DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present action has been re-opened in view pf applicant’s response dated 4/23/2026. Any inconvenience this may have caused is regretted.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Turek (US Pub 2025/0001597) in view of Hartmann (EP 4227749).
Regarding claim 1, Turek discloses a computer-implemented method for industrial robot error correction (abstract; figs, 1-6; sec 0018-0020, 0067-0096), the method comprising:
monitoring a production line for error conditions (fig. 1; sec 0018-0020);
responsive to identifying an error condition in an industrial robot comprising the production line, invoking an AI avatar (Turek fig. 5, sec 0067-0096 discloses invoking an AI avatar which is a subroutine or computer program for error correction as defined according applicant’s specification sec 0052) for the industrial robot (fig. 5; sec 0067-0096), wherein the AI avatar comprises an interactable e.g. with a human (Turek’s abstract teaches a Cobot implying that the robot interacts with a human; in Turek paragraphs 0069-0097 the Avatar in fig. 5 is part of the Cobot and based on sensors detects human or operator movements or motion to detect and correct error when the human or operator is interacting with the Avatar e.g. see paragraph 0075-0096);
gathering, by the AI avatar, data pertaining to the error condition (fig. 5; sec 0067-0096);
analyzing, by the AI avatar, the gathered data (sec 512, 516, etc; sec 0073, 0082) to produce a plurality of collated data and/or one or more proposed corrections (fig. 5, steps 518, 520, 522, 524, etc; sec 0082, 0083, 0086, 0088, 0090, 0091);
presenting, by the AI avatar, the plurality of collated data and/or the one or more proposed corrections in a mixed reality environment (sec 0095, Turek discloses a mixed reality based on applicant’s specification sec 0002); and
modifying one or more algorithms of the industrial robot based on the one or more proposed corrections (correcting an algorithm is tantamount to modifying the algorithm; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Turek did not particularly indicate that the AI avatar comprises an interactable digital representation of the industrial robot.
However Hartmann teaches of a computer-implemented method for industrial robot error correction (abstract; sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031), the method comprising:
monitoring a production line for error conditions sec (abstract; sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031);
responsive to identifying an error condition (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031) in an industrial robot comprising the production line, invoking an Al avatar for the industrial robot (Avatar is invoked all the time during the monitoring of errors; sec 0015-0017), wherein the Al avatar comprises an interactable digital representation of the industrial robot (interactable through AR glasses by receive update, maintenance, error correction, settings; see abstract; sec 0009, 0010, 0015-0017, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031);
gathering, by the Al avatar, data pertaining to the error condition (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031);
analyzing, by the Al avatar, the gathered data to produce a plurality of collated data and/or one or more proposed corrections (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031-0034);
presenting, by the Al avatar, the plurality of collated data and/or the one or more proposed corrections in a mixed reality environment (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031-0034); and
modifying one or more algorithms of the industrial robot based on the one or more proposed corrections (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031-0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Turek as taught by Hartmann for the purpose of improving Turek to achieving advantages of quickly, efficiently and securely receiving data by a user of AR glasses corresponding to equipment in the vicinity of the user of the AR glasses, wherein data overlays (i.e., augments) the view of an industrial through the AR glasses (Hartmann sec 0010).
Regarding claim 2, Turek discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
testing the one or more proposed corrections made to the modified one or more algorithms (correcting an algorithm and testing is tantamount to modifying the algorithm; also testing is done is step 520, 524, fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Regarding claim 3, Turek discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
presenting, by the AI avatar, an analysis of the testing within the mixed reality environment (sec 0095, Turek discloses a mixed reality based on applicant’s specification sec 0002).
Regarding claim 4, Turek discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the analyzing comprises predicting one or more future error conditions occurring within a predicted window (fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc); and
wherein the testing occurs during the predicted window fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Regarding claim 5, Turek discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the analyzing comprises:
predicting one or more future error conditions occurring within a predicted window fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc); and
wherein the method further comprises: adding or enabling one or more sensors to the production line based on the prediction fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Regarding claim 6, Turek discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the AI avatar comprises an interactable digital representation of the industrial robot integrated into a mixed-reality platform (fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Regarding claim 7, Turek discloses the method of claim 1, wherein data pertaining to the error condition comprises data recorded from one or more sensors outside of a boundary of the industrial robot (fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Regarding claim 8, Turek discloses a computer system for industrial robot error correction (abstract; figs, 1-6; sec 0018-0020, 0067-0096), the computer system comprising:
one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories (sec 0033, 0034), wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising:
monitoring a production line for error conditions (fig. 1; sec 0018-0020);
responsive to identifying an error condition in an industrial robot comprising the production line, invoking an AI avatar (Turek fig. 5, sec 0067-0096 discloses invoking an AI avatar which is a subroutine or computer program for error correction as defined according applicant’s specification sec 0052) for the industrial robot (fig. 5; sec 0067-0096), wherein the AI avatar comprises an interactable e.g. with a human (Turek’s abstract teaches a Cobot implying that the robot interacts with a human; in Turek paragraphs 0069-0097 the Avatar in fig. 5 is part of the Cobot and based on sensors detects human or operator movements or motion to detect and correct error when the human or operator is interacting with the Avatar e.g. see paragraph 0075-0096);
gathering, by the AI avatar, data pertaining to the error condition (fig. 5; sec 0067-0096);
analyzing, by the AI avatar, the gathered data (sec 512, 516, etc; sec 0073, 0082) to produce a plurality of collated data and/or one or more proposed corrections (fig. 5, steps 518, 520, 522, 524, etc; sec 0082, 0083, 0086, 0088, 0090, 0091);
presenting, by the AI avatar, the plurality of collated data and/or the one or more proposed corrections in a mixed reality environment (sec 0095, Turek discloses a mixed reality based on applicant’s specification sec 0002); and
modifying one or more algorithms of the industrial robot based on the one or more proposed corrections (correcting an algorithm is tantamount to modifying the algorithm; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Turek did not particularly indicate that the AI avatar comprises an interactable digital representation of the industrial robot.
However Hartmann teaches of a computer-implemented method for industrial robot error correction (abstract; sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031), the method comprising:
monitoring a production line for error conditions sec (abstract; sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031);
responsive to identifying an error condition (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031) in an industrial robot comprising the production line, invoking an Al avatar for the industrial robot (Avatar is invoked all the time during the monitoring of errors; sec 0015-0017), wherein the Al avatar comprises an interactable digital representation of the industrial robot (interactable through AR glasses by receive update, maintenance, error correction, settings; see abstract; sec 0009, 0010, 0015-0017, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031);
gathering, by the Al avatar, data pertaining to the error condition (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031);
analyzing, by the Al avatar, the gathered data to produce a plurality of collated data and/or one or more proposed corrections (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031-0034);
presenting, by the Al avatar, the plurality of collated data and/or the one or more proposed corrections in a mixed reality environment (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031-0034); and
modifying one or more algorithms of the industrial robot based on the one or more proposed corrections (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031-0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Turek as taught by Hartmann for the purpose of improving Turek to achieving advantages of quickly, efficiently and securely receiving data by a user of AR glasses corresponding to equipment in the vicinity of the user of the AR glasses, wherein data overlays (i.e., augments) the view of an industrial through the AR glasses (Hartmann sec 0010).
Regarding claim 9, Turek discloses the computer system of claim 8, further comprising:
testing the one or more proposed corrections made to the modified one or more algorithms (correcting and testing an algorithm is tantamount to modifying the algorithm; also testing is done is step 520, 524, fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Regarding claim 10, Turek discloses the computer system of claim 9, further comprising:
presenting, by the AI avatar, an analysis of the testing in the mixed-reality environment (sec 0095, Turek discloses a mixed reality based on applicant’s specification sec 0002).
