DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the response filed on 1/14/2026.
Claims 1-26 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. New claims 24-26 have been added.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, the last limitation, replace … configured to receive interface inputs from both the local user interface and the remote user interface, develops an action plan utilizing the interface inputs, and coordinates with … with … configured to receive interface inputs from both the local user interface and the remote user interface, develop an action plan utilizing the interface inputs, and coordinate with …
Each of claims 1 and 10, the last limitation replace … manipulation of at least one component of the robot … with … manipulation of the at least one component of the robot … for proper antecedent basis with the preamble.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a 3D module configured to generate a three-dimensional workspace image …” and “a robot autonomy module configured to receive interface inputs …, develop an action plan utilizing the interface inputs, and coordinate …” in claim 1 and “3D module is configured to receive input(s) …” in claims 3 and 4 .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
As per Applicant’s specifications:
The functions of both the 3D module and the robot autonomy module, described in [0015]-[0016] can be implemented in hardware, one or more computer programs …, or any combination thereof, as per [0116].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abrams, US Patent No. 12,508,715 Bl (hereinafter as Abrams).
Regarding independent claim 1, Abrams discloses a system configured for remote human collaborative manipulation of a component of a robot in a workspace at a site [see the collaborative robotic system shown in figs. 6 and 7; note e.g. in col. 12, lines 18-19 that multiple operators may interact with a given robot; note the control of a robot component, e.g. in col. 54, lines 4-5; note the different examples of sites including a workspace such as industrial, agricultural and manufacturing tasks in col. 9, line 31-col. 10, line 17], the system comprising:
a 3D module configured to generate a three-dimensional workspace image of the workspace utilizing at least one imaging sensor directed at the site [note e.g. in col. 41, lines 30-40 indicating 3D imaging sensors creating a view of the workspace; see also in col. 78, lines 33-34 the generation of a 3D workspace representation];
a local server that communicates directly with the robot and has at least one local user interface through which the three-dimensional workspace image is viewable; at least one remote server that communicates wirelessly with the local server and with at least one remote user interface through which the three-dimensional workspace image is viewable [note from figs. 6-7 as well as col. 19, line 57-col. 20, line 10 that there are both local and remote operators and that there is a wireless communication between remote and local devices; note e.g. from col. 41, lines 55-67 that all operators (whether local or remote) have a viewable workspace image which can be 3D as indicated in col. 41, lines 30-40]; and
a robot autonomy module that is configured to receive interface inputs from both the local user interface and the remote user interface, develop an action plan utilizing the interface inputs, and coordinate with the local server to provide instructions to the robot to enable manipulation of the at least one component of the robot in the workspace at the site to execute the action plan after approval of the action plan by a user [again, note in col. 12, lines 18-19 that multiple operators may interact with a given robot; note from col. 1, lines 40-44 that both local and remote entities can control the robots; note again the control of a robot component, e.g. in col. 54, lines 4-5; note e.g. in col. 90, line 65-col. 91, line 23 indicating the use of an interface for receiving inputs from an operator; note in col. 84, lines 59-61 the execution of a job plan including subtasks (possibly executed by remote operators) which may include manipulating an object in the robot environment; note also exemplary action plans including sequence of steps in col. 68, lines 43-62; see col. 45, lines 64-66 indicating confirmation by a user to perform a task; see also col. 10, lines 32-40 indicating confirmation of approval of instructions which can be done by an operator].
Regarding independent claim 10, Abrams also discloses a method for remote human collaborative manipulation of a component of a robot in a workspace at a site [see the title indicating a method and the collaborative robotic system shown in figs. 6 and 7; note e.g. in col. 12, lines 18-19 that multiple operators may interact with a given robot; note the control of a robot component, e.g. in col. 54, lines 4-5; note the different examples of sites including a workspace such as industrial , agricultural and manufacturing tasks in col. 9, line 31-col. 10, line 17], the method comprising:
reproducing a three-dimensional workspace image of the workspace utilizing at least one imaging sensor directed at the workspace at the site [note e.g. in col. 41, lines 30-40 indicating 3D imaging sensors creating a view of the workspace; see also in col. 78, lines 33-34 the generation of a 3D workspace representation];
selecting a local server to communicate directly with the robot and with at least one local user interface through which the three-dimensional workspace image is viewable; selecting at least one remote server to communicate wirelessly with the local server and with at least one remote user interface through which the three-dimensional workspace image is viewable [note from figs. 6-7 as well as col. 19, line 57-col. 20, line 10 that there are both local and remote operators and that there is a wireless communication between remote and local devices; note e.g. from col. 41, lines 55-67 that all operators (whether local or remote) have a viewable workspace image which can be 3D as indicated in col. 41, lines 30-40];
designating a plurality of users as members of an operations team [note e.g. col. 12, lines 51-52 indicating assigning jobs to different members; see also col. 36, lines 24-29 and 52-63]; and
receiving interface inputs from both the local user interface and the remote user interface from the members of the operations team, developing an action plan utilizing the interface inputs, and coordinating with the local server to provide instructions to the robot to enable manipulation of at least one component of the robot in the workspace at the site to execute the action plan after approval of the action plan by a user [again, note in col. 12, lines 18-19 that multiple operators may interact with a given robot; note from col. 1, lines 40-44 that both local and remote entities can control the robots; note again the control of a robot component, e.g. in col. 54, lines 4-5; note e.g. in col. 90, line 65-col. 91, line 23 indicating the use of an interface for receiving inputs from an operator; note in col. 84, lines 59-61 the execution of a job plan including subtasks (possibly executed by remote operators) which may include manipulating an object in the robot environment; note also exemplary action plans including sequence of steps in col. 68, lines 43-62; see col. 45, lines 64-66 indicating confirmation by a user to perform a task; see also col. 10, lines 32-40 indicating confirmation of approval of instructions which can be done by an operator].
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of independent claim 1 is incorporated. Abrams further discloses that the local server includes a personal computer configured to operate at least a portion of the robot autonomy module [note e.g. in col. 22, lines 14-15 that a user may control the robot system using a tablet, smart phone, laptop, etc.; note that this applies to local or remote operators; note from fig. 6 that operators 604 can be directly connected to the robot 602 (for local operators) or can be connected through the network 603 (for remote operators)].
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of independent claim 1 is incorporated. Abrams further discloses that the 3D module is configured to receive inputs from a stereo camera directed at the workspace [note e.g. in col. 41, lines 30-34 indicating stereoscopic cameras].
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Abrams further discloses that the 3D module is further configured to receive input from a camera mounted on the component of the robot to view at least a portion of the workspace [note e.g. in col. 41, lines 35-37 indicated a camera mounted on the robot arm].
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 are respectively incorporated. the rejection of independent claim 1 is incorporated. Abrams further discloses the robot [note the robot in fig. 1] (for claim 5) and that the component is an articulated manipulator assembly [note the robotic manipulator arms in figs. 1, 3, and 5; see also col. 4, lines 53-64; col. 6, lines 41-47; and col. 7, lines 9-21 and 42-48].
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of independent claim 10 is incorporated. Abrams further discloses that at least one user is designated as a field team member of the operations team and at least one remote user is designated as a remote team member of the operations team [note in col. 12, lines 50-57 indicating assigning local (e.g. in the same building/location as the robot) and remote human operators to different jobs].
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 above is fully incorporated. Abrams further discloses that at least one remote team member is responsible for at least one of operating payload instruments or generating task-level plans for use of the component of the robot [note in col. 44, lines 37-44 indicating the selection of a controlling entity to perform a plurality of subtasks to control the robot; nots in col. 44, lines 53-55 that the selected entity may be a remote human operator; note the control of a robot component, e.g. in col. 54, lines 4-5].
Regarding claim 24, the rejection of independent claim 1 is incorporated. Abrams further discloses at least one user interface having at least one natural input modality configured to communicate with at least one of the local server and/or the at least one remote server [note e.g. in col. 22, lines 25-27 indicating voice commands through one or more interfaces; see also in col. 42, line 54 voice or gesture commands].
Regarding claim 25, the rejection of independent claim 10 is incorporated. Abrams further discloses utilizing at least one natural input modality to provide at least some of the interface inputs [note e.g. in col. 22, lines 25-27 indicating voice commands through one or more interfaces; see also in col. 42, line 54 voice or gesture commands].
Regarding claim 26, the rejection of claim 10 is fully incorporated. Abrams further discloses that at least one user configures that user's perspective of the three-dimensional workspace image to control that user's perspective independently of perspectives seen by other users [note in col. 41, lines 38-41 as well as col. 77, lines 50-57 that each operator can manipulate their view/perspective independent of other operators; see also col. 78, lines 35-43].
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 6, 7, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams in view of “Stewart, Andrew, Fredrik Ryden, and Ryan Cox. "An interactive interface for multi-pilot ROV intervention." OCEANS 2016-Shanghai. IEEE, 2016” (hereinafter as Stewart).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the rejection of claims 5 and 10 are respectively incorporated.
Abrams does not explicitly teach that the robot is configured to operate in a liquid at a site below a surface of the liquid.
Stewart teaches that a robot that is manipulated by remote human collaboration [see the abstract indicating a robotic system collaboratively operated to perform tasks underwater by multiple pilots] and that is configured to operate in a liquid at a site below a surface of the liquid [note the subsea interventions and performing underwater tasks indicated in the abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Abrams and Stewart, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the teachings of Abrams to the robot taught by Stewart that is configured to operate in a liquid at a site below a surface of the liquid. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable multiple pilots to collaboratively operate a single robotic system to perform a variety of tasks underwater, as suggested by Stewart [see the abstract].
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Stewart further teaches that the robot is an underwater vehicle operatable/that is operated without a human occupant [note the subsea interventions and performing underwater tasks by Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) where divers cannot be used, as indicated in the abstract; note the robot in fig. 1(b)]. See the rejection of claim 6 for motivations to combine.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated.
Abrams does not explicitly teach that the robot is an underwater vehicle operatable/that is operated without a human occupant.
Stewart teaches that a robot that is manipulated by remote human collaboration [see the abstract indicating a robotic system collaboratively operated to perform tasks underwater by multiple pilots] and that is an underwater vehicle operatable/that is operated without a human occupant [note the subsea interventions and performing underwater tasks by Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) where divers cannot be used, as indicated in the abstract; note the robot in fig. 1(b)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Abrams and Stewart, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the teachings of Abrams to the robot taught by Stewart that is an underwater vehicle operatable/that is operated without a human occupant d. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable multiple pilots to collaboratively operate a single robotic system to perform a variety of tasks underwater, as suggested by Stewart [see the abstract].
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams in view of “Podnar, Gregg, et al. "Human telesupervision of a fleet of autonomous robots for safe and efficient space exploration." Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction. 2006.”(hereinafter as Podnar).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the rejection of claims 5 and 10 are respectively incorporated. Abrams does not explicitly teach that the robot is configured to operate in an extraterrestrial environment.
Podnar teaches a robot that is configured to operate in an extraterrestrial environment [note the title as well as the exploration of the solar system and beyond indicated in the abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Abrams and Podnar, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by Abrams, by explicitly specifying that the robot is configured to operate in an extraterrestrial environment, as per the teachings of Podnar. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to employ human-supervised robotic exploration in space exploration which would facilitate augmenting the human reasoning abilities to the robotic resilience in the harsh space environment, thus supporting a sustained, affordable, and safe space exploration venue, as suggested by Podnar [see the two paragraph under the Introduction Title].
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams in view of Chen et al., US Patent No. 11,169,257 B2 (hereinafter as Chen).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 are respectively incorporated. Abrams does not explicitly teach updating the three-dimensional workspace image according to bandwidth availability and/or latency for communications among the user interfaces, the local server, the remote server, and the robot.
Chen teaches updating a workspace image according to bandwidth availability and/or latency for communications among the involved entities including remote and local sites [see col. 2, lines 27-39 indicating adjusting a frequency of refreshing/updating a display between remote terminals according to bandwidth availability for communications among the on-site terminal and the remote sub-system indicated in col. 1, line 61-col. 2, line 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Abrams and Chen, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to specify that updating the three-dimensional workspace image of the workspace at the site of the robot for the framework taught by Abrams is performed according to bandwidth availability and/or latency for communications among the user interfaces, the local server, the remote server, and the robot, as per the teachings of Chen. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable remote collaboration while reducing pressure of data transmission on communication lines, as suggested by Chen [see col. 1, lines 52-55].
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wang et al., US PGPUB 2010/0268383 A1 (hereinafter as Wang).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is fully incorporated.
Abrams does not explicitly teach that the field team member selectively delegates control authority to one of the remote team members to serve as a remote operator having active task control of at least one parameter of the robot.
Wang teaches a team member that selectively delegates control authority to one of remote team members to serve as a remote operator having active task control of at least one parameter of a robot [note in fig. 13 option 364 by which a team member gives another member Master control, as per [0071]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Abrams and Wang, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly specify that the field team member selectively delegates control authority to one of the remote team members to serve as a remote operator having active task control of at least one parameter of the robot, as per the teachings of Wang. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enhance telepresence capabilities for robotic control which would be particularly useful in remote assistance, as suggested by Wang [see [0004]-[0005] as well as the scenario given in [0078] where more experienced or specialized team members may be at a remote location].
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is fully incorporated.
Abrams art does not explicitly teach designating other users as observers who receive data streams and the three-dimensional workspace image through at least one additional interface but without the ability to issue instructions to the robot.
Wang teaches designating other users as observers who receive data streams and a workspace image through at least one additional interface but without the ability to issue instructions to a robot [note in fig. 13 options 344 by which a team member gives another user “observer” rights for the video (workspace image through an interface); especially note scenarios that lack robot controls, as per [0072]; see also [0065]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Abrams and Wang, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly specify designating other users as observers who receive data streams and the three-dimensional workspace image through at least one additional interface but without the ability to issue instructions to the robot, as per the teachings of Wang. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to allow the master users discretion to provide access rights to other users, as they see fit and needed, as suggested by Wang [see [0072] and [0065]].
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is fully incorporated.
Abrams further teaches at least one field team member that is responsible for operations support including overseeing safety [note the supervisor role indicated in col. 13, lines 21-24 (which can be a human) and note overseeing or monitoring a job; Examiner notes that the supervisor may be a local operator with no loss of generality since the system accommodates both local and remote operators; Examiner further notes that overseeing or monitoring a job includes safety considerations].
Abrams does not explicitly teach that the at least one field team member is responsible for operations support including managing communications, and selectively delegating control authority to other users.
Wang teaches a team member that is responsible for operations support including managing communications and selectively delegating control authority to other users [note in fig. 13 options 344, 346, and 366 by which a master team member manages visual and verbal communications, as per [0068] and [0071] as well as option 364 by which a master team member gives another member Master control, as per [0071]; see also [0064]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Abrams and Wang, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly modify the responsibility of the at least one field team member that is responsible for operations supervision including overseeing safety to further include managing communications, and selectively delegating control authority to other users, as per the teachings of Wang. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to allow the master users discretion to provide access rights to other users, as they see fit and needed, as suggested by Wang [see [0072] and [0065]].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of “Jenkyns, Reyna, et al. "Ship to shore: ROV dive logging and data acquisition." OCEANS 2015-MTS/IEEE Washington. IEEE, 2015.” (hereinafter as Jenkyns).
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 10 is fully incorporated.
Abrams further teaches at least one user to serve as an operator having active task control to manipulate the component of the robot [note from col. 1, lines 40-44 that both local and remote entities can control the robots; note again the control of a robot component, e.g. in col. 54, lines 4-5].
Abrams , however, does not explicitly teach that at least one local user is designated to serve as an operator and that control authority is retained by the at least one local user serving as an operator.
Jenkyns teaches that at least one local user is designated to serve as an operator and that control authority is retained by the at least one local user serving as an operator [note the last paragraph before the Introduction indicating ship (local) crew being team members of the operations team; note also in the “A. Technical Infrastructure” subsection the indication that ship personnel are responsible for tasks during loss of communications with the shore personnel].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Abrams and Jenkyns, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further apply Jenkyns’ teaching to the least one user taught by Abrams serving as an operator having active task control to manipulate the component of the robot, by explicitly specifying at least a local user and that control authority is retained by that at least one local user, as per the teachings of Jenkyns. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable resuming essential operations even if connections between the local and remote sites are lost, as suggested by Jenkyns in the case of ship-to-shore data acquisition systems [the “A. Technical Infrastructure” subsection].
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams in view of Jenkyns, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 above is fully incorporated.
Jenkyns further teaches, as per the portion cited in the rejection of claim 21 at least one local user serving as an operator [see the rejection of claim 21].
The previously combined art does not explicitly teach that the action plan is developed utilizing only local user inputs.
Wang teaches a session mode with an action plan that is developed utilizing only user inputs at a master control station [note the master station in fig. 9 and [0059]; note that the other users at stations 16B and 16C are mere observers in this mode].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Wang, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly modify the scenario of the local user serving as an operator taught Jenkyns by further specifying that the action plan is developed utilizing only these local user inputs, as per the teachings of Wang. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to allow that local operator master user control over the robot to enable a preferred terminal/user superior/predominant authority, as suggested by the scenarios described by Wang [see e.g. [0059]-[0061]].
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 22 above is fully incorporated.
Wang further teaches deselecting receipt of interface inputs from a remote user interface [again, note the master station in fig. 9 and [0059]; note that the other users at stations 16B and 16C are mere observers in this mode; see also fig. 14 and note in [0072] that the observer (remote) interface does not allow robot control function inputs for the observer terminal].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Wang, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the scenario of the local user serving as an operator in the system having a local and remote user taught by the combined teachings by explicitly deselecting receipt of interface inputs from the remote user interface, as per the teachings of Wang. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to allow the master users discretion to provide/deny access rights to other users, as they see fit and needed, as suggested by Wang [see [0072] and [0065]].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended 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 made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner notes from the cited prior art:
Lee et al., US PGPUB 2021/0023711 Al, which teaches robot control based on input from remote client devices and using 3D object representations at the client device [see title, front figure, [0051], and [0053]].
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 MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, EST.
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 Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights