Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,682,762. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Claim 1 of Application – 18,815,346
Claim 1 of USP – 10,682,763
A remote controlled robot system that is coupled to a communication network by a firewall, comprising: a remote control station that transmits a robot control command; a robot that is coupled to the communication server by the firewall, the robot including a camera and a monitor, the camera is configured to move in response to the control command; a communication server that establishes a communication between the remote control station and the robot through the firewall.
A teleconferencing system that is coupled to a communication network, comprising: a firewall that connects a local network to an external network; a teleconferencing device coupled to said local area network; said conferencing device includes a monitor and a camera; and a remote station that transmits a control command to a first internet protocol address of the teleconferencing device…wherein said teleconferencing device performs an action in response to said control command.
Claim 2 of Application – 18,815,346
Claim 2 of USP – 10,682,763
wherein the communication server instructs the remote control station and the robot to transmit information to each other
a communication server that instructs said remote station and said teleconferencing device to transmit information to each other.
Claim 3 of Application – 18,815,346
Claim 3 of USP – 10,682,763
wherein the robot periodically polls the communication server
wherein said teleconferencing device periodically polls said communication server
Claim 4 of Application – 18,815,346
Claim 4 of USP – 10,682,763
wherein the communication server allows communication between the remote control station and the robot for a designated time period
wherein said communication server allows communication between said remote station and said teleconferencing device for a designated time period
Claim 5 of Application – 18,815,346
Claim 5 of USP – 10,682,763
wherein the remote control station and the robot communicate with UDP packets
wherein said remote station and said teleconferencing device communicate with UDP packets
Claim 6 of Application – 18,815,346
Claim 6 of USP – 10,682,763
wherein the robot control command is sent to the communication server from the remote control station, and then retransmitted from the communication server to the robot
wherein said control command is sent to said communication sever from said remote station, and then retransmitted from said communication sever to said teleconferencing device
Claim 7 of Application – 18,815,346
Claim 7 of USP – 10,682,763
wherein the robot includes a camera and a monitor that move together in at least two degrees of freedom
wherein said teleconferencing device includes a camera and a monitor that move together in at least two degrees of freedom
Claim 8 of Application – 18,815,346
Claim 8 of USP – 10,682,763
wherein the robot includes a camera that moves in accordance with a closed loop control scheme
wherein said teleconferencing device includes a camera that moves in accordance with a closed loop control scheme
Claims 10-20 disclose analogous limitations to claims 1-9 and are therefore also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-20, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 10,682,763.
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.
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 1-3, 5, 7-8, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vu et al. (US 2007/0192910; hereinafter Vu).
Regarding Claim 1:
Vu discloses a remote controlled robot system that is coupled to a communication network by a firewall, comprising: a remote control station that transmits a robot control command (Vu, Para. [0194], Vu discloses a remote station (i.e. caregiver station) for transmitting controls to the robot);
a robot that is coupled to the communication network by the firewall, the robot including a camera and a monitor, the camera is configured to move in response to the control command (Vu, Para. [0190-0194], [0046-0047], [0115], Vu discloses a robot connected to the communication network and may be located behind a firewall, with the camera moved in response to caregiver commands));
a communication server that establishes a communication between the remote control station and the robot through the firewall (Vu, Para. [0194-0195], Vu discloses the communication server (i.e. matchmaker) maintains communication between the caregiver and the robot through the firewalls).
Regarding Claim 2:
Vu discloses the system of claim 1.
Vu further discloses wherein the communication server instructs the remote control station and the robot to transmit information to each other (Vu, Para. [0194], Vu discloses information is shared between the robot and the caregiver station once a secure connection has been established).
Regarding Claim 3:
Vu discloses the system of claim 1.
Vu further discloses wherein the robot periodically polls the communication server (Vu, Para. [0194], Vu discloses the robot periodically connects to the matchmaker).
Regarding Claim 5:
Vu discloses the system of claim 1.
Vu further discloses wherein the remote control station and the robot communicate with UDP packets (Vu, Para. [0191-0192], Vu discloses the connection may be established using UDP).
Regarding Claim 7:
Vu discloses the system of claim 1.
Vu further discloses wherein the robot includes a camera and a monitor that move together in at least two degrees of freedom (Vu, Para. [0115], Vu discloses a head/neck combination of the camera and monitor which provides at least four degrees of freedom).
Regarding Claim 8:
Vu discloses the system of claim 1.
Vu further discloses wherein the robot includes a camera that moves in accordance with a closed loop control scheme (Vu, Para. [0125], [0225-0243], Vu discloses the robot may explore the environment and build a map of the environment using the camera, including searching for objects or rooms).
Regarding Claim 16:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 17:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 20:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
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 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.
Claims 4, 9-12, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu, in view of Wesinger, Jr. et al. (USP 5,898,830; hereinafter Wesinger).
Regarding Claim 4:
Vu discloses the system of claim 1.
Vu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the communication server allows communication between the remote control station and the robot for a designated time period.
Wesinger, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls, discloses wherein the communication server allows communication between the remote control station and the robot for a designated time period (Wesinger, Column 14 Lines 5-18, Wesinger discloses establishing a time out period for a UDP communication session between two network entities and permitting communications while the time out limit has not expired).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Vu to include a designated time period as disclosed by Wesinger with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to allow a time out period to be established for UDP communications between the remote control station to prevent circumvention of the firewall due to the connectionless nature of UDP, Wesinger Column 13 Line 66 – Column 14 Line 5.
Regarding Claim 9:
Vu discloses a remote controlled robot system that is coupled to a communication network, comprising: a remote control station that transmits a robot control command (Vu, Para. [0194], Vu discloses a remote station (i.e. caregiver station) for transmitting controls to the robot);
a robot that includes a monitor and a camera, the camera is configured in response to the robot control command (Vu, Para. [0158], [0229-0240], Vu discloses the robot camera may be moved in response to caregiver commands and may be configured to override privacy controls and enabling the camera).
Vu fails to explicitly disclose establishing communication between the remote station and the robot for a designated time period.
However Wesinger discloses establishing communication between the remote station and the robot for a designated time period (Wesinger, Column 14 Lines 5-18, Wesinger discloses establishing a timeout period for a UDP communication session between two network entities).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Vu to include a designated time period as disclosed by Wesinger with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to allow a time out period to be established for UDP communications between the remote control station to prevent circumvention of the firewall due to the connectionless nature of UDP, Wesinger Column 13 Line 66 – Column 14 Line 5.
Regarding Claim 10:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 11:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 12:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 14:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 15:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 18:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu, in view of Panasyuk et al. (US 2005/0198380; hereinafter Panasyuk).
Regarding Claim 6:
Vu discloses the system of claim 1.
Vu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the robot control command is sent to the communication server from the remote control station, and then retransmitted from the communication server to the robot.
However Panasyuk, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls, discloses wherein the robot control command is sent to the communication server from the remote control station, and then retransmitted from the communication server to the robot (Panasyuk, Para. [0047-0048], Panasyuk discloses using a proxy device for securely passing communications between a client and a service such that the communications must pass through the proxy).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Vu to include a proxy device for secure communication as disclosed by Panasyuk with a reasonable expectation of success. On of ordinary skill in the art would make this combination in order to ensure the communication server acted as a secure intermediary to prevent unauthorized individuals from accessing the robots.
Regarding Claim 19:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH WALLACE whose telephone number is (469)295-9087. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/Z.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656