DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the amendment filed 17 July 2026. It is noted that this application is a National Stage Entry of PCT/CN2022/078725 having an international filing date of 2 March 2022. Claims 9, as, and 13 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 10, and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[3] Applicant's remarks filed 17 July 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] Applicant’s remarks in response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 7 May 2026 have been fully considered and are convincing in light of the present amendments to the pending claims. In accordance with the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update), published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024, the previous rejection of pending claims 1-8 and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has/have been overcome by the amendments to the pending claims and is/are withdrawn.
At least the features of “…deploying the workflow to a runtime of a main controller of the corresponding workcell so the runtime uses a standard field bus and a device protocol to access a field bus and a device, determines a resource instance of the dynamic resource based on on-site resource data and controls a device resource connected to the main controller to perform corresponding operations based on a workflow of the runtime and schedules corresponding resources comprising the resource instance to perform corresponding service [[the]] operations based on the workflow…” constitute specialized programming beyond merely utilizing generic computing equipment to implement execute workflow tasks. The underlying programming and combination of elements render the claimed invention necessarily rooted in computer technology and present additional technical elements which integrate the broadly directed subject matter into a practical application of any otherwise ineligible processes under Eligibility Step 2A prong 2. (See MPEP 2106.04(d))
[ii] Applicant’s remarks directed to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 7 May 2026 have been fully considered and are moot in light of newly added grounds of rejection responsive to the amendments to the subject claims. See revised rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
[4] Claims 1-8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
[5] Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gemignani et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0244708 hereinafter ‘Gemignani’) in view of Dambman et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0266445 hereinafter ‘Dambman’), and further in view of Billi-Duran et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0088564 hereinafter ‘Billi-Duran’)
With respect to (currently amended) claim 1, Gemignani discloses a dynamic workflow implementation method comprising: constructing a behavior tree comprising: a plurality of function block nodes, and connection relationships between the function block nodes (Gemignani et al.; paragraphs [0017] [0024] [0025] [0036] [0043]; See at least generated behavior tree having action blocks and interrelated nodes. See further subtrees/action blocks); wherein at least one of the plurality of function block nodes is bound to a dynamic resource including a placeholder for reference to a plurality of resource instances (Gemignani et al.; paragraphs [0022]-[0025] [0051]-[0052]; See at least action block implements function via specified available resources dependent on at least location, current availability or use status and suitability to the task. See further each action block tied to a resource type); analyzing the behavior tree to obtain a workflow representing service operations to be performed by resources comprising the dynamic resource in one workcell (Gemignani et al.; paragraphs [0038]-[0040] [0044]-[0046] [0051]-[0052]; See at least evaluation and reevaluation of behavior tree to construct function subtrees and specified ordering or sequencing of tasks actions, i.e., a workflow. See further control functions and sequencing of actions directed to specified resources, i.e., a form of workcell); and deploying the workflow to a runtime of the corresponding workcell so the runtime determines a resource instance of the dynamic resource based on on-site resource data and controls resources comprising the resource instance to perform the operations based on the workflow (Gemignani et al.; paragraphs [0046]-[0050]; See at least activation of functional blocks according to sequence, i.e., a runtime, and subsequent control of executions of functional subtrees and robotic resources).
With respect to the specification that the function block node is bound to a dynamic resource including a placeholder for reference to a plurality of resource instances of a same type, Gemignani discloses each function block/subtree is tied/linked to a specific configuration of a resource and each function block controls specific function performed by that resource/robot or robot component. Gemignani further disclose that resources are linked based on availability and location, which reasonably implies that multiple resources of a similar or same type can be controlled by the function blocks. While the linking of an identified/available resource to a specific function block of Gemignani is reasonably a form of instantiation, Gemignani fails to expressly include an instantiation process or state that the resource is an instance of the resource.
However, as evidenced by Dambman, it is well-known in the art to provide a listing of available robotic resources which include instantiation functions to adapt of configure the resources for a specified workflow function. In particular, Dambman discloses a workflow control system using self-assembling workcells consisting of multiple robots that are adaptively instantiated or configured to perform specified functions within a defined workflow (Dambman et al.; paragraphs [0034]-[0036] [0057]; See at least instantiation of resource elements to self-assembly to perform specified workflow steps/functions). Dambman further discloses that resources are identified based on on-site resource availability information including a generated list of available and prioritize resource candidates for self-assembly into the desired workcell for a specified workflow (Dambman et al.; paragraphs [0057] [0060]; See at least listing of available resource instances based on time and temporal constraints and rules).
Claim 1 has been amended with respect to the previously recited deploying the workflow and the control of the resource instance/resources to further specify “…deploying the workflow to a runtime of a main controller of the corresponding workcell so the runtime uses a standard field bus and a device protocol to access a field bus and a device…” and “…controls a device resource connected to the main controller to perform corresponding operations based on a workflow of the runtime and schedules corresponding resources comprising the resource instance to perform corresponding service…”.
With respect to these elements, while Gemignani discloses a functional block workflow model which provides for the dynamic execution of the workflow using identified available resources to interconnect with the system to implement respective functions, Gemignani fails to specify that the control functions are implement via an execution/runtime of the workflow using a controller that is specific to a defined workcell and further fail to specify that the facilitated connections and controls of devices employs a device protocol to access a field bus and a device.
However, as evidenced by Billi-Duran, implementing industrial workflow executions by controlling available implementing devices by a controller specific to a workcell and further facilitating control functions and communications using a field bus and device protocol to communicate with the functional devices is well-known in the art (Billi-Duran et al.; paragraphs [0031]-[0034] [0054] [0077]; See at least controlled industrial systems executing workflows using adaptive configurations, i.e., runtime, using communications/control of devices using fieldbus and seral device protocols. See further controller executes control functions to available devices within a workcell. See further workcell includes a respective controller specific to the workcell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the determination of resource availability and linking of operational resource to specific function control blocks of Gemignani by further including providing a listing of available robotic resources which include instantiation functions to adapt of configure the resources for a specified workflow function as taught by Dambman. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of evaluating and directing execution of workflow processes by assigned resources. As Gemignani disclose the use of determination of resource availability and linking of operational resource to specific function control blocks in the context of a system and method for evaluating and directing execution of workflow processes by assigned resources and Dambman similarly discloses the utility providing a listing of available robotic resources which include instantiation functions to adapt of configure the resources for a specified workflow function in the context of a system and method for evaluating and directing execution of workflow processes by assigned resources, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of ensuring efficient execution of prioritized workflow processes by ensuring availability of different configurations of robotic instruments for specified workflow processes through adaptive self-assembly of resources associated with sophisticated automated workflows (Dambman et al.; paragraph [0006]).
Regarding the combination that further includes Billi-Duran, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the determination of resource availability and linking of operational resource to specific function control blocks of Gemignani by further including implementing industrial workflow executions by controlling available implementing devices by a controller specific to a workcell and further facilitating control functions and communications using a field bus and device protocol as taught by Billi-Duran. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of evaluating and directing execution of workflow processes by assigned resources. As Gemignani disclose the use of determination of resource availability and linking of operational resource to specific function control blocks in the context of a system and method for evaluating and directing execution of workflow processes by assigned resources and Billi-Duran similarly discloses the utility of implementing industrial workflow executions by controlling available implementing devices by a controller specific to a workcell and further facilitating control functions and communications using a field bus and device protocol in the context of a system and method for evaluating and directing execution of workflow processes by assigned resources, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of ensuring efficient execution of prioritized workflow processes by ensuring availability of different configurations of device instruments for specified workflow processes through adaptive control of resources within defined workcells.
With respect to claim 2, Gemignani discloses a method wherein: each placeholder is connected to one function block node that implements a corresponding function (Gemignani et al.; paragraphs [0043]-[0048]; See at least each function subtree corresponds to a specified function via controls to tied or specified resources); all related function block nodes jointly generate a corresponding dynamic resource flow (Gemignani et al.; paragraphs [0046]-[0050]; See at least activation of functional blocks according to sequence, i.e., a runtime, and subsequent control of executions of functional subtrees and robotic resources); and determining a resource instance of the dynamic resource based on an on-site resource comprises: the resource instance of the dynamic resource based on the on-site resource data based on the dynamic resource flow (Gemignani et al.; paragraphs [0022]-[0025] [0051]-[0052]; See at least action block implements function via specified available resources dependent on at least location, current availability or use status and suitability to the task, i.e., “on-site resource data”. See further each action block tied to a resource type).
With respect to the recitation of “…the dynamic resource has one resource description with placeholders for guiding instantiation of the dynamic resource…”, as noted above, while Gemignani discloses that resources are linked based on availability and location, which reasonably implies that multiple resources of a similar or same type can be controlled by the function blocks, i.e., a form of instantiation, Gemignani fails to expressly include an instantiation process or state that the resource is an instance of the resource.
However, Dambman discloses a workflow control system using self-assembling workcells consisting of multiple robots that are adaptively instantiated/configured to perform specified functions within a defined workflow (Dambman et al.; paragraphs [0034]-[0036] [0057]; See at least instantiation of resource elements to self-assembly to perform specified workflow steps/functions).
Regarding claim 2, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claim 2 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 7, Gemignani discloses a method wherein each placeholder of a particular function is connected, through a hook function, to one function block node that implements the method step (Gemignani et al.; paragraphs [0022]-[0024] [0043] [0051]-[0052]; See at least each action block/subtree tied/linked to control specific tasks performed by hardware and robotic resources in accordance with subtree).
With respect to claim 8, Gemignani discloses a method wherein: the plurality of resource instances of the dynamic resource are represented in a form of a resource tree (Gemignani et al.; paragraphs [0024]-[0026] [0043] [0048]; See at least resource function subtrees comprising functional controls for individual resources and components of resources, i.e., instance of the resources in tree form “resource tree”); and the dynamic resource has a dynamic injection node for adding a new resource instance so the runtime injects the new resource instance for the dynamic resource based on the on-site resource data (Gemignani et al.; paragraphs [0022]-[0025] [0051]-[0052]; See at least action block implements function via specified available resources dependent on at least location, current availability or use status and suitability to the task, i.e., “on-site resource data”. See further each action block tied to a resource type).
Claim 10 as amended substantially repeats the subject matter addressed above with respect to claim 1 as directed to an enabling system. With respect to this element, Gemignani discloses enabling the disclosed method employing analogous systems and executable instructions (See at least Gemignani paragraphs [0093] [0148]). Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 11 as amended is distinguished from claims 1 and 10 by directing the claimed system to “…An IT domain and OT domain fusion system…”, as designated by the preamble of the claim, and further including recited functions of “…wherein the workflow is an OT-domain workflow; the workcell is a workcell in an OT domain; the resources are OT resources; and an OT-domain microservice generator to generate one microservice based on the behavior tree, to enable the IT device to trigger, by calling the microservice, runtime of the workcell to execute the OT-domain workflow…”.
With respect to these elements, the behavior tree based workflow system of Gemignani is directed to control of robotic systems by information technology workflow components (Gemignani et al.; paragraphs [0046]-[0050]; See at least activation of functional blocks according to sequence, i.e., a runtime, and subsequent control of executions of functional subtrees and robotic resources). The robotic workflow elements are reasonably forms of operational technology (OT) being controlled by data/information gathering and analysis programming (information technology IT). The activation process that initiates and controls the robotic functions via the IT infrastructure is reasonably a form of “microservice”. Accordingly, the system of Gemignani is reasonably understood to be a form of an “…IT domain and OT domain fusion system…” that utilizes a microservice to control workflow processes performed by operational technology, i.e., robotic systems.
Claim 11 as amended otherwise substantially repeats the subject matter addressed above with respect to claim 1 as directed to the enabling system and computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions. With respect to this element, Gemignani discloses enabling the disclosed method employing analogous systems and executable instructions (See at least Gemignani paragraphs [0093][0148]). Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
[6] Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gemignani et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0244708 hereinafter ‘Gemignani’) in view of Dambman et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0266445 hereinafter ‘Dambman’), in view of Billi-Duran et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0088564 hereinafter ‘Billi-Duran’), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furukawa et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0347001 hereinafter ‘Furukawa’).
With respect to claim 3, Gemignani discloses a method wherein: one of the plurality of resource instances of the dynamic resource is set as a default resource instance; and the dynamic resource flow comprises: a boxing function block to determine an available resource instance of the plurality of resource instances among the dynamic resource based on the on-site resource data, and determine the default resource instance (Gemignani et al.; paragraphs [0022]-[0025] [0051]-[0052]; See at least action block implements function via specified available resources dependent on at least location, current availability or use status and suitability to the task, i.e., “on-site resource data”. See further each action block tied to a resource type. NOTE: the constraint of a resource as available or not available for purposes of executing a desired function and/or being acquired or “boxed” by the function block is reasonably a form of boxing and unboxing function).
With respect to mutual exclusion functions to lock and unlock/release resources with respect to parallel/exclusive functions and associated messaging, Gemignani discloses mutex function including restricting access to resource that are currently being utilized by other functional blocks/workflow processes (Gemignani et al.; paragraphs [0023]-[0025]; See at least prevention of running subtrees when robot is not properly positioned or is in use or occupied). Gemignani fails to expressly disclose mutex locking and unlocking functions and/or acquisition processes.
However, as evidenced by Furukawa, it is well-known in the art to control resource binding/acquisition for workflow processes involving shared or common resource. Specifically, Furukawa discloses a mutex lock function block to lock, when a plurality of branches in a parallel workflow use a same dynamic resource simultaneously, the dynamic resource for a current branch by triggering a resource acquisition message, wherein each branch comprises at least one function block node, and the at least one function block is bound to the dynamic resource (Furukawa et al.; paragraphs [0005] [0060] [0064] [0065] [0077]-[0079] [0096] [0097] [0128]; See at least mutual exclusion control of resources including message triggered locking and releasing of resources); and a mutex unlock function block to release the dynamic resource to another branch after execution of the current branch ends; wherein the another branch uses a polling manner to trigger the resource acquisition message to lock the dynamic resource for the current branch when the dynamic resource is released (Furukawa et al.; paragraphs [0005] [0126]-[0129]; See at least locking and releasing of resources triggered by acquisition messaging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the determination of resource availability and linking of operational resource to specific function control blocks of Gemignani by further including mutual exclusion control of resources including message triggered locking and releasing of resources as taught by Furukawa. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of evaluating and directing execution of workflow processes by assigned resources. As Gemignani disclose the use of determination of resource availability and linking of operational resource to specific function control blocks in the context of a system and method for evaluating and directing execution of workflow processes by assigned resources and Furukawa similarly discloses the utility including mutual exclusion control of resources including message triggered locking and releasing of resources in the context of a system and method for evaluating and directing execution of workflow processes by assigned resources, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of ensuring efficient execution or prioritized workflow processes by ensuring that exclusive access to required resources in maintained and released for further processes in an expeditious manner (Furukawa et al.; paragraphs [0005]).
With respect to claim 4, as noted above, while Gemignani discloses mutex function including restricting access to resource that are currently being utilized by other functional blocks/workflow processes, Gemignani fails to expressly disclose mutex locking and unlocking functions and/or acquisition processes.
However, Furukawa discloses a method wherein the resource acquisition message comprises: an Acquire message for stopping another parallel branch; or a Try Acquire message for not stopping another parallel branch (Furukawa et al.; paragraphs [0005] [0060] [0064] [0065] [0077]-[0079] [0096] [0097] [0128]; See at least mutual exclusion control of resources including message triggered locking and releasing of resources).
Regarding claim 4, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 3 above are applicable to claim 4 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 5, Gemignani discloses a method wherein the dynamic resource flow further comprises an unboxing function block to specify a resource instance for the dynamic resource based on the on-site resource data (Gemignani et al.; paragraphs [0022]-[0025] [0051]-[0052]; See at least action block implements function via specified available resources dependent on at least location, current availability or use status and suitability to the task, i.e., “on-site resource data”. See further each action block tied to a resource type. NOTE: the constraint of a resource as available or not available for purposes of executing a desired function and/or being acquired or “boxed” by the function block is reasonably a form of boxing and unboxing function).
With respect to claim 6, as noted above, while Gemignani discloses mutex function including restricting access to resource that are currently being utilized by other functional blocks/workflow processes, Gemignani fails to expressly disclose mutex locking and unlocking functions and/or acquisition processes.
However, Furukawa discloses a method wherein guiding instantiation of the dynamic resource comprises: Set Default, connected to the boxing function block; Acquire and Try Acquire, connected to the mutex lock function block; Release, connected to the mutex unlock function block; and Get Resource, connected to the unboxing function block (Furukawa et al.; paragraphs [0005] [0060] [0064] [0065] [0077]-[0079] [0096] [0097] [0128]; See at least mutual exclusion control of resources including message triggered locking and releasing of resources).
Regarding claim 6, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 3 above are applicable to claim 6 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
Conclusion
[7] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited PATENT Literature:
Cooper et al., Industry-specific Workflows In A Manufacturing Execution System With Premier Integration, United States Patent No. 9953280, column(s) 5-7: Relevant Teachings: Cooper discloses a system/method that provides for integrated control of industrial workflows using device protocols and workcell specific controllers to directs workflow functions.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights