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 5/1/26.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 USC § 102 filed on 5/1/26, regarding 35 USC § 102 rejections are persuasive in view of amendments filed 5/1/26.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of further citations to the art of record below.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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),
wherein the second mobile robot is operated by a second service provider which is a different service provider from a first service provider that operates the first mobile robot (¶25, ¶33-37, ¶76, and ¶175 – collaboration between multiple entities with different group affiliations where each group includes independent authentication engines with trusted neighbors within the group utilizing its own policy/task management corresponding to the recited different service providers for different robots by separate control systems on separate applications. Service provider is being interpreted utilizing BRI as being a network of affiliated robots based on shared trust/policies/control servers).
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, and wherein the second moving method is a moving method of controlling the movement of the first mobile robot based on movement information generated independently without considering the second mobile robot (¶54 – two arbitration modes are utilized, centralized arbitration mode includes utilizing a leader robot to arbitrate task/subtask assignment based on optimized capability based priority of robots corresponding to the recited first moving method and distributed arbitration mode individually selects and collaboratively optimizes the task assignment to the robot best capable of executing the mission policy and objectives and to dynamically manage subtask exchanges as the situation varies corresponding to the recited second movement method for controlling the movement of the first robot independently without considering the second mobile robot).
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.
Covert et al. (US 2013/0110613) discloses a system of determining priority based on details about the specific independent service providers associated (¶41).
Fan et al. (US 2022/0230227) discloses a system for determining priority of different service providers for transport related services (¶174).
Van Grootel et al. (US 2020/0311639) discloses a multi-location delivery system including determining product fulfillment options for products in an e-commerce system or shopping cart. Delivery profiles from a delivery profile database are used, wherein the delivery profile is specific to the products and contains inventory locations and delivery zones. Priority basis determination of recommended options is utilized based on details regarding different products and different shipping providers/services/costs associated (Abstract and ¶3).
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 Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached 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 at (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 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.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights