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 .
Remarks
Applicant’s amendment dated October 30, 2025 responding to August 13, 2025 Office Action provided in the rejection of claims 1-20. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application and which have been fully considered by the examiner.
Applicant’s arguments, see [pages 6-13, in Remarks], filed October 30, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Groz (US 2021/0031364).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 12-17 & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan et al. (US 2022/0414088) hereinafter “Krishnan” and in view of Groz (US 2021/0031364).
Claim 1
Krishnan teaches a system comprising a set of devices, each device comprising:
a set of device parts that are each interconnected with one or more other parts within the set of parts using a request-response communication protocol; [i.e. The signer application 106 can include signer transport components such as a signer HTTP component 131, a signer WebSocket component 134, and a signer gRPC component 137. The signer HTTP component 131 can include a transport component that enables HTTP communications. The signer WebSocket component 134 can include a transport component that enables Web Socket communications using a WebSocket protocol such as RFC 6455. The signer gRPC component 137 can include a transport component that enables gRPC communications using a gRPC protocol] (Krishnan, 0027), wherein each device part comprises:
a physical component [i.e. The end-user dApp 103 can receive a user input or receive a sensor parameter] (Krishnan, 0055); and
a processing system, comprising:
a component resource that controls the respective physical component responsive to control requests received using the request- response communication protocol [i.e. The end-user dApp 103 HTTP can include end user transport components that use communications protocols such as HTTP or a gRPC protocol. The end-user HTTP component 121 can include a transport component that enables HTTP communications. The end-user WebSocket component 124 can include a transport component that enables WebSocket communications using a WebSocket protocol such as RFC 6455. The end-user gRPC component 127 can include a transport component that enables gRPC communications using a gRPC protocol. These end-user transport components can communicate with transport components of the signer application 106 and the blockchain ledger client 109, which can be considered remote transport components with respect to those of the signer application; and The ledger gRPC component 147 can include a transport component that enables gRPC communications using a gRPC protocol. These ledger transport components can communicate with transport components of the end-user dApp 103 and the signer application 106, which can be considered remote transport components; and When a process requests access to a hardware or software resource for which it lacks permission to interact with, the process 519 can generate an interrupt and provide or send the interrupt to the operating system 523] (Krishnan, 0024, 0027-0028; 0088); and
a service resource that performs computations and interact with the component resource [i.e. any number of counters, state variables, warning semaphores, or messages might be added to the logical flow described herein, for purposes of enhanced utility, accounting, performance measurement, or providing troubleshooting aids] (Krishnan, 0095).
Krishnan fails to teach a set of robots, each robot comprises a set of robot parts that are each interconnected with one or more other robot parts within the set of robot parts.
However, in an analogous art, Groz teaches a set of robots [i.e. a system for training robots], each robot [i.e. robot 110] comprises a set of robot parts [i.e. element 260, 270] that are each interconnected with one or more other robot parts within the set of robot parts [i.e. host a response request communication server configured to communicate with other robot parts within the plurality of robot parts; and the teleoperation data includes information regarding commands for actuators of the manipulator] (Groz, figure 3; 0002, 0012-0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Krishnan to include the teachings of Groz of a set of robots, each robot comprises a set of robot parts that are each interconnected with one or more other robot parts within the set of robot parts. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide backup control based continuous training of robots (Groz, 0002).
Claim 2
Krishman in combination with Groz teach the system as recited in claim 1, wherein the request-response communication protocol comprises at least one of: WebRTC, gRPC, or WebSockets [i.e. The end-user dApp 103 HTTP can include end user transport components that use communications protocols such as HTTP or a gRPC protocol. The end-user HTTP component 121 can include a transport component that enables HTTP communications. The end-user WebSocket component 124 can include a transport component that enables WebSocket communications using a WebSocket protocol such as RFC 6455. The end-user gRPC component 127 can include a transport component that enables gRPC communications using a gRPC protocol. These end-user transport components can communicate with transport components of the signer application 106 and the blockchain ledger client 109, which can be considered remote transport components with respect to those of the signer application] (Krishnan, 0024).
Claim 3
Krishman in combination with Groz teach the system as recited in claim 1, wherein each robot part is capable of communicating with a remote client using the request-response communication protocol [i.e. The end-user dApp 103 HTTP can include end user transport components that use communications protocols such as HTTP or a gRPC protocol. The end-user HTTP component 121 can include a transport component that enables HTTP communications. The end-user WebSocket component 124 can include a transport component that enables WebSocket communications using a WebSocket protocol such as RFC 6455. The end-user gRPC component 127 can include a transport component that enables gRPC communications using a gRPC protocol. These end-user transport components can communicate with transport components of the signer application 106 and the blockchain ledger client 109, which can be considered remote transport components with respect to those of the signer application] (Krishnan, 0024).
Claim 4
Krishman in combination with Groz teach the system as recited in claim 3, wherein the remote client comprises at least one of a mobile client, browser client, or other device [i.e. The end-user dApp 103 HTTP can include end user transport components that use communications protocols such as HTTP or a gRPC protocol. The end-user HTTP component 121 can include a transport component that enables HTTP communications. The end-user WebSocket component 124 can include a transport component that enables WebSocket communications using a WebSocket protocol such as RFC 6455. The end-user gRPC component 127 can include a transport component that enables gRPC communications using a gRPC protocol. These end-user transport components can communicate with transport components of the signer application 106 and the blockchain ledger client 109, which can be considered remote transport components with respect to those of the signer application] (Krishnan, 0024).
Claim 5
Krishman in combination with Groz teach the system as recited in claim 1, wherein each robot comprises at least three device parts (Krishnan, figure 5).
Claim 7
Krishman in combination with Groz teach the system as recited in claim 1, wherein the set of device parts communicate with each other over wired connections [i.e. While the JSON data model is flexible in terms of underlying transport, it is inefficient in terms of network bandwidth consumption and network stack processing since the data is transported in the wire in textual format] (Krishnan, 0018).
Claim 8
Krishman in combination with Groz teach the system as recited in claim 1, wherein the set of robot parts are communicatively connected using a long-lived connection established using the request-response communication protocol, wherein the long-lived connection is used for multiple request- response interactions between a robot part pair [i.e. The end-user dApp 103 HTTP can include end user transport components that use communications protocols such as HTTP or a gRPC protocol. The end-user HTTP component 121 can include a transport component that enables HTTP communications. The end-user WebSocket component 124 can include a transport component that enables WebSocket communications using a WebSocket protocol such as RFC 6455. The end-user gRPC component 127 can include a transport component that enables gRPC communications using a gRPC protocol. These end-user transport components can communicate with transport components of the signer application 106 and the blockchain ledger client 109, which can be considered remote transport components with respect to those of the signer application] (Krishnan, 0024).
Claim 9
Krishman in combination with Groz teach the system as recited in claim 1, wherein each robot part comprises a different secret key, used for at least one of: encryption, authentication, or authorization [i.e. The Ethereum® blockchain private keys can be stored in a key vault 112, which can include an encrypted datastore that is locally or remotely accessed by the signer application] (Krishnan, 0026).
Claim 12
Krishman teaches a method for device operation, comprising:
establishing a set of inter-part connections, between a set of device parts of the device, using a request-response communication protocol [i.e. The signer application 106 can include signer transport components such as a signer HTTP component 131, a signer WebSocket component 134, and a signer gRPC component 137. The signer HTTP component 131 can include a transport component that enables HTTP communications. The signer WebSocket component 134 can include a transport component that enables Web Socket communications using a WebSocket protocol such as RFC 6455. The signer gRPC component 137 can include a transport component that enables gRPC communications using a gRPC protocol], wherein each device part comprises a physical component [i.e. The end-user dApp 103 can receive a user input or receive a sensor parameter] (Krishnan, 0027, 0055);
receiving a control request at a device part using the request-response communication protocol [i.e. The end-user dApp 103 HTTP can include end user transport components that use communications protocols such as HTTP or a gRPC protocol. The end-user HTTP component 121 can include a transport component that enables HTTP communications. The end-user WebSocket component 124 can include a transport component that enables WebSocket communications using a WebSocket protocol such as RFC 6455. The end-user gRPC component 127 can include a transport component that enables gRPC communications using a gRPC protocol. These end-user transport components can communicate with transport components of the signer application 106 and the blockchain ledger client 109, which can be considered remote transport components with respect to those of the signer application; The ledger gRPC component 147 can include a transport component that enables gRPC communications using a gRPC protocol. These ledger transport components can communicate with transport components of the end-user dApp 103 and the signer application 106, which can be considered remote transport components; When a process requests access to a hardware or software resource for which it lacks permission to interact with, the process 519 can generate an interrupt and provide or send the interrupt to the operating system 523] (Krishnan, 0024, 0027-0028, 0088);
at the device part, actuating the physical component based on the control request; and
sending the response using the request-response communication protocol (Krishnan, figure 2).
