DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-19 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 5/22/24.
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 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.
(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.
(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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Poornachandran et al. (US 2021/0107153).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, Poornachandran discloses an automated machine collaboration system including a method/apparatus/non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions comprising: a memory comprising instructions; and a processor electrically connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein, when the instructions are executed by the processor, the processor is configured to control a plurality of operations, wherein the plurality of operations comprises (Abstract and ¶25-26):
detecting a second mobile robot that shares a space with a first mobile robot; exchanging a first consensus policy of the first mobile robot for a second consensus policy of the second mobile robot (¶37 – autonomous machines exchange information such as group identifier corresponding to the recited consensus policy where each machine has a group identifier corresponding to the recited first and second robots having a first and second consensus policy); and
controlling movement of the first mobile robot according to a moving method determined based on the first consensus policy and the second consensus policy (¶31-37 and ¶68-69 – navigating the autonomous machines based on the task management protocol corresponding to the recited moving method based on the group identifiers corresponding to the recited first and second robots having a first and second consensus policy).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Poornachandran further discloses wherein the exchanging of the first consensus policy for the second consensus policy comprises: determining whether the first consensus policy and the second consensus policy are a cooperation policy (¶37 – autonomous machines exchange information such as group identifier corresponding to the recited consensus policy where each machine has a group identifier corresponding to the recited first and second robots having a first and second consensus policy where members of the same group utilize a cooperation protocol corresponding to the recited cooperation policy).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Poornachandran further discloses wherein the moving method is determined to be a first moving method when the first consensus policy and the second consensus policy are the cooperation policy; and determined to be a second moving method when at least one of the first consensus policy and the second consensus policy is a competition policy (¶37 – autonomous machines exchange information such as group identifier corresponding to the recited consensus policy where each machine has a group identifier corresponding to the recited first and second robots having a first and second consensus policy where members of the same group utilize a cooperation protocol corresponding to the recited cooperation policy and automated machines not part of the same group not using a cooperation protocol do not collaborate corresponding to the recited second moving method which is a competition policy).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Poornachandran further discloses wherein the first moving method is based on priority related to an order of movement between the first mobile robot and the second mobile robot (¶93 - one or more tasks 508 may be associated with a mission, where each task of the one or more tasks 508 may have a respective priority associated therewith where the machines assigned to the tasks therefore move collaboratively corresponding to the recited first moving method based on priority related to an order of movement between the robots).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Poornachandran further discloses wherein the priority is determined based on a first value function corresponding to the first mobile robot and a second value function corresponding to the second mobile robot (¶93-98 – each machine is assessed for their qualification to perform a task of the one or more tasks based on the information about the one or more functions of the each machine corresponding to the recited value functions corresponding to the recited first and second robot utilized to assign the task and therefore priority).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Poornachandran further discloses wherein the first value function is determined based on a service providing time of the first mobile robot, and the second value function is determined based on a service providing time of the second mobile robot (¶93-99 and ¶126-128 – the qualification assessment for each machine corresponding to the recited value function includes assessing the timeliness of task completion such as relative positioning to the task as well as other factors for each task which is assigned a time slot based on the priority of each task).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Poornachandran further discloses wherein the priority is determined based on a first value of the first mobile robot according to the first value function and a second value of the second mobile robot according to the second value function (¶93-99 and ¶126-128 – the qualification assessment for each machine corresponding to the recited value function includes assessing the timeliness of task completion such as relative positioning to the task as well as other factors for each task which is assigned a time slot based on the priority of each task therefore determining the priority of each robot).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Poornachandran further discloses wherein the first value is determined based on a user's satisfaction level according to a service providing time of the first mobile robot and the first value function, and the second value is determined based on a user's satisfaction level according to a service providing time of the second mobile robot and the second value function (¶32, ¶40-53, and ¶95-99 – machine qualifications for specific tasks are derived from machine learning models which may be trained utilizing a supervised machine learning model by assessing desired output vs actual output including operation time for the associated task by each specific machine corresponding to the recited a user's satisfaction level according to a service providing time of the mobile robots).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Poornachandran further discloses wherein the priority is determined so that a sum of the first value and the second value is maximized (¶97-106 – determining which of the autonomous machines most qualified for each task in a collaborative group of machines assigned to a grouping of tasks corresponding to the recited sum of the first value and the second value is maximized which is utilized to determine machine priority with the associated assigned task).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Orita (US 2006/0265103) discloses a robot control apparatus including task priority information based on scheduled timings and other optimization data (¶77-83).
Ayaida et al. (US 11,890,761) discloses a method for interconnecting robots where each robot including at least: a first program, a second program, a third program, the method including the following steps, implemented by the second program after reception of a first message from the third program: conversion of the first message into a second message, the second message being formatted according to a predefined object structure including a field typ_msg indicating a type of the message amongst the types: command, query, or information; transmission of the second message to at least one program amongst: a first program belonging to the same robot, a second program of another robot. (Abstract)
Honda et al. (US 2019/0384307) discloses an autonomous moving body and control program including determining priority status for tasks and robots in their relative movements (¶60-62).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-4 ET.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665