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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, It is unclear how “the plurality of modular robots are individually controlled by the robot control system without interaction between the plurality of robots” as in claim 18 and, at the same time “remaining modular robots of the plurality of modular robots are configured to connect to the first modular robot” as recited in claim 19. It is unclear how the modular robot are without interaction and, at the same time interact with each other by connecting. Accordingly, claim 19 is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-16 and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2020/0055183 A1, hereinafter referred to as Ito) and Augenbraun et al. (US 11,407,118 B1, hereinafter referred to as “Augenbraun”).
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches method of controlling a robot configured with a plurality of modular robots, performed by a robot control system, the method comprising: receiving first sensing information or first state information (Fig. 3, element S1) from a first modular robot (Figs. 1-3, element 2(2A), 2, UN1(2)) that performs a first function (door opening operation) among the plurality of modular robots (Fig. 2, element 2A, 2B) and receiving second sensing information or second state information (Fig. 3, element SN) from a second modular robot (Figs. 1-3, element 3(3A), 3, UNN(3)) that performs a second function (door passing operation) among the plurality of modular robots (Fig. 2, element 3A, 3B, 3C; paragraph 0021-0032); and controlling the first modular robot by transmitting a first command (Fig. 3, element T1) to the first modular robot based on the first sensing information or the first state information, and controlling the second modular robot by transmitting a second command (Fig. 3, element TN) to the second modular robot based on the second sensing information or the second state information (paragraphs 0028-0031), wherein each of the first modular robot and the second modular robot is individually controlled (via command T1 and command TN, respectively) by the robot control system without an interaction between the first modular robot and the second modular robot (each operation unit UN operates alone), such that the robot is controlled to perform a task (“door opening and passing”; paragraph 0029, 0032, 0036). Ito is silent regarding the door opening and passing task being “related to a service requested for the robot.” Augenbraun teach a cleaning robot (Fig. 1, element 10) that performs a requested room cleaning service (column 3, line 55 through column 4, line 26) where cleaning robot 10 is configured to perform the task of opening a door to the room (column 11, lines 31-34 and lines 43-45). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to configure the modular robot taught by Ito to perform a requested room cleaning service by applying the well-known technique taught by Augenbraun. Application of the well-known robot room cleaning service technique taught by Augenbraun to the prior art robot taught by Ito 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 because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: the robot being controlled to perform a task that is related to a service requested for the robot.
Regarding claim 3, Ito teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a request (Fig. 3, element OP) for the task related to the service requested for the robot (paragraph 0029, 0031, 0037), wherein the controlling of the first modular robot and the second modular robot comprises: generating (via Fig. 3, element M, MT) the first command based on a result of interpreting the request and the first sensing information or the first state information (paragraph 0029-0032, 0036-0038); and
generating (via Fig. 3, element M, MT) the second command based on a result of interpreting the request and the second sensing information or the second state information (paragraph 0029-0032, 0036-0038).
Regarding claim 4, Ito teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the first command is generated using information obtained from a predefined first functional element (Fig. 3, element MT1) in association with the first function, and the second command is generated using information obtained from a predefined second functional element (Fig. 3, element MT2) in association with the second function (paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 5, Ito teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the generating of the second command comprises generating the second command further based on the first sensing information or the first state information, and the second modular robot is controlled according to the second command generated further based on the first sensing information or the first state information.
It is implied in Ito that first sensing information or first state information S1 is used to control the second modular robot since the door opening operation is completed by first modular robot prior to door passing operation being completed by second modular robot. It would be to use information S1 to do determine timing of command TN.
Regarding claim 6, Ito teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring a first module controller (Fig. 3, element UN1) for controlling the first modular robot and a second module controller (Fig. 3, element UNN) for controlling the second modular robot, wherein the first sensing information or the first state information (Fig. 3, element S1, sensor information) is received from the first modular robot (Fig. 3, element 2) and the first command (Fig. 3, element T1, operation timing signal) is transmitted to the first modular robot using the first module controller (Fig. 3, element UN1) corresponding to the first modular robot, the second sensing information or the second state information (Fig. 3, element SN, sensor information) is received from the second modular robot (Fig. 3, element 3) and the second command (Fig. 3, element TN, operation timing signal) is transmitted to the second modular robot using the second module controller (Fig. 3, element UNN) corresponding to the second modular robot, and the first module controller and the second module controller correspond to the first modular robot and the second modular robot on a one-to-one basis, respectively (paragraphs 0028-0042).
Regarding claim 7, Ito teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising: in response to a request for control of a third modular robot that performs a third function among the plurality of modular robots to perform the task, configuring a third module controller (“UN2(3)”) for controlling the third modular robot, wherein the third module controller corresponds to the third modular robot on a one-to-one basis (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claims 9, Ito and Augenbraun teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Ito and Augenbraun is silent regarding two service robots and independent controllers. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to modify the method taught by the combination of Ito and Augenbraun so as to have two service robots. Such a modification would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art because the modification would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such modification would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: the robot control system being configured to further control another robot configured with a plurality of other modular robots, and each of the plurality of other modular robots is individually controlled by the robot control system without interaction between the plurality of other modular robots, such that the other robot is controlled to perform another door opening and passing task related to the service requested for the other robot.
Regarding claim 10, Ito and Augenbraun teach the method of claim 9. The combination of Ito and Augenbraun as modified in claim 9 is silent regarding the robots having independent controllers. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to configure the robots to have independent controllers by controller M. Such a duplication would have been obvious because such duplication would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such duplication would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: each of the robot and the other robot being controlled by a robot controller independently configured in the robot control system.
Regarding claim 12, Ito teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first function is a function for moving the robot (door passing operation) and the first modular robot is a mobile base modular robot (Figs. 1-3, element 3, 3A, 3B, 3C) configured to move the robot, the second function (door opening operation) is a function for providing the service and the second modular robot is a service modular robot configured to provide the service of the robot (Figs. 1-3, elements 2, 2A, 2B), and the robot is configured through combination of the first modular robot and the second modular robot (Fig. 1, elements 2, 2A, 3, 3A; paragraphs 0021-0026 and 0031).
Regarding claim 13, Ito teaches a robot control system for controlling a robot configured with a plurality of modular robots, the robot control system comprising: at least one processor (Fig. 3, element 1, 12, M) configured to execute computer-readable instructions (paragraph 0024, 0028-0036, 0040), wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive first sensing information or first state information (Fig. 3, element S1) from a first modular robot (Figs. 1-3, element 2(2A), 2, UN1(2)) that performs a first function (door opening operation) among the plurality of modular robots (Fig. 2, element 2A, 2B), receive second sensing information or second state information (Fig. 3, element SN) from a second modular robot (Figs. 1-3, element 3(3A), 3, UNN(3)) that performs a second function (door passing operation) among the plurality of modular robots (Fig. 2, element 3A, 3B, 3C), control the first modular robot by transmitting a first command (Fig. 3, element T1) to the first modular robot based on the first sensing information or the first state information, and control the second modular robot by transmitting a second command (Fig. 3, element TN) to the second modular robot based on the second sensing information or the second state information (paragraphs 0028-0031), and each of the first modular robot and the second modular robot is individually controlled (via command T1 and command TN, respectively) by the robot control system without interaction between the first modular robot and the second modular robot (each operation unit UN operates alone), such that the robot is controlled to perform a task (“door opening and passing”; paragraph 0029, 0032, 0036). Ito is silent regarding the door opening and passing task being “related to a service requested for the robot.” Augenbraun teach a cleaning robot (Fig. 1, element 10) that performs a requested room cleaning service (column 3, line 55 through column 4, line 26) where cleaning robot 10 is configured to perform the task of opening a door to the room (column 11, lines 31-34 and lines 43-45). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to configure the modular robot taught by Ito to perform a requested room cleaning service by applying the well-known technique taught by Augenbraun. Application of the well-known robot room cleaning service technique taught by Augenbraun to the prior art robot taught by Ito 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 because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: the robot being controlled to perform a task that is related to a service requested for the robot.
Regarding claim 14, Ito teaches the robot control system of claim 13, wherein the at least one processor comprises a first module controller (Fig. 3, element UN1) for controlling the first modular robot (Fig. 3, element 2) and a second module controller (Fig. 3, element UNN) for controlling the second modular robot (Fig. 3, element 3), the first module controller corresponding to the first modular robot is configured to receive the first sensing information or the first state information (Fig. 3, element S1) from the first modular robot and transmit the first command (Fig. 3, element T1) to the first modular robot, the second module controller corresponding to the second modular robot is configured to receive the first sensing information or the first state information (Fig. 3, element SN) from the first modular robot and transmit the first command to the first modular robot, the first module controller and the second module controller correspond to the first modular robot and the second modular robot, respectively, on a one-to-one basis (paragraphs 0028-0042), and in response to a request for control of a third modular robot that performs a third function among the plurality of modular robots to perform the task, the at least one processor is configured to generate a third module controller (UN2(3)) for controlling the third modular robot (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 15, Ito and Augenbraun teach the robot control system of claim 13. The combination of Ito and Augenbraun is silent regarding the duplication of robot 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to further modify the combination taught by Ito and Augenbraun to have another robot. Such modification would have been obvious because such modification would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such modification would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: the at least one processor being configured to further control another robot configured with a plurality of other modular robots, and each of the plurality of other modular robots are individually controlled by the robot control system without interaction between the plurality of other modular robots, such that the other robot is controlled to perform another door opening and door passing task related to the service requested for the other robot.
Regarding claim 16, Ito and Augenbraun teach the combination as modified above with respect to claim 15, wherein the at least one processor comprises a first robot controller configured to control the robot and a second robot controller configured to control the other robot, and the first robot controller and the second robot controller are independently configured (Fig. 3, element M, MT; paragraph 0029-0032, 0036-0038).
Regarding claims 18-19, Ito teaches a robot controlled by a robot control system to provide a service within a space, the robot comprising: a plurality of modular robots (Fig. 1-3, element 2A and 3A; paragraph 0021-0032), wherein each of the plurality of modular robots is individually controlled (via Fig. 3, command T1 and Fig. 3, command TN, respectively) by the robot control system without interaction between the plurality of modular robots (each operation unit UN operates alone; paragraphs 0028-0031), each modular robot of the plurality of modular robots is configured to perform a function (door opening; door passing; paragraph 0021-0032); the each modular robot comprises at least one processor (Fig. 3, element 12) configured to execute computer-readable instructions (paragraph 0024, 0028-0036, 0040), and the at least one processor is configured to transmit sensing information or state information (Fig. 3, element S1, SN) of the each modular robot to the robot control system (Fig. 3, element M), receive a command (Fig. 3, element T1, TN) from the robot control system based on the sensing information or the state information, and control the each modular robot according to the command (paragraph 0021-0032, 0036). Ito is silent regarding the performed door opening and door passing function(s) being performed for “providing a service.” Augenbraun teach a cleaning robot (Fig. 1, element 10) that performs a requested room cleaning service (column 3, line 55 through column 4, line 26) where cleaning robot 10 is configured to perform the task of opening a door to the room (column 11, lines 31-34 and lines 43-45). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to configure the modular robot taught by Ito to perform a requested room cleaning service by applying the well-known technique taught by Augenbraun. Application of the well-known robot room cleaning service technique taught by Augenbraun to the prior art robot taught by Ito 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 because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: each of modular robot of the plurality of modular robots is configured to perform the door opening and door passing function for providing a room cleaning service.
Regarding claim 20, Ito teaches the robot of claim 18, wherein the plurality of modular robots comprises: a mobile base modular robot (Figs 1-3, elements 3, 3A, 3B, 3C) configured to provide a function (door passing operation) for moving the robot (paragraphs 0021-0026 and 0031); and a service modular robot (Figs. 1-3, elements 2, 2A, 2B) configured to provide a function for providing the service (paragraphs 0021-0026 and 0031), and the robot is configured through combination of the mobile base modular robot and the service modular robot (Fig. 1, elements 2, 2A, 3, 3A; paragraphs 0021-0023).
Regarding claim 21, Ito teaches a building comprising: a robot (Figs. 1 and 3, element 1) configured with a plurality of modular robots (Figs. 1-3, element 2, 3, 2A, 3A) moving through a space (“door passing”) within the building (paragraph 0021, 0025, 0033), the robot being controlled by a robot control system (Fig. 3, element UN, 12 and M; paragraph 0029 and 0033), the robot control system including at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions (paragraph 0024, 0034), wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive first sensing information or first state information (Fig. 3, element S1) from a first modular robot that performs a first function (“door opening operation”) among the plurality of modular robots, receive second sensing information or second state information (Fig. 3, element SN) from a second modular robot that performs a second function (“door passing operation”) among the plurality of modular robots, control the first modular robot by transmitting a first command (Fig. 3, element T1) to the first modular robot based on the first sensing information or the first state information, and control the second modular robot by transmitting a second command (Fig. 3, element TN) to the second modular robot based on the second sensing information or the second state information (paragraphs 0021-0032), and each of the first modular robot and the second modular robot is individually controlled (via command T1 and command TN, respectively) by the robot control system without interaction between the first modular robot and the second modular robot (each operation unit UN operates alone), such that the robot is controlled to perform a task (“door opening and passing”; paragraph 0029, 0032, 0036). Ito is silent regarding the robot being controlled to perform a task that is “related to a service requested for the robot.” Augenbraun teach a cleaning robot (Fig. 1, element 10) that performs a requested room cleaning service (column 3, line 55 through column 4, line 26) where cleaning robot 10 is configured to perform the task of opening a door to the room (column 11, lines 31-34 and lines 43-45). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to configure the modular robot taught by Ito to perform a requested room cleaning service by applying the well-known technique taught by Augenbraun. Application of the well-known robot room cleaning service technique taught by Augenbraun to the prior art robot taught by Ito 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 because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: the robot being controlled to perform a task that is related to a service requested for the robot.
Regarding claim 22, Ito teaches a building comprising: a robot (Figs. 1 and 3, element 1) configured with a plurality of modular robots (Figs. 1-3, element 2, 3, 2A, 3A) moving through a space (“door passing”) within the building (paragraph 0021, 0025, 0033) and controlled by a robot control system (Fig. 3, element UN, 12 and M; paragraph 0029 and 0033), wherein each of the plurality of modular robots is individually controlled (via command T1 and command TN, respectively) by the robot control system without interaction between the plurality of modular robots (each operation unit UN operates alone; paragraph 0029, 0032, 0036), each modular robot of the plurality of modular robots is configured to perform a function (door opening; door passing; paragraph 0021-0032), the each modular robot includes at least one processor (Fig. 3, element 12; paragraphs 0024, 0028-0036, 0040), and the at least one processor is configured to transmit sensing information or state information (Fig. 3, element S1, SN) of the each modular robot to the robot control system (Fig. 3, element M), receive a command (Fig. 3, element T1, TN) from the robot control system based on the sensing information or the state information, and control the each modular robot according to the command (paragraph 0021-0032, 0036). Ito is silent regarding each modular robot of the plurality of modular robots being configured to perform the door opening and door passing function for “providing a service within the space.” Augenbraun teach a cleaning robot (Fig. 1, element 10) that performs a requested room cleaning service (column 3, line 55 through column 4, line 26) where cleaning robot 10 is configured to perform the task of opening a door to the room (column 11, lines 31-34 and lines 43-45). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to configure the modular robot taught by Ito to perform a requested room cleaning service by applying the well-known technique taught by Augenbraun. Application of the well-known robot room cleaning service technique taught by Augenbraun to the prior art robot taught by Ito 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 because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: each of modular robot of the plurality of modular robots being configured to perform the door opening and door passing function for providing a room cleaning service within the room.
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito and Augenbraun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roh et al. (US 2007/0112463 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Roh”).
Regarding claim 2, Ito and Augenbraun teach the method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of modular robots is a robot that is controlled by executing a command from the robot control system, without each of the plurality of modular robots interacting with another robot or another modular robot. Ito and Augenbraun are silent regarding each of the plurality of modular robots being a “brainless” robot. However, Roh teaches a technique offloading control of robots (Fig. 1, element 10) to a remotely located robot server (Fig. 1, element 13; paragraphs 0025-0028) which results so-called brainless robots 10. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply the well-known robot control offloading technique to the prior art robot system taught by the combination of Ito and Augenbraun. Application of the well-known technique taught by Roh to the prior art combination would have been obvious because such modification would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such modification would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: each of the plurality of modular robots being a brainless robot.
Regarding claim 8, Ito, Augenbraun and Roh teach the method of claim 2 above. The result of such combination is that each of the first modular robot and the second modular robot communicates with the robot control system using a shared communicator (wireless network, see Roh Fig. 1, element 11), and reception of the first sensing information or the first state information, reception of the second sensing information or the second state information, transmission of the first command, and transmission of the second command is performed through the shared communicator (Roh, paragraph 0025).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE MOYER whose telephone number is (571)270-7821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PT.
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 H 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.
/Dale Moyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656