Regarding claim 11, Turek discloses the computer system of claim 9, wherein the analyzing comprises predicting one or more future error conditions occurring within a predicted window (fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc); and
wherein the testing occurs during the predicted window (fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Regarding claim 12, Turek discloses the computer system of claim 8, wherein the analyzing comprises:
predicting one or more future error conditions occurring within a predicted window (fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc); and
wherein the method further comprises: adding or enabling one or more sensors to the production line based on the prediction (fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Regarding claim 13, Turek discloses the computer system of claim 8, wherein the AI avatar comprises an interactable digital representation of the industrial robot integrated into a mixed-reality platform (fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Regarding claim 14, Turek discloses the computer system of claim 8, wherein data pertaining to the error condition comprises data recorded from one or more sensors outside of a boundary of the industrial robot (fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Regarding claim 15, Turek discloses a computer program product for industrial robot error correction (abstract; figs, 1-6; sec 0018-0020, 0067-0096), the computer program product comprising:
one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium (sec 0033, 0034), the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
monitoring a production line for error conditions (fig. 1; sec 0018-0020);
responsive to identifying an error condition in an industrial robot comprising the production line, invoking an AI avatar (Turek fig. 5, sec 0067-0096 discloses invoking an AI avatar which is a subroutine or computer program for error correction as defined according applicant’s specification sec 0052) for the industrial robot (fig. 5; sec 0067-0096), wherein the AI avatar comprises an interactable e.g. with a human (Turek’s abstract teaches a Cobot implying that the robot interacts with a human; in Turek paragraphs 0069-0097 the Avatar in fig. 5 is part of the Cobot and based on sensors detects human or operator movements or motion to detect and correct error when the human or operator is interacting with the Avatar e.g. see paragraph 0075-0096);
gathering, by the AI avatar, data pertaining to the error condition (fig. 5; sec 0067-0096);
analyzing, by the AI avatar, the gathered data (sec 512, 516, etc; sec 0073, 0082) to produce a plurality of collated data and/or one or more proposed corrections (fig. 5, steps 518, 520, 522, 524, etc; sec 0082, 0083, 0086, 0088, 0090, 0091);
presenting, by the AI avatar, the plurality of collated data and/or the one or more proposed corrections in a mixed reality environment (sec 0095, Turek discloses a mixed reality based on applicant’s specification sec 0002); and
modifying one or more algorithms of the industrial robot based on the one or more proposed corrections (correcting an algorithm is tantamount to modifying the algorithm; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Turek did not particularly indicate that the AI avatar comprises an interactable digital representation of the industrial robot.
However Hartmann teaches of a computer-implemented method for industrial robot error correction (abstract; sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031), the method comprising:
monitoring a production line for error conditions sec (abstract; sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031);
responsive to identifying an error condition (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031) in an industrial robot comprising the production line, invoking an Al avatar for the industrial robot (Avatar is invoked all the time during the monitoring of errors; sec 0015-0017), wherein the Al avatar comprises an interactable digital representation of the industrial robot (interactable through AR glasses by receive update, maintenance, error correction, settings; see abstract; sec 0009, 0010, 0015-0017, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031);
gathering, by the Al avatar, data pertaining to the error condition (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031);
analyzing, by the Al avatar, the gathered data to produce a plurality of collated data and/or one or more proposed corrections (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031-0034);
presenting, by the Al avatar, the plurality of collated data and/or the one or more proposed corrections in a mixed reality environment (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031-0034); and
modifying one or more algorithms of the industrial robot based on the one or more proposed corrections (sec 0009, 0010, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0031-0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Turek as taught by Hartmann for the purpose of improving Turek to achieving advantages of quickly, efficiently and securely receiving data by a user of AR glasses corresponding to equipment in the vicinity of the user of the AR glasses, wherein data overlays (i.e., augments) the view of an industrial through the AR glasses (Hartmann sec 0010).
Regarding claim 16, Turek discloses the computer program product of claim 15, further comprising:
testing the one or more proposed corrections made to the modified one or more algorithms (correcting and testing an algorithm is tantamount to modifying the algorithm; also testing is done is step 520, 524, fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Regarding claim 17, Turek discloses the computer program product of claim 16, further comprising:
presenting, by the AI avatar, an analysis of the testing to the subject matter expert (sec 0095, Turek discloses a mixed reality based on applicant’s specification sec 0002).
Regarding claim 18, Turek discloses the computer program product of claim 16, wherein the analyzing comprises predicting one or more future error conditions occurring within a predicted window (fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc); and
wherein the testing occurs during the predicted window (fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Regarding claim 19, Turek discloses the computer program product of claim 15, wherein the analyzing comprises:
predicting one or more future error conditions occurring within a predicted window (fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc); and
wherein the method further comprises: adding or enabling one or more sensors to the production line based on the prediction (fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Regarding claim 20, Turek discloses the computer program product of claim 15, wherein the AI avatar comprises an interactable digital representation of the industrial robot integrated into a mixed-reality platform (fig. 5; sec 0029, 0030, 0036, 0038, 0059, 0060, 0086, 0089, etc).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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
The prior art, Schmirler (US 10735691) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights