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groz US 20210031364 in view of Kaehler et al. US 2023/0415340.
Regarding claim 16, Groz teaches: The robot of claim 10, wherein the plurality of child robot parts comprise different physical actuators (Paragraph [60], "provide commands 310 to actuators of the robot, such as manipulators 260 (e.g., fingers, arms, grippers, suction cups, and so forth) and provide commands 315 to further actuators of the robot, such as a mobile base 270, which may also include fingers, arms, grippers, suction caps, and so forth")
While Groz teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not disclose:
- and different actuator modules
- wherein a same actuator instruction in the standard syntax is converted to different actuator instructions
- specific to the respective physical actuator
However, Kaehler et al. teaches: and different actuator modules (Figure 8B; element "Actuator Controller n") wherein a same actuator instruction in the standard syntax is converted to different actuator instructions (Paragraph [156], "In some implementations, the actuator command data 812 generated by the controller 130 is processed by a calibration module (not shown) that generates a calibrated version of the actuator command data 812 which is specific to the configuration of the robot 100. The calibrated version of the actuator command data is used to update the respective states of the actuators 512.") specific to the respective physical actuator (Paragraph [153], "The actuator command data 812 can include commands for each of the actuators 512 or only a subset of the actuators 512. Each command can include an actuator ID, and a numerical value or values used to drive the actuator to a next state.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a robot that utilizes WebRTC to move its actuators of Groz, to include different actuator controllers that process commands to drive the actuator, as taught by Kaehler et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot that utilizes WebRTC and different actuator controllers that process commands to drive those specific actuators.
Regarding claim 19, Groz teaches the limitations as stated above according to claim 10, including a robot that utilizes WebRTC to move its actuators. While Daum teaches these limitations, it does not expressly disclose:
- wherein each physical actuator is connected to the respective processing system by a physical data connector
However, Kaehler et al. teaches: The robot of claim 10, wherein each physical actuator is
connected to the respective processing system by a physical data connector (Paragraph [148], "Cable harnesses connect the actuator sensors, actuators, drives to the local controllers.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention, to modify a robot that utilizes WebRTC to move its actuators of Groz, to include actuators are connected by cable harnesses to local controllers, as taught by Kaehler et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot that utilizes WebRTC to move its actuators, where the actuators are connected by cable harnesses to local controllers.
Regarding claim 20, Groz teaches the limitations as stated above according to claim 10, including a robot that utilizes WebRTC to move its actuators. While Daum teaches these limitations, it does not expressly disclose:
- the main robot part is physically connected to each of the plurality of child robot parts by a physical data connector
However, Kaehler et al. teaches: The robot of claim 10, wherein the main robot part is
physically connected to each of the plurality of child robot parts by a physical data connector (Paragraph [107], "The tendon-driven mechanism can use one or more tendons (cables/wires) per actuator and per joint, including in some embodiments tendons that originate singularly from an actuator but downstream split into multiple tendons (e.g., at the joints or the appendage/end effector)")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a robot that utilizes WebRTC to move its actuators of Groz, to include actuators are connected by cable harnesses throughout the robot, as taught by Kaehler et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot that utilizes WebRTC to move its actuators, where the actuators are connected by cable harnesses throughout the robot.
Conclusion
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOI H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6919. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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.
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.
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights