DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 12, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
In the August 12, 2024 submission, claims 1-30 were presented for consideration and are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,003. The referenced claims are presented as follows:
Instant Application No. 18/800,283
1. System for controlling a remotely controlled device comprising a mode system
comprising a hybrid mode configured for enabling simultaneous autonomous operation and user control of the device.
13. System for controlling a remotely controlled device comprising a field management system configured for:
responding to a driver interface;
controlling the device; and
mimicking commands from said driver interface.
23. Remotely controlled device comprising a field management system configured for
mimicking a command from a driver interface module configured for receiving a signal from a user, wherein the command is configured for controlling a component of said device.
US Patent No. 12,086,003
1. A system for controlling at least one remotely controlled device comprising:
at least one remotely controlled device, the at least one remotely controlled device
configured for autonomous operation;
at least one field management system directly connected to the at least one remotely controlled device; and
a driver interface directly connected to the at least one field management system, the driver interface adapted to communicate a signal to the at least one field management system, the driver interface enabling user control by a user of the at least one remotely controlled device; and
a mode system including a hybrid mode, the hybrid mode enabling simultaneous autonomous operation and user control,
wherein:
the field management system mimics commands from the at least one driver
interface, the mimicking controlling the at least one remotely controlled device and
enabling replaying of at least one match; and
the commands enable, disable and/or change the operational mode.
9. A system for controlling at least one remotely controlled device comprising:
a driver interface module adapted to receive signals from a user;
a remotely controlled device including
a wireless adapter configured to provide wireless communications between the
driver interface module and a remotely controlled device controller,
a peripheral interface powering at least one peripheral through at least one
peripheral interface module, the at least one peripheral interface operably coupled with
the remotely controlled device,
a transceiver/router operably coupled with the remotely controlled device controller, and
a power source configured to provide power to the at least one peripheral interface
modules; and
a field management system directly connected to the driver interface module and the remotely controlled device, wherein the field management system mimics commands from the driver interface module, the mimicking controlling the remotely controlled device and enabling replaying of at least one match;
wherein the commands are instructions for controlling components of the device.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recitation presented in claims 1 and 9 of the patent includes all the limitations noted in independent claims 1, 13 and 23 of the current application. Further, several of limitations noted in dependent claims 2-12, 14-22 and 24-30 of the instant application are included in the patented independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Norman et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0263628 (published October 23, 2008, hereinafter NORMAN).
As per claim 1, NORMAN teaches of a system for controlling a remotely controlled device comprising a mode system comprising a hybrid mode configured for enabling simultaneous autonomous operation and user control of the device (see fig. 1 and at least par. 33 and 47: system for controlling remote devices via individual control units, wherein the user connects through a field device and system facilitates several autonomous operations in line with predetermined game/user directives).
As per claim 2, NORMAN teaches of the system of claim 1 further comprising a driver interface (fig. 1 and par. 30-34: system supports the connection and control of field device via a user interface) configured for: communicating with a field management system configured for controlling the device and enabling user control of the device (see fig. 3 and 4(a) and par. 31-34 and 74: system facilitates communication and control between the user device and field components/ robots).
As per claim 6, NORMAN teaches of the system of claim 2 wherein the communicating comprises a signal configured for modifying control of the device (see fig. 2-4 and par. 31: system supports communicative signals between a field device and remote interface, to modify control of a field device).
As per claim 7, NORMAN teaches of the system of claim 2 wherein the communicating comprises a signal configured for modifying power to the device (see fig. 1-3; and par. 64-66: system supports sending a signal a power control signal to a field device element to modify power to the field device (e.g., emergency start/stop power control)).
As per claim 10, NORMAN teaches of the system of claim 2 wherein said driver interface comprises a toggle switch configured for communicating with the device (see fig. 1-3; and par. 64-66: system supports sending a signal through the FMS to toggle field device operations (e.g., emergency start/stop power control)).
As per claim 11, NORMAN teaches of the system 11. System of claim 1 further comprising a remotely controlled controller associated with the Device (see fig. 1, 6 and 7 and at least par. 30-31: system supports the use of a controller in multiple devices associated with a field device – at least a user interface controller, FMS controller, and field device controller).
As per claim 12, NORMAN teaches of the system of claim 11 wherein said controller is configured for receiving signals from a field management system configured for: responding to said driver interface and controlling the device (see fig. 1-3; and par. 64-66: in response to sending a signal from a field device to the FMS, the system further supports sending control signals from the FMS directed to controlling operations of a field device (e.g., emergency start/stop power control)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-5, 8, 9 and 13-30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over NORMAN in view of McDermott et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0077913 (published April 13, 2006, hereinafter MCDERMOTT).
As per claim 3, NORMAN teaches of the system of claim 2 further comprising a field management system (FMS) (see fig. 2-4 and par. 30: the FMS facilitates and supports remote user/device control over field entities) configured for: responding to said driver interface (see fig. 1-3; and par. 64-66: in response to sending a signal from a field device to the FMS, the system further supports sending control signals from the FMS directed to controlling operations of a field device (e.g., emergency start/stop power control)).
NORMAN focuses on capturing, storing and using device commands in communicating to/from field devices to the FMS, wherein the commands are subsequently relayed to field devices/robots (e.g., user controller to field relay to FMS to robot) (see fig. 3 and 4(a); and par. 30-34), whereby the system further supports storing network, user activity and supportive operational information (see par. 73). However, the reference fails to explicitly address mimicking commands from said driver interface.
Like NORMAN, MCDERMOTT is directed to remotely controlling field devices. However, MCDERMOTT further teaches of a method which uses infield software that stores attributes related to field device activities (e.g., speed, position, direction, etc.), and provides support which allows the system and method to replicate, mimic and/or emulate user activity relative to associative devices, wherein the commands relayed to the field device(s) are used to control components of the devices (e.g., wheels, motors, etc.) and replay device action (see par. 19-21 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention,
to employ the use of MCDERMOTT's method of storing and mimicking device activity, with NORMAN's method of remotely controlling field devices to facilitate safe operations and maintain boundary control parameters for remotely controlled devices.
As per claim 4, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein MCDERMOTT further teaches the system of claim 3 wherein said field management system is configured for enabling replaying a match (see par. 19-21: system captures and stores operational attributes related to [field] device activities (e.g., speed, position, direction, etc.) and uses the stored data to support replay activity).
As per claim 5, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the
system of claim 3 wherein the commands enable, disable and/or change an operational mode (see fig. 1-3; and par. 64-66: in response to sending a signal from a field device to the FMS, the system further supports sending control signals from the FMS directed to controlling operations of a field device (e.g., emergency start/stop power control)).
As per claim 8, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the system of claim 3 wherein said field management system is configured for communicating with a station control (see fig. 5 and par. 31 and 36: system supports and facilitates communication between device to FMS and/or operator station control).
As per claim 9, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the system of claim 3 wherein said field management system is configured for communicating with the device over an internet connection (see par. 33, 43 and 89: coupling user/drive interface with FMS via a host of network configurations, including internet transmission).
As per claim 13, NORMAN teaches of the system for controlling a remotely controlled device comprising a field management system (see fig. 2-4 and par. 30: the FMS facilitates and supports remote user/device control over field entities) configured for: responding to a driver interface and controlling the device (see fig. 1-3; and par. 64-66: in response to sending a signal from a field device to the FMS, the system further supports sending control signals from the FMS directed to controlling operations of a field device (e.g., emergency start/stop power control)).
NORMAN teaches of the remotely controlled device comprising a field management system configured for controlling a component of said device (see fig. 1-3; and par. 64-66: in response to sending a signal from a field device to the FMS, the system further supports sending control signals from the FMS directed to controlling operations of a field device (e.g., emergency start/stop power control). However, the reference fails to explicitly teach of a FMS configured for mimicking commands from a driver interface.
MCDERMOTT further teaches of a method which uses infield software that stores attributes related to field device activities (e.g., speed, position, direction, etc.), and provides support which allows the system and method to replicate, mimic and/or emulate user activity relative to associative devices, wherein the commands relayed to the field device(s) are used to control components of the devices (e.g., wheels, motors, etc.) and replay device action (see par. 19-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention,
to employ the use of MCDERMOTT's method of storing and mimicking device activity, with NORMAN's method of remotely controlling field devices to facilitate safe operations and maintain boundary control parameters for remotely controlled devices.
As per claim 14, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein MCDERMOTT further teaches the system of claim 13 wherein said field management system is configured for enabling replaying a match (see par. 19-21: system captures and stores operational attributes related to [field] device activities (e.g., speed, position, direction, etc.) and uses the stored data to support replay activity).
As per claim 15, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the system of claim 13 further comprising a driver interface (fig. 1 and par. 30-34: system supports the connection and control of field device via a user interface) configured for: communicating with said field management system and enabling user control of the device (see fig. 3 and 4(a) and par. 31-34 and 74: system facilitates communication and control between the user device and field components/ robots).
As per claim 16, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the system of claim 13 wherein the commands enable, disable and/or change an operational mode (see fig. 1-3; and par. 64-66: in response to sending a signal from a field device to the FMS, the system further supports sending control signals from the FMS directed to controlling operations of a field device (e.g., emergency start/stop power control)).
As per claim 17, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the system of claim 15 wherein the communicating comprises a signal configured for modifying control of the device (see fig. 2-4 and par. 31: system supports communicative signals between a field device and remote interface, to modify control of a field device).
As per claim 18, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the
system of claim 15 wherein the communicating comprises a signal configured for modifying power to the device (see fig. 1-3; and par. 64-66: system supports sending a signal a power control signal to a field device element to modify power to the field device (e.g., emergency start/stop power control)).
As per claim 19, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the system of claim 13 wherein said field management system is configured for communicating with a station control (see fig. 5 and par. 31 and 36: system supports and facilitates communication between device to FMS and/or operator station control).
As per claim 20, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the
system of claim 13 wherein said field management system is configured for communicating with the device over an internet connection (see par. 33, 43 and 89: coupling user/drive interface with FMS via a host of network configurations, including internet transmission).
As per claim 21, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the
system of claim 15 wherein said driver interface comprises a toggle switch configured for communicating with the device (see fig. 1-3; and par. 64-66: system supports sending a signal through the FMS to toggle field device operations (e.g., emergency start/stop power control)).
As per claim 22, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the
system of claim 13 further comprising a remotely controlled controller configured for receiving signals from said field management system (see fig. 1, 6 and 7 and at least par. 30-31: system supports the use of a controller in multiple devices associated with a field device – at least a user interface controller, FMS controller, and field device controller).
As per claim 23, NORMAN teaches of the remotely controlled device comprising a field management system configured for controlling a component of said device (see fig. 1-3; and par. 64-66: in response to sending a signal from a field device to the FMS, the system further supports sending control signals from the FMS directed to controlling operations of a field device (e.g., emergency start/stop power control). However, the reference fails to explicitly teach of a FMS configured for mimicking a command from a driver interface module configured for receiving a signal from a user.
MCDERMOTT further teaches of a method which uses infield software that stores attributes related to field device activities (e.g., speed, position, direction, etc.), and provides support which allows the system and method to replicate, mimic and/or emulate user activity relative to associative devices, wherein the commands relayed to the field device(s) are used to control components of the devices (e.g., wheels, motors, etc.) and replay device action (see par. 19-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention,
to employ the use of MCDERMOTT's method of storing and mimicking device activity, with NORMAN's method of remotely controlling field devices to facilitate safe operations and maintain boundary control parameters for remotely controlled devices.
As per claim 24, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein MCDERMOTT further teaches the device of claim 23 wherein the field management system is configured for enabling replaying a match (see par. 19-21: system captures and stores operational attributes related to [field] device activities (e.g., speed, position, direction, etc.) and uses the stored data to support replay activity).
As per claim 25, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the device of claim 23 further comprising a remotely controlled device controller configured for responding to the driver interface module and controlling said device (see fig. 1-3; and par. 64-66: in response to sending a signal from a field device to the FMS, the system further supports sending control signals from the FMS directed to controlling operations of a field device (e.g., emergency start/stop power control).
As per claim 26, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the device of claim 23 wherein the command comprises modifying control of said device (see fig. 2-4 and par. 31: system supports communicative signals between a field device and remote interface, to modify control of a field device).
As per claim 27, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the device of claim 23 wherein the command comprises modifying power to said device (see fig. 1-3; and par. 64-66: system supports sending a signal a power control signal to a field device element to modify power to the field device (e.g., emergency start/stop power control)).
As per claim 28, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the device of claim 23 wherein said field management system is configured for communicating with a station control (see fig. 5 and par. 31 and 36: system supports and facilitates communication between device to FMS and/or operator station control).
As per claim 29, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the
device of claim 23 wherein said field management system is configured for communicating with said device over an internet connection (see par. 33, 43 and 89: coupling user/drive interface with FMS via a host of network configurations, including internet transmission).
As per claim 30, the combination of NORMAN and MCDERMOTT teaches all of the limitations noted in the base claim(s) as outlined above, wherein NORMAN further teaches the device of claim 23 further comprising a remotely controlled device controller configured for receiving signals from said field management system (see fig. 1-3; and par. 64-66: in response to sending a signal from a field device to the FMS, the system further supports sending control signals from the FMS directed to controlling operations of a field device (e.g., emergency start/stop power control)).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Small, US Patent No. 7243053 focuses on using a virtual modelling environment to control field models; Norman et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0263628 and US Patent No. 7,330,776, along with several cited Norman references, focus on using a variety of system and operational embodiments to provide a system and method for facilitating communication between a user interface, field management system and one or more field devices; and McDermott, US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0077913, focuses on controlling field devices while replicating actionable functions.
Conclusion
The applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the examiner if further clarifications are needed with respect to interpretation of currently presented claims and/or cited prior art.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN BOOKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7827. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571) 272-4105. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Kelvin Booker/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights