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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered on December 9, 2025 for patent application 18/536,167 filed on December 11, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ammar et al. (Pat. No.: US 10,891,157).
Regarding claim 1, Ammar discloses a method, implemented by a processor coupled to a memory, comprising: dividing a streaming application into a plurality of different tasks to be performed by a plurality of robots that include at least a first swarm and a second swarm of the robots (col. 4, ln. 25-31); assigning a first group of robots from the first swarm to a first task (Fig. 1, col. 6, ln. 29-45); processing operations of the first task by the first group of robots (Fig. 2, col. 6, ln. 46 – col. 7, ln. 14); monitoring a performance of the first group of robots with respect to the first task (col. 12, ln. 20-51); and dynamically reassigning, based on the performance, a second group of robots to the first task, wherein the second group of robots is different than the first group of robots (Fig. 7, col. 11, ln. 43-57; Fig. 14, col. 17, ln. 27 – col. 19, ln. 7), and wherein at least one of the robots from the first group of robots is reassigned to the second group of robots (Fig. 14, col. 17, ln. 27 – col. 19, ln. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Ammar discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: instructing at least one of the first plurality of robots to move to a location proximate to another of the first plurality of robots to optimize the streaming application (Fig. 12, col. 15, ln. 26 – col. 16, ln. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Ammar discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the dynamically reassigning further comprises: fusing two different tasks into a single fused task, wherein the single fused task is assigned to a selected one of the first group of robots (col. 5, ln. 65 – col. 6, ln. 28. Adding a task to a task list can be seen as “fusing two tasks into a single fused task.”).
Regarding claim 6, Ammar discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the dynamically reassigning further comprises: splitting the first task into a plurality of subtasks (col. 4, ln. 25-31); and adding at least one of the robots in the first swarm of robots to the first group of robots (Fig. 14, col. 17, ln. 27 – col. 19, ln. 7), wherein each of the plurality of subtasks is assigned to a different robot from the first swarm of robots (col. 12, ln. 32-51).
Regarding claim 7, Ammar discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: assigning a selected one of the first swarm of robots as a stream schedule manager robot (Fig. 2, element 225, col. 6, ln. 46 – col. 7, ln. 14), wherein the stream schedule manager robot performs actions comprising: dividing the streaming application into the tasks (col. 4, ln. 25-31); and assigning available robots from the first swarm of robots to the tasks (Fig. 1, col. 6, ln. 29-45).
Regarding claim 8, Ammar discloses an information handling system comprising: one or more processors; a memory coupled to at least one of the processors; and a set of instructions stored in the memory and executed by at least one of the processors to perform actions comprising: dividing a streaming application into a plurality of different tasks to be performed by a plurality of robots that include at least a first swarm and a second swarm of the robots (col. 4, ln. 25-31); assigning a first group of robots from the first swarm to a first task (Fig. 1, col. 6, ln. 29-45); processing operations of the first task by the first group of robots (Fig. 2, col. 6, ln. 46 – col. 7, ln. 14); monitoring a performance of the first group of robots with respect to the first task (col. 12, ln. 20-51); and dynamically reassigning, based on the performance, a second group of robots to the first task, wherein the second group of robots is different than the first group of robots (Fig. 7, col. 11, ln. 43-57; Fig. 14, col. 17, ln. 27 – col. 19, ln. 7), and wherein at least one of the robots from the first group of robots is reassigned to the second group of robots (Fig. 14, col. 17, ln. 27 – col. 19, ln. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Ammar discloses the information handling system of claim 8 wherein the actions further comprise: instructing at least one of the first plurality of robots to move to a location proximate to another of the first plurality of robots to optimize the streaming application (Fig. 12, col. 15, ln. 26 – col. 16, ln. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Ammar discloses the information handling system of claim 8 wherein the dynamically reassigning further comprises: fusing two different tasks into a single fused task, wherein the single fused task is assigned to a selected one of the first group of robots (col. 5, ln. 65 – col. 6, ln. 28. Adding a task to a task list can be seen as “fusing two tasks into a single fused task.”).
Regarding claim 13, Ammar discloses the information handling system of claim 8 wherein the dynamically reassigning further comprises: splitting the first task into a plurality of subtasks (col. 4, ln. 25-31); and adding at least one of the robots in the first swarm of robots to the first group of robots (Fig. 14, col. 17, ln. 27 – col. 19, ln. 7), wherein each of the plurality of subtasks is assigned to a different robot from the first swarm of robots (col. 12, ln. 32-51).
Regarding claim 14, Ammar discloses the information handling system of claim 8 wherein the actions further comprise: assigning a selected one of the first swarm of robots as a stream schedule manager robot (Fig. 2, element 225, col. 6, ln. 46 – col. 7, ln. 14), wherein the stream schedule manager robot performs actions comprising: dividing the streaming application into the tasks (col. 4, ln. 25-31); and assigning available robots from the first swarm of robots to the tasks (Fig. 1, col. 6, ln. 29-45).
Regarding claim 15, Ammar discloses a computer program product comprising: a computer readable storage medium comprising a set of computer instructions that, when executed by a processor, are effective to perform actions comprising: dividing a streaming application into a plurality of different tasks to be performed by a plurality of robots that include at least a first swarm and a second swarm of the robots (col. 4, ln. 25-31); assigning a first group of robots from the first swarm to a first task (Fig. 1, col. 6, ln. 29-45); processing operations of the first task by the first group of robots (Fig. 2, col. 6, ln. 46 – col. 7, ln. 14); monitoring a performance of the first group of robots with respect to the first task (col. 12, ln. 20-51); and dynamically reassigning, based on the performance, a second group of robots to the first task, wherein the second group of robots is different than the first group of robots (Fig. 7, col. 11, ln. 43-57; Fig. 14, col. 17, ln. 27 – col. 19, ln. 7), and wherein at least one of the robots from the first group of robots is reassigned to the second group of robots (Fig. 14, col. 17, ln. 27 – col. 19, ln. 7).
Regarding claim 16, Ammar discloses the computer program product of claim 15 wherein the actions further comprise: instructing at least one of the first plurality of robots to move to a location proximate to another of the first plurality of robots to optimize the streaming application (Fig. 12, col. 15, ln. 26 – col. 16, ln. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Ammar discloses the computer program product of claim 15 wherein the dynamically reassigning further comprises: fusing two different tasks into a single fused task, wherein the single fused task is assigned to a selected one of the first group of robots (col. 5, ln. 65 – col. 6, ln. 28. Adding a task to a task list can be seen as “fusing two tasks into a single fused task.”).
Regarding claim 20, Ammar discloses the computer program product of claim 15 wherein the dynamically reassigning further comprises: splitting the first task into a plurality of subtasks (col. 4, ln. 25-31); and adding at least one of the robots in the first swarm of robots to the first group of robots (Fig. 14, col. 17, ln. 27 – col. 19, ln. 7), wherein each of the plurality of subtasks is assigned to a different robot from the first swarm of robots (col. 12, ln. 32-51).
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.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ammar et al. (Pat. No.: US 10,891,157) in view of Suvitie et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0100224).
Regarding claim 3, Ammar discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first swarm of robots is of a first robotic type, and a second swarm of robots is of a second robotic type, wherein the method further comprises: performing the assigning, processing, monitoring, and dynamic reassigning steps with the second swarm of robots. However, in analogous art, Suvitie discloses that “a plurality of autonomous vehicles may comprise autonomous vehicles of different types, such as autonomous robots, vehicles, drones, and/or the like, that may move along the route in various manners, such as by moving along the ground, flying, and/or the like (para. [0040]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Macneille to allow for the first swarm of robots to be of a first robotic type, and a second swarm of robots to be of a second robotic type, wherein the method further comprises: performing the assigning, processing, monitoring, and dynamic reassigning steps with the second swarm of robots. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the system to be adaptable to more situations by having a wider range and diversity of resources available.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Macneille and Suvitie discloses the method of claim 3, and further discloses further comprising: communicating a set of data between one of the robots included in the first swarm of robots and one of the robots included in the second swarm of robots, wherein the first robotic type is an air-based drone type of robot and wherein the second robotic type is a ground-based type of robot (Suvitie, para. [0040]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.).
Regarding claim 10, Macneille discloses the information handling system of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first swarm of robots is of a first robotic type, and a second swarm of robots is of a second robotic type, wherein the actions further comprise: performing the assigning, processing, monitoring, and dynamic reassigning steps with the second swarm of robots. However, in analogous art, Suvitie discloses that “a plurality of autonomous vehicles may comprise autonomous vehicles of different types, such as autonomous robots, vehicles, drones, and/or the like, that may move along the route in various manners, such as by moving along the ground, flying, and/or the like (para. [0040]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Macneille to allow for the first swarm of robots to be of a first robotic type, and a second swarm of robots to be of a second robotic type, wherein the method further comprises: performing the assigning, processing, monitoring, and dynamic reassigning steps with the second swarm of robots. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the system to be adaptable to more situations by having a wider range and diversity of resources available.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Macneille and Suvitie discloses the information handling system of claim 10 wherein the actions further comprise: communicating a set of data between one of the robots included in the first swarm of robots and one of the robots included in the second swarm of robots, wherein the first robotic type is an air-based drone type of robot and wherein the second robotic type is a ground-based type of robot (Suvitie, para. [0040]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.).
Regarding claim 17, Macneille discloses the computer program product of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first swarm of robots is of a first robotic type, and a second swarm of robots is of a second robotic type, wherein the actions further comprise: performing the assigning, processing, monitoring, and dynamic reassigning steps with the second swarm of robots. However, in analogous art, Suvitie discloses that “a plurality of autonomous vehicles may comprise autonomous vehicles of different types, such as autonomous robots, vehicles, drones, and/or the like, that may move along the route in various manners, such as by moving along the ground, flying, and/or the like (para. [0040]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Macneille to allow for the first swarm of robots to be of a first robotic type, and a second swarm of robots to be of a second robotic type, wherein the method further comprises: performing the assigning, processing, monitoring, and dynamic reassigning steps with the second swarm of robots. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the system to be adaptable to more situations by having a wider range and diversity of resources available.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Macneille and Suvitie discloses the computer program product of claim 17 wherein the actions further comprise: communicating a set of data between one of the robots included in the first swarm of robots and one of the robots included in the second swarm of robots, wherein the first robotic type is an air-based drone type of robot and wherein the second robotic type is a ground-based type of robot (Suvitie, para. [0040]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 17.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 February 21, 2026