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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed May 4th, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections made in view of the combination of Keravala et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0114219 A1) and Sahinoglu et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2008/0259896 A1) have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
However, upon further search and consideration, new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been made in further view of Coffee et al. (US Patent No. 6,611,755 B1). Examiner previously stated Keravala discloses in [0010] the fleet management system communicating and controlling a colony of bots using data packets containing information on each bot’s position, location and operational data, along with sensor data onboard each bot, wherein the sensor suite dispersed among the colony of bots includes a variety of positional sensor modules and sensors for mapping (i.e., optical, infrared, laser, etc.). Examiner further noted the FMS of Keravala along with the data types gathered from sensors and the determined bot locations/positions, clearly described the system as claimed regarding supervision of the fleet by a central system; and when combined with the proximity verification process through the use of range packets which are transmitted and received by multiple devices, it is obvious that a proximity verification can be established through the already existing components of each claimed system, and needs to be established between two collaborating devices or robots prior to a connection between them of any sort, since it is well known in the art that robots of the same fleet performing similar tasks necessarily need to be close by in order to communicate at all, much less establish a sidelink. Examiner notes the Applicant’s emphasis on the proximity verification being based on position data obtained does not teach away from the FMS of Keravala, based on at least the reasons stated above.
Examiner adds the periodic collection of position data within a fleet of industrial robots is a common and conventional function in the art of robot fleets, as shown in the rejections below. While adding this functionality to the claim language overcomes the previous 103 rejections made in the Non-Final Rejection sent on April 6th, 2026, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
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 1-3, 5-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Keravala et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0114219 A1), herein “Keravala”, in view of Sahinoglu et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2008/0259896 A1), herein “Sahinoglu”, and Coffee et al. (US Patent No. 6,611,755 B1), herein “Coffee”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 17-18, Keravala discloses an industrial robot, method and computer program comprising instructions to cause an industrial robot to execute a method in a factory environment (See 0005, “Systems and methods for industrial robotic system platforms […]”), the industrial robot, method, and computer program comprising:
sensors (See 0089, “[…] subsystem firmware includes an operations module 360, a status module 362, a position module 364, and a sensor or sensor module […]”);
actuators (See 0104, “[…] mobility platform 414 is configured to be operated to cause the bot 400 to move, such as by commanding an actuator to move the track, wheel, leg, etc.”);
a robot controller (See 0059, “[…] processor 212 may be in communication with one or more modules for controlling and/or managing the bot […] in communication with a controller area network (CAN) processing module […] interfaces with firmware controllers […]”); and
a wireless interface configured to establish a sidelink to a further industrial robot or a group of industrial robots (See 0010, “[…] plurality of bots may be configured to communicate with each other and the colony control center via a colony communications network.” See also 0084-0087, “[…] one or more of the bots communicate directly with each other and the colony control center 302 by means of hardware and software directly implemented in the bots.” See also 0008, “Bots collaborating in the same squad may autonomously transmit and receive data packets dedicated to the squad, and may be shared at a higher frequency and volume based on proximity of operations […]” See also 0099, “Neighboring bots within a squad may subscribe to, receive, process, and transmit data packets necessary for swarm behavior. Neighboring squads within a colony […] may subscribe to, receive, process, and transmit data packets necessary for mid-scale situational awareness […]” See also 0144, “[…] bots 502, 506 of the squad 724A may communicate with bots from the neighboring squads […]” Examiner notes the various levels of communications between neighboring bots or squads of bots to necessarily enable swarm behavior and situational awareness constitutes proximity verification. Furthermore, the bots being capable of communicating directly with each other constitutes an established sidelink);
wherein the industrial robot is configured to participate in execution of a utility task, which is carried out in collaboration with the further industrial robot or at least some members of the group of industrial robots, said collaboration including an exchange of operational data over the sidelink (See 0007, “[…] robots may be tagged to share bot data between each other in order to collaborate autonomously as a group and achieve the successful execution of the industrial task.”);
wherein the industrial robot and the further industrial robot or group of industrial robots are supervised by a fleet management system, FMS, and the proximity verification is based on position data obtained from the FMS (See 0008 and 0099 as referenced above. See also 0010, “[…] universal platform may include a data processing system where each data packet includes a data packet header containing identification information related to each bot. The identification information may include one or more of the following: a colony identifier, a platoon identifier, a squad identifier, a bot identifier, a bot location identifier, a bot position identifier, health data, performance data, operational data, housekeeping data and/or sensor data. The universal platform may include a hardware platform stack and a software platform stack, and wherein the universal platform is configured to use the hardware platform stack and the software platform stack to autonomously operate the payload stack to perform the payload-specific industrial task and to communicate with other bots and/or the colony control center […] A command and control system may monitor and support the plurality of bots, initialize systems, perform exception management, analyze the operational data and to generate the update data based on analysis of the operational data.”).
But does not explicitly disclose the sidelink is established in response to a successful proximity verification, wherein the proximity verification verifies the industrial robot’s proximity to the further industrial robot or the group of industrial robots;
wherein the FMS periodically collects current positions of the industrial robot and the further industrial robot or group of industrial robots.