Krishnan fails to teach a set of robot parts of a robot.
However, in an analogous art, Groz teaches a set of robot parts [i.e. element 260, 270] of a robot [i.e. robot 110] (Groz, figure 3; 0002, 0012-0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Krishnan to include the teachings of Groz of a set of robot parts of a robot. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide backup control based continuous training of robots (Groz, 0002).
Claim 16
Krishman in combination with Groz teach the method as recited in claim 12, wherein the control request is received from a remote client [i.e. the end-user dApp 103 can itself utilize a third party wallet application or key vault 112 executed locally and/or remotely from the end-user dApp 103] (Krishnan, 0052).
Claim 17
Krishman in combination with Groz teach the method as recited in claim 12, further comprising, with the robot part, iteratively receiving new control requests, generating new responses responsive to the new control requests, and sending the new responses using the request-response communication protocol [i.e. new scheme for transaction completion] (Krishnan, figure 2; 0013).
Claim 19
Krishman in combination with Groz teach the method as recited in claim 12, wherein each robot part has a secret key used to send the response [i.e. The Ethereum® blockchain private keys can be stored in a key vault 112, which can include an encrypted datastore that is locally or remotely accessed by the signer application] (Krishnan, 0026).
Claim 20
Krishman in combination with Groz teach the method as recited in claim 12, wherein each robot part further comprises a low-powered processing system that generates the response [i.e. confirmation that the HTTP blockchain transaction is received can be returned as a synchronous HTTP response. The end-user gRPC component 127 of the enduser dApp 103 can transmit a gRPC blockchain transaction as a synchronous gRPC request, and a confirmation that the gRPC blockchain transaction is received can be returned as a synchronous gRPC response] (Krishnan, 0062).
Claims 13-15 do not teach or define any new limitation other than above claims 2-3, 5. Therefore, claims 13-15 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishman and Groz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Skuratovich et al. (US 2017/0163693) hereinafter “Skuratovich”
Claim 6
Krishman and Groz teach the system as recited in claim 1.
Krishman and Groz fail to teach wherein the set of device parts for each device are mounted together.
However, in an analogous art, Skuratovich teaches the set of device parts for each device are mounted together [i.e. The user device 202 is a computer device which can take a number of forms e.g. that of a desktop or laptop computer device, mobile phone (e.g. smartphone), tablet computing device, wearable computing device (headset, smartwatch etc .), television (e.g. smart TV) or other wall-mounted device (e.g. a video conferencing device), set-top box, gaming console etc.] (Skuratovich, 0092).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Krishman and Groz to include the teachings of Skuratovich of the set of device parts for each device are mounted together. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to signaling phase can be implemented using any suitable technology (Skuratovich, 0002).
Claim(s) 10-11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishman and Groz as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Hoban et al. (US 7,133,830) hereinafter “Hoban”
Claim 10
Krishman and Groz teach the system as recited in claim 1.
Krishman and Groz fail to teach wherein a request received using the request-response communication protocol comprises a platform-standard component call associated with a platform-standard component class, wherein the component resource converts the platform-standard component call to a component-specific driver call.
However, in an analogous art, Hoban teaches a request received using the request-response communication protocol comprises a platform-standard component call associated with a platform-standard component class, wherein the component resource converts the platform-standard component call to a component-specific driver call [i.e. convert (illustrated as step 3A in FIG. 3) a generic directive call flow object into a platform specific directive call flow object, i.e., a directive recognizable by the call flow interpreter/speech application of the target execution platform 112] (Hoban, col 6, lines 18-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Krishman and Groz to include the teachings of Hoban of a request received using the request-response communication protocol comprises a platform-standard component call associated with a platform-standard component class, wherein the component resource converts the platform-standard component call to a component-specific driver call. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide portable IVR applications, not simply portable speech recognition or TTS services (Hoban, col 2, lines 10-13).
Claim 11
Krishman and Groz teach the system as recited in claim 1.
Krishman and Groz fail to teach the claim limitation wherein the processing system comprises a microprocessor.
However, in an analogous art, Hoban teaches the processing system comprises a microprocessor [i.e. servers but may include hand-held devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like] (Hoban, col 3, lines 14-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Krishman and Groz to include the teachings of Hoban of microprocessor. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide portable IVR applications, not simply portable speech recognition or TTS services (Hoban, col 2, lines 10-13).
Claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitation other than above claim 10. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4242. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached on (571)272-4170. 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.
/MINH CHAU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459