DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/841,945 and the preliminary amendment filled on 008/27/2024.
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 6 and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 cites the phrase “application protocol”, where in claims 2-3 cites “application protocol”, which should apparently be “the application protocol[[s]]” in claims 3-4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 cites “at least one action to be performed”, where in claims 4-5 cites “actions to be performed”, which causes an informalities because of not consistency of wording of the phrase in the claims. The phrase “actions” in claims 4-5 should apparently be “the action[[s]]”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 cites “transportation equipment” on lines 3 and “transport equipment” on line 4 and 7-8. Does the applicant mean “transport equipment” and “transportation equipment” are the same? Then “transportation equipment” on line 3 should apparently be “transport[[ation]] equipment”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “transport means” should apparently be “transport [[means]]equipment comprising…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “Transportation equipment” on line 2 should apparently be “The communication interface of claim 13, where the [T]]transport[[ation]] equipment comprising…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “transport equipment” on line 2 should apparently be “a transport equipment”. Appropriate correction is required.
IDS Consideration
The foreign documents provided with the IDS dated 08/27/2024 have been considered in as much as the drawings and/or English abstract and/or equivalent US publication of the foreign documents and/or English translation of the foreign documents, as provided by Applicant except the document, CN 1100803065. The document, CN 1100803065 may have typo because the document CN 1100803065 is not existed and/or invalid. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing/Specification Objections
The drawing is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. The rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings 1-7 should be provided with descriptive text labels.
b. Claim 14 and claim 15 cites an element “Transportation equipment”. If this equipment is different that transport equipment as in specification, page 14, Fig. 4, cites “transport means/transport equipment 40, then the claimed element “Transportation equipment” should be present in the drawing with alpha-numeric number. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims (See 37 CFR 1.83(a)).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 11, 13 and 15 recites the limitation "operation to be carried out by the robot", where the phrase “operation” is not being specifically described within the specification. Therefore, claim does not satisfy the written description requirement.
Claims 3, 11 further cites the phrase “operations”, where “operations” is not being specifically described within the specification.
Claims 2-10 and 14 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 11, 13 and 15 recites the limitation "operation to be carried out by the robot”, where the phrase “operation” is vague because it is not clear what particular operation is carry out, and the specification fails to further define this phrase. Therefore, the claims are indefinite.
Claims 3, 11 further cites the phrase “operations”, which is vague because it is not clear what particular operations are they, and the specification fails to further define this phrase. Therefore, the claims are indefinite.
Claim 3 cites the phrase “state conditions”, where the specification fails to clearly link what those state conditions are. Further clarification is required.
Claim 15 cites “transportation equipment” on lines 3 and “transport equipment” on line 4 and 7-8. There is no citation of “transportation equipment” in the specification. Does the application mean transportation equipment and transport equipment are the same or two different equipment? Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10 and 14 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim(s).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “component” in Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 15; “connection module”, “communication module” and “control module” in claim 12; has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the original specification, filed 08/27/2024, Page 9, lines 19-21 cited “The connection module 22, the communication module 23, the control module 24 and the monitoring module 25 can be realized as dedicated hardware, for example as integrated circuits. Of course, they can also be partially or completely combined or implemented as software that runs on a suitable processor, for example on a GPU or a CPU”. Therefore, the examiner interpreted the phrase “module” as hardware and/or integrated circuit and/or hardware-software combination.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 15, claim elements “component”; are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The specification filed on 08/27/2024, in page 10 cites that “The components 42 may be, for example, actuating drives, for example for opening or closing doors, the tailgate or loading flap, or for raising or lowering the windows. They can also be control units, e.g. a brake control unit or a steering control unit, which may receive instructions from an automated driving system 44. Further components of the motor vehicle are a sensor system 45 for capturing environmental information or state data relating to the motor vehicle and a data transmission unit 46. The sensor system 45 can include, for example, cameras, radar sensors, lidar sensors or ultrasonic sensors”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure for components/units to perform “at least one action” as cited in Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 15.
Therefore, the claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 15 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 2-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of its dependency on the rejected claims.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above from the 112(f) interpretation and 112 (b) rejection, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure for “component” in Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 15 to perform the claimed function of “perform at least one action”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Therefore, the claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-10 and 14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph because of its dependency on the rejected claims.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in 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. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalakis (US 2018/0215043 (hereinafter Michalakis) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2016/0352113 A1) (hereinafter Zhao).
Claim 1. Michalakis teaches a method for communication between a robot and transport equipment (See Fig. 2, discloses “communication between service robot 200 and vehicle 100 [construed as transport equipment]), having the following steps the method comprising:
establishing an authenticated connection between the robot and the transport equipment (See Para. [0032], “the communication system 220 can enable the service robot 200 to communicate with vehicles”, and see Para. [0025]-[0026], “vehicle communicates with service robot via short range communications device and/or via a cellular network, or Bluetooth, and/or Wi-Fi”, and in Para. [0027], Fig. 2, discloses “secure links between the service robot 200, vehicle 100 and database 250”, hence establishing an authenticated connection between the robot and the transport equipment);
negotiating conditions and states for a measure an operation to be carried out by the robot (See Para. [0039], discloses “the service robot determines one or more maintenance conditions corresponding to a detected marker 110 for the vehicle 100”. Furthermore, in Para. [0039], discloses “the service robot 200 can access the maintenance condition database 250 and retrieve data generated by the vehicle 100 based on the identification information for the vehicle 100, or the service robot 200 receives data for the one or more maintenance conditions directly from the vehicle 100. The communication system 220 for the service robot 200 exchanges [i.e., negotiating] data with the vehicle 100.”);
ordering the operation to be carried out by the robot (See Para, [0041], “the service robot 200 can include a service selection module 255, which selects a service for the service robot 200 to perform on the vehicle 100. In one or more arrangements, the service selection module 255 can select a service to perform on the vehicle 100 according to any maintenance conditions for the vehicle 100.”);
Michalakis discloses an application protocol in para. in Para. [0027], such as See “the or more elements of the service robot 200 may be located on a remote server (e.g., cloud-based server) and accessible via secure links”), and in Para. [0043], discloses “an instructions to open the energy/fuel door”. Nevertheless, he does not explicitly spell out where triggering, by means of the robot, to perform opening the fuel door, i.e., at least one action to be performed by a component of the transport equipment.
However, Zhao teaches, where triggering, by means of the robot, at least one action to be performed by a component of the transport equipment (See Para. [0062], discloses “If the charging door is not already open at step 120, then the robotic controller 56 may determine at 128 if the vehicle 12 is equipped with remote door opening capabilities. If so, the robotic controller 56 may send [i.e., trigger] a signal at step 130 to instruct the vehicle [i.e., transport equipment] to open the door”, hence the vehicle opens the door [i.e., perform one action as claimed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Michalakis with sending a signal by the robot to a vehicle and instructs the vehicle to open the door [i.e., to perform an action as claimed] as taught by Zhao in order to couple the end effector with the charging receptacle of the vehicle for vehicle charging.
Claim 2. The teaching of Michalakis as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the method as claimed in of claim 1, wherein application protocols (AP) for applications compatible with the transport equipment are received by the transport equipment or the robot from a backend of a manufacturer of the transport equipment means or a service provider (See Michalakis, Para. [0027], “the or more elements of the service robot 200 may be located on a remote server (e.g., cloud-based server) and accessible via secure links.”).
Claim 3. The teaching of Michalakis as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the application protocols include process operations with state conditions, state-changing actions or interactions (See Michalakis, Para. [0043], “the directions for the energy service can be instructions to open an energy door (e.g., the fuel door 140) [construed as state-changing action]”. Additionally, see Zhao, Para. [0062], “If the charging door is not already open [i.e., state condition] at step 120, then the robotic controller 56 may determine at 128 if the vehicle 12 is equipped with remote door opening capabilities. If so, the robotic controller 56 may send a signal at 130 to instruct the vehicle to open the door [construed as state-changing actions]”).
Claim 4. The teaching of Michalakis as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein trust levels are specified for actions to be performed by the component of the transport equipment (See Zhao, Para. [0062], “the robotic controller 56 may send a signal at 130 to instruct the vehicle to open the door”, hence the vehicle perform an action to open the door, and see Para. [0027], Fig. 2, discloses “a secure links between the service robot 200 and vehicle 100 [transport equipment].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Michalakis to establish a secure link between service robot and the vehicle with a trust label as claimed to open the door, i.e., perform an action as claimed in order for charging the vehicle. Additionally, see Zhao, Para. [0063], “the vehicle reports a state of charge (SOC) when the charge is above a particular threshold, and the charging controller instructs the robotic controller 56 to disconnect from the vehicle and return to a home position”, same as claimed).
Claim 5. The teaching of Michalakis as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the robot is configured to be able to abort actions to be performed by the component of the transport equipment (See Zhao, Para. [0062], “if the vehicle door is equipped with remote control then the robot avoid/abort to manually open the door, instead it sends signal to the vehicle to open the door”).
Claim 6. The teaching of Michalakis as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising exchanging states or sensor data between the transport means and the robot (See Michalakis, Para. [0022], discloses sensor data that monitor energy level/fuel or charge level, tire pressure level”, and Para. [0026], “the processor(s) 160 of vehicle 100 can cause the communications system 180 to communicate the generated maintenance condition data to a remote location./service robot 200”, same as claimed).
Claim 7. The teaching of Michalakis as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the method as claimed in any one of the preceding claims of claim 1, wherein the authenticated connection is a two-channel connection (See Michalakis, Fig. 2, “two way connection between vehicle 100 and service robot 200”. Additionally, see Para. [0027], discloses “secure links”, and Para. [0032], “The communication system 220 can communicate via a cellular network, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, etc.”. Additionally, see Para. [0039], “The service robot 200 can access the maintenance condition database 250 and retrieve data generated by the vehicle 100 based on the identification information for the vehicle 100”).
Claim 10. The teaching of Michalakis as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising establishing a trust relationship between the transport equipment and a set plurality of robots (See Michalakis, Para. [0027], Fig. 2, discloses “secure link between service robot 200 and vehicle 100 [i.e., transport equipment]”). Examiner note that Michalakis does not explicitly spell out trust relationship, but stated secure links for service robot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Michalakis to establish a secure link between service robot and the vehicle with a trust relationship as claimed to open the door, i.e., perform an action as claimed in order for charging the vehicle. Additionally, see Zhao, Para. [0063], “the vehicle reports a state of charge (SOC) when the charge is above a particular threshold, and the charging controller instructs the robotic controller 56 to disconnect from the vehicle and return to a home position”, same as claimed).
Claim 11 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim 1 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 11 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 1.
Claim 12 is a device claim corresponding to the method claim 1 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 12 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 1.
Claim 13 is a communication interface claim corresponding to the method claim 1 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 13 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 1.
Claim 14. The teaching of Michalakis as modified by the teaching of Zhao Transportation equipment comprising a communication interface as claimed in claim 13 (See Michalakis, Figs. 1-2, Para. [0025], [0039], discloses “the vehicle 100 comprises a communication system to communication with database 250 and/or service robot 200 to exchange data).
Claim 15 is a robot claim corresponding to the method claim 1 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 15 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 1.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalakis (US 2018/0215043 (hereinafter Michalakis) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2016/0352113 A1) (hereinafter Zhao) and further in view of Narendra et al. (US 2019/0364022, this reference is from IDS) (hereinafter Narendra).
Claim 8. The teaching of Michalakis as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising initializing the robot by a manufacturer of the transport equipment or a service provider (See Zhao, Para. [0074], “the charging controller 34 may instruct the robotic controller 56 to move the charging apparatus 28 to the vehicle requiring charging and couple the end effector 52 with the charging receptacle 15 of the vehicle 12.”). The teaching of Michalakis as modified by the teaching of Zhao fail to teach a symmetrical key for an action to be performed by a component of the transport equipment is transmitted to the robot.
However, Narendra discloses, a symmetrical key for an action to be performed by a component of the transport equipment is transmitted (See Fig. 4, Para. [0033], [0045], discloses “electronic device 110 of automobile 100 makes an authentication decision at 430. In some embodiments, the challenge may include data encrypted with a symmetric key, and perform an action based on data”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Michalakis and Zhao with symmetric key to perform an encryption as taught by Narendra in order to make an authentication decision to perform an action.
Claim 9. The teaching of Michalakis as modified by the teaching of Zhao and Narendra teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the symmetrical key is used to trigger an action defined as critical in the authenticated connection (See Narendra, Para. [0033], “electronic device 110 of automobile 100 provides a challenge to mobile device 130”, and see Para. [0046], “electronic device 110 of the automobile 100 makes an authentication decision to perform an action”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657