DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This Action is Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 June 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (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 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)(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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strandberg et al. (US 20170320215).
As per claims 1 and 11, Strandberg et al. teaches a method and system for controlling a robot, the system comprising: a robot control server; and the robot, wherein the robot control server is configured to receive a request for issuance of a target code related to access authority to the robot from a user operating the robot (see paragraphs [0062]-[0063] numeral 515 requesting a pairing code from the account manager that is part of the server by the user to allow the user to send commands to the robotic device), and
wherein the robot is configured to: identify the target code input by the user, and receive a command from the user based on validity of the target code being verified (see paragraphs [0063] and [0067] where the pairing code can be entered into the robotic device and after pairing the user can issue instructions to the robotic device).
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.
Claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strandberg et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in view of Kim et al. (US 20170006471).
As per claims 2 and 12, Strandberg et al. discloses the use of a manager that receives approves the issuance request from a robot control server (see paragraphs [0062]-[0063] where the server 120 has within it the account manager 350 which approves the issuance request), but fails to explicitly disclose these are separate devices.
However, Kim et al. teaches the use of different devices to approve issuing a code and generating the code (see paragraphs [0086]-[0096] where the account server approves the issuance and the services server provides a code, i.e. the peer id).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have different servers performing the steps in the Strandberg et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to allow for offloading of steps thereby improving the performance of the system.
As per claims 3 and 13, the modified Strandberg et al. and Kim et al. system discloses the robot control server is further configured to: generate a first payload based on at least one of serial code information of the robot, media access control address (MAC address) information of the robot, information related to an operation expiration period of the robot, information related to a model name of the robot, or information related to a providing function of the robot, or a combination thereof based on receiving the approval command; and generate the target code based on the first payload and a first symmetric key stored in the robot control server (see Strandberg et al. paragraphs [0061] and [0068] disclosing the use of the symmetric key and Kim et al. paragraphs [0093]-[0095] where the peer ID is based on a unique ID, i.e. serial code, of the home device, i.e. robot based on the description of the home device in paragraph [0060]).
As per claims 4 and 14, the modified Strandberg et al. and Kim et al. system discloses the robot control server is further configured to transmit the first payload and a signature based on receiving a login request from the robot (see Strandberg et al. paragraphs [0063] and [0067]-[0068] and Kim et al. paragraphs [0093]-[0095]).
As per claims 7 and 17, the modified Strandberg et al. and Kim et al. system discloses to: identify a second symmetric key from the target code based on receiving the target code from the user through an input device of the robot; determine a connection state between the robot control server and the robot based on identification of the second symmetric key; and verify the validity of the target code based on determination of the connection state (see Strandberg et al. paragraphs [0061], [0063] and [0067]-[0068] where the pre-shared, i.e. symmetric, key is unique for each robot and the pairing code can only be at the account server when there is connectivity and therefore the connection state is determined; and Kim et al. paragraphs [0078] and [0109]).
As per claims 8 and 18, the modified Strandberg et al. and Kim et al. system discloses to: transmit a login request based on at least one of a serial code of the robot or a MAC address of the robot, or a combination thereof to the robot control server, based on the connection between the robot and the robot control server being online; receive a second payload including a signature from the robot control server; apply the second symmetric key to the second payload to decrypt the second payload; and verify the validity of the target code by identifying at least one of the serial code of the robot, the MAC address of the robot, an operation expiration period of the robot, a model name of the robot, or a provided function of the robot, or a combination thereof from the decrypted second payload (see Strandberg et al. paragraphs [0061]-[0063] and [0067]-[0068]; and Kim et al. paragraphs [0086]-[0096]; where the devices perform verification based on the servers being connectable).
As per claims 10 and 20, the modified Strandberg et al. and Kim et al. system discloses to: apply a state of the robot as a failure state based on the verification of the validity of the target code failing; and transmit the state of the robot to the user (see Kim et al. paragraphs [0078] and [0109]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 9, 15, 16, and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art teaches various systems and methods for verifying devices based on codes when all the devices are online, but the prior art fails to teach or render obvious the user of a target code, a sub-code with the payload for verification when the server is offline as similarly recited in each of the objected to claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to controlling robots based on codes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J PYZOCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/Michael Pyzocha/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409