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 patent application filed 30 August 2024 and the Preliminary Amendment filed 30 August 2024. It is noted that this application is a National Stage Entry of PCT/CN2022/078725 having an international filing date of 2 March 2022. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) filed 30 August 2024 and 8 December 2025 have been entered and considered. As per the Preliminary Amendment: claims 1-8, 10, and 11 have been amended; claims 9, 12, and 13 are cancelled; claims 1-8, 10, and 11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
[3] 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.
The following analysis is based on 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). Claim(s) 1-8, 10, and 11 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 10, and 11 are directed to a method and systems and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 10, and 11 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of constructing and analyzing a behavioral tree including organizing functional blocks to obtain a workflow, which is reasonably considered to be an inventive concept directed to ineligible processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing.
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 1 recites:
“…constructing a behavior tree comprising: a plurality of function block nodes, and connection relationships between the function block nodes; 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 of a same type; analyzing the behavior tree to obtain a workflow representing service operations to be performed by resources comprising the dynamic resource in one 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…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited resources and/or technical elements engaged in the controlling of resources, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be relied upon to arrange behaviors of respective resources into a tree and analyze the tree to determine a workflow or sequence of actions to be performed by designated resources to perform a desired function employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Claims 1, 10, and 11 recite technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claim 1 does not include any technical elements. Claims 10 and 11 are directed to systems and introduce a “processor” and processor-executable “instructions”. Clam 11 further introduces a “microservice generator”. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “processor” and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “microservice” is identified as generating at least one microservice to trigger a runtime of a workcell to execute the workflow.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., a tree is constructed and analyzed, resources are arranged in sequence to perform desired operations, the workflow is deployed to resources