Sahinoglu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches establishing a sidelink in response to a successful proximity verification, wherein the proximity verification verifies the industrial robot’s proximity to the further industrial robot or the group of industrial robots (See Claim 1, “[…] receiving a range packet transmitted by a first device in a second device; and replying the range packet to the first device from the second device after a delay time known only by the first device and the second device to determine a distance between the first device and the second device.” See also 0046-0049, “[…] receiving device media access controller 540 validates data in the received range notification packet. A validation 558 of the range notification packet results in the receiving device media access controller 540 generating a range notification response 560 for the receiving device physical layer controller […] physical controller 520 can also generate a range confirmation signal 590 for the originating device access controller 510.” Examiner notes Sahinoglu explicitly sets out a two-way ranging protocol to determine distance between two devices, thus being a proximity protocal. Furthermore, the procedure includes the exchange of a range notification, data validation, and a confirmation signal that is generated in a physical controller, thus showing proximity verification is performed before subsequent actions are authorized, such as establishing the sidelink).
Coffee, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the FMS periodically collects current positions of the industrial robot and the further industrial robot or group of industrial robots (See Col. 13 Lines 33-37, “Data required includes: vehicle position for transmission to fleet subscribers, and for data logging; position data may also be used for UHF frequency reuse or FM channel assignment […]” See also Col. 52 Lines 15-17, “[…] data transmitted by the tracker includes information to identify the precise location or position of the vehicle […]” See also Col. 83 Lines 18-24, “[…] a protocol for entry by vehicle transmitters into the network in assigned time slots for periodic transmission of messages […] different periodic transmission intervals are provided for different vehicles in the network by dynamically allocating the slots […]”).
In view of Sahinoglu and Coffee’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the robot, method and program for executing a utility task while in collaboration with other industrial robots as disclosed by Keravala, the sidelink between two industrial robots within a group of robots to be established upon a proximity verification and the system to periodically collect current position information of the robots, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the robots already possess the necessary components for establishing the communication channel and other components such as sensors for determining distance measurements between other robots and current positions. Furthermore, a person skilled in the art could adapt the ranging mechanism from Sahinoglu into industrial robots to trigger establishment of a sidelink only when ranging shows other robots are within an acceptable proximity; firstly because, as stated above, industrial robots already have sensors, controllers, and commonly-used communication devices; and secondly because, it is obvious that a proximity verification needs to be established between two collaborating devices or robots prior to a connection between them of any sort, since it is well known in the art that robots of the same fleet performing similar tasks necessarily need to be close by in order to communicate at all, much less establish a sidelink.
Regarding Claim 2, Keravala further discloses wherein the execution of the utility task is interactively controlled on the basis of the operational data exchanged over the sidelink (See 0007 as referenced above. See also 0010, “[…] command and control system may monitor and support the plurality of bots, initialize systems, perform exception management, analyze the operational data and to generate the update data based on analysis of the operational data […] monitor and control the one or more colonies.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Keravala further discloses the industrial robot is configured to make available real-time state variables and control signals pertaining to said sensors and actuators as said operational data to be exchanged over the sidelink (See 0089 as referenced above. See also 0068, “[…] processor 212 is further in communication with one or more databases […] Data processing framework configuration data, real time operational data, and/or other data may be stored and archived in the one or more databases 236 for real-time operations, post-processing, visualization, etc.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Keravala further discloses wherein the utility task is assigned by the FMS (See 0008, “The control center is primarily for monitoring of the autonomous operations […] monitor all data packets in the network at low or high frequency rates depending on the priority level of the information contained in the data packet […] will have the ability to take over control of any bot unit in the colony at any given time […]” See also 0014, “[…] achieving a collaborative industrial objective, and communicating autonomously using the first or second industrial bot first data related to the collaborative industrial objective with a control center.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Keravala further discloses wherein the utility task includes coordinated transfer of an object by multiple participating industrial robots (See 0130, “The third squad 604 includes three different bots, including for example the digger bot 502, the sweeper/hauler bot 532, and a suction bot […] digger bot 502 may saw and break the bridge deck or other structure. The sweeper/hauler bot 532 may collect and transport the demolished deck debris. The suction bot 590 may collects and/or transport away deck concrete slabs, and/or provide suction functions for holding and/or securing various features of the structures that are removed […]”).
Regarding Claim 7, Keravala further discloses wherein the coordinated transfer is planned and/or supervised by a primary robot appointed among the participating industrial robots (See 0113, “[…] SRM colony may include functional squads that perform the end-to-end mining function. The primary squad may be the mining squad […] functional squads may be grouped in platoons, where squads of the same or different function are grouped based on the topography of the site […]” See also 0011, “[…] a plurality of first industrial bots configured to autonomously perform a first industrial task, and a plurality of second industrial bots configured to autonomously perform a second industrial task that is different from the first industrial task. One or more of the plurality of first industrial bots and one or more of the plurality of second industrial bots are configured to autonomously communicate with each other and with the control center […] achieve a collaborative industrial objective resulting from performance of the first industrial task […]” Examiner notes the robots in the primary squad are appointed by the control center, and a second squad of robots may be assigned a second industrial task different from and dependent on the first task).
Regarding Claim 8, Keravala further discloses the industrial robot is configured to act as said primary robot, which includes receiving state variables from the participating industrial robots and determining, on the basis of these, control signals to be applied in the participating industrial robots (See 0113 and 0011 as referenced above. See also 0008, “[…] algorithms and controls at each robot unit will filter and analyze the relevant data packets shared by the bots in the same squad, platoon and colony. Bots collaborating in the same squad may autonomously transmit and receive data packets dedicated to the squad, and may be shared at a higher frequency and volume based on proximity of operations than the data packets dedicated to the platoon or colony, to sustain operations at the squad level. Bots collaborating in the same platoon may autonomously transmit and receive data packets dedicated to the platoon. Bots collaborating in the same colony may autonomously transmit and receive data packets dedicated to the colony.” Examiner notes data packets contain relevant information on the state of bots and squads).
Regarding Claim 9, Keravala further discloses said primary robot's action further including planning a sequence of movements for carrying out the coordinated transfer of the object, wherein the control signals are determined on the further basis of the planned sequence of movements (See 0130 as referenced above. Examiner notes the functions are performed in sequence, including the collection and transport of an object relevant to the industrial task).
Regarding Claim 10, Keravala further discloses said primary robot's action further including requesting an increased sidelink resource allocation for the participating industrial robots during the coordinated transfer of the object (See 0008 as referenced above. Examiner notes the frequency and volume of the data allocation between bots in a squad can vary depending on the industrial task).
Regarding Claim 11, Keravala further discloses the industrial robot is configured to act as a non-primary robot in the coordinated transfer of the object, which includes making state variables available to the primary robot and to apply control signals received from the primary robot (See 0113 and 0011 as referenced above. Examiner notes the secondary squad of industrial robots configured to perform a second industrial task depending on the first industrial task performed by the primary squad are non-primary robots).
Regarding Claim 12, Keravala further discloses wherein the participating industrial robots includes at least one stationary robot and at least one mobile robot (See 0053, “[…] perform a complex industrial task with a swarm of mobile robotic units […]” See 0077, “[…] a stop order, such as “cease all operations until go order is given,” may be sent to the bots and/or other nodes of the system […]”).
Regarding Claim 13, Keravala further discloses wherein:
the utility task includes collecting map information by multiple participating industrial robots (See 0133, “A survey squad may be used that performs mine exploration functions, such as mapping and geotechnical surveying.”); and
the map information pertains to an environment of the participating industrial robots and includes point-cloud data, image data, pose data and/or position data (See 0066, “[…] quadrant manager module may be configured to autonomously break down an image collected by the bot of the topography of an excavation panel into contiguous individual panels for excavation.” See also 0089, “[…] position module 364 may analyze subsystem data that includes data related to bot geo-location, relative subsystem position such as positions or orientations […] sensor module 366 may analyze subsystem data that includes data related to video and data streams.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Keravala further discloses the industrial robot further configured to participate in said collection of map information and to transmit the collected map information towards an edge server (See 0133, 0066 and 0089 as referenced above. See also 0070, “[…] bot 210 may transmit data, for example via a colony communications network such as a wireless ad-hoc network, to the colony control center […]” See also 0076, “[…] command and control system may include one or more computers, servers, switches, databases, etc. configured to monitor, control, process, store and update the colony data.”).
Regarding Claim 16, Keravala further discloses the industrial robot further comprising at least one exteroceptive sensor and at least one proprioceptive sensor (See 0089 as referenced above. See also 0005, “Software at the control center, platoon, squad, and robot levels may analyze various data related to the platform and the external environment for monitoring, communication, and control of the various systems […] remote control center geographically non-collocated may communicate with multiple colony control centers.” Examiner notes each bot contains a sensor module capable of monitoring internal and external stimuli).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Keravala et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0114219 A1) in view of Sahinoglu et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2008/0259896 A1) and Coffee et al. (US Patent No. 6,611,755 B1) as applied to Claims 1-14 and 16-18 above, and further in view of Pajovic et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0164508 A1), herein “Pajovic”.
Regarding Claim 15, Keravala further discloses the industrial robot is a mobile robot configured to transmit the collected map information towards the edge server, but not explicitly by the intermediary of a stationary robot.
Pajovic, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches by the intermediary of a stationary robot (See 0004, “[…] to reduce odometry errors using robot cooperation. A common framework includes instructing a set of robots to be stationary while the remaining robots move so that the robots in one group measure the motion of the robots in the other group and refine odometry measurements.”).
In view of Pajovic’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the industrial robots acting as a survey squad to provide map and robot geo-location data to an edge server as disclosed by Keravala, one or more of these robots to remain stationary to act as an intermediary between the squadron and the edge server, with a reasonable expectation of success, since increased robot cooperation through multi-robot position would increase the accuracy of the map and positioning data received from the mobile robots in the survey squad by creating reference frames of the environment.
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 Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights