DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on March 2, 2026. Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 15 and 19 – 21 have been amended, claim 16 has been canceled, and claims 22 – 23 have been added. Thus, claims 1 – 7, 9 – 15 and 17 – 23 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 7, 9 – 15 and 17 – 23 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references used in the current rejection.
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 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)(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 – 2, 4 – 8, 10 – 13, 17 – 18, 20 and 21 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0171217 A1 to Lee et al. (herein after “Lee et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 20 and 21,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses a robot (101, 105, 107, 109)(see FIG. 1 and ¶27) comprising:
at least one memory (see ¶4 and ¶40 – ¶41); and
at least one processor (see ¶4 and ¶40 – ¶41), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
acquire information from a user (see ¶99, where “control module 111 and/or control platform 113 can support any type of interface to the user” and ¶127 for “external devices . . . used primarily for interacting with humans, include a display device . . .”);
generate input information for a generative model (209) based on robot information and the acquired information (see ¶28, ¶51 – ¶62 and ¶66 – ¶86);
acquire a program for controlling an operation of the robot, the
program being generated by inputting the input information into the generative model (see ¶28, ¶51 – ¶62 and ¶66 – ¶86); and
control the operation of the robot by executing the program (see ¶28, ¶51 – ¶62 and ¶66 – ¶86),
wherein the robot information includes at least information related to a software component for acquiring information related to an operating environment of the robot (see ¶40 and ¶102), and
wherein the robot is configured as an autonomous vehicle configured to move autonomously by executing the program (see ¶27 et seq).
As to claim 2,
according to applicant’s disclosure, “self-recognition information includes, for example, a hardware configuration . . . and the like of the robot . . . [and] the hardware configuration may include a configuration including a sensor, such as an inertial sensor, a 3D sensor, a LiDAR, or an ultrasonic sensor . . . .” (See ¶61 of applicant’s disclosure.)(Emphasis added.) The Keski-Valkama publication is considered to disclose the robot information including information related to self-recognition of the robot. (See ¶128 for “special purpose hardware”.)
As to claim 4,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the robot information including information related to the operating environment of the robot, and the information related to the operating environment including at least one of map information of the operating environment, sensor information measured in the operating environment, or information related to a target object of the operation of the robot. (See ¶38 and ¶42.)
As to claim 5,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the information related to the target object includes information related to at least one of a position of the target object, a name of the target object, a relation between the target object and another target object, a size of the target object, a place where the target object is usually placed, or a handling rule of the target object. (See ¶42.)
As to claim 6,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the at least one processor being configured to generate the input information based on information related to the user. (See ¶127.)
As to claim 7,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the information related to the user including information related to at least one of a history of the acquired information, a habit of the user, or a preference of the user. (See ¶127.)
As to claim 10,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the generation of the program being executed by one or more information processing devices communicably connected to the generation device via a network. (See FIGS. 1 – 2.)
As to claim 11,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the at least one processor being configured to acquire the information by recognizing a voice of the user. (See 99 for “a voice-based input mechanism” and ¶138.)
As to claim 12,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the acquired information including instruction information for the robot provided by the user. (See ¶125 – ¶127 for “a set of instructions or statements providing instructions for the operation of the processor and/or the computer system to perform specified functions.”)
As to claim 13,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the instruction information including information related to a condition expected by the user. (See (See ¶125 – ¶127.)
As to claim 17,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the robot starting execution of the program in response to a predetermined trigger. (See ¶56 – ¶57 for “conditioning inputs”.)
As to claim 18,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses one or more sensors, wherein the robot is configured to acquire desired sensor information by executing the program. (See ¶29 et seq.)
As to claim 22,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the information related to the self-recognition of the robot including information related to at least one of a role of the robot or a concept of the robot. (See ¶114 – ¶119.)
As to claim 23,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the information related to the software component includes information related to an application programming interface that acquires data from one or more sensors included in the robot. (See ¶97 – ¶99.)
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Keski-Valkama publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0131458 A1 to Isonni (herein after “Isonni publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 3,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the information related to the software component including an execution condition of the software component.
Employing various APIs provided by the robot to execute not only the primary task but also subtasks for satisfying execution condition of the primary task is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Isonni publication who discloses “a client device [that] interacts with the robot simulation server 130 through an application programming interface (API) running on a native operating system of the client device . . . .” (See ¶44; see also ¶60, where “the graphics engine includes one or more rendering APIs, including but not limited to Direct3D, OpenGL, Vulkan, DirectX, and the like.”)
Such disclosure suggests the information related to the software component including an execution condition of the software component.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Keski-Valkama publication so that the information related to the software component includes an execution condition of the software component, as suggested by the Isonni publication, in order to allow different software applications to communicate with each other by defining rules for how they can request and exchange data.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Keski-Valkama publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0352380 A1 to Duncan et al. (herein after “Duncan et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 9,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the at least one processor being configured to: acquire feedback information from the user with respect to a result of the operation of the robot, the operation of the robot being based on execution of the program; and generate second input information for the generation module, based on the feedback information.
Receiving feedback from the user in order to make corrections and/or adjustments is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Roh et al. publication who discloses a method, apparatus, and system for maintaining and controlling robotic surgical tools. (See Abstract.) According to the Roh et al. publication, “the surgical system of FIG. 6 determines a surgical step to be performed by the surgical robot 602. Determining the surgical step is performed using a machine learning model (see FIG. 2) based on instructions received from a surgeon. For example, the tool control module 628 receives information describing a selected tool from the interface module 624 and receives inputs from a user and provides feedback to the user or performs an action in response to the user's instructions, such as adjusting the configuration of a tool.” (See ¶141.)(Emphasis added.)
Such disclosure suggests the at least one processor being configured to: acquire feedback information from the user with respect to a result of the operation of the robot, the operation of the robot being based on execution of the program; and generate second input information for the generation module, based on the feedback information.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Keski-Valkama publication so that the at least one processor is configured to: acquire feedback information from the user with respect to a result of the operation of the robot, the operation of the robot being based on execution of the program; and generate second input information for the generation module, based on the feedback information, as suggested by the Roh et al. publication, in order to achieve a more favorable output as deemed necessary.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Keski-Valkama publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0338736 A1 to Hoshiyama (herein after “Hoshiyama publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 14 and 15,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the at least one processor being configured to: display a screen for editing the program on a display device; and edit the program based on an instruction from the user.
Employing an editing screen is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Hoshiyama publication who discloses “a program editing section configured to create an editing screen of an operation program for the robot and display the editing screen on the display device”. (See Abstract; see also FIG. 4 and ¶19 et seq.) Such disclosure suggests the at least one processor being configured to: display a screen for editing the program on a display device; and edit the program based on an instruction from the user.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Keski-Valkama publication so that the at least one processor is configured to: display a screen for editing the program on a display device, and edit the program based on an instruction from the user, as suggested by the Hoshiyama publication, in order to make changes to the program as necessary.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Keski-Valkama publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0226949 A1 to Hahm et al. (herein after “Hahm et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 19,
the Keski-Valkama publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including “robots 107 (or any other type of terrestrial drone), aerial drones 109 (e.g., unmanned aerial vehicles)”, which are known to be associated with a docking station. (See FIG. 1 and ¶27.) The Keski-Valkama publication does not specifically disclose
the robot being an autonomous vehicle configured to dock to a transferred body for transferring.
In FIG. 17 of the Hahm et al. publication, there is a perspective view schematically illustrating a robot (100) configured to dock to a movable docking station (200). In FIGS. 18 and 19, there are side sectional views, respectively, illustrating the configuration of a robot (100) and a docking station (200) of the robot system of FIG. 17. According to the Hahm et al. publication, FIGS 17 – 19 illustrates a configuration of the robot (100) having a movable first docking portion formed with a dust discharge hole and the docking station (200) having a movable second docking portion formed with a dust suction hole. (See ¶120 – ¶121.) When the robot (100) is docked with the docking station (200), the first and second docking portions (150b) and (280) are movable, to facilitate the docking operation. Such disclosure suggests the robot being configured to dock to a transferred body for transferring to facilitate the docking operation.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Keski-Valkama publication so that the autonomous robot is configured to dock to a transferred body for transferring, as suggested by the Hahm et al. publication, in order to facilitate the docking operation.
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 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.
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application' s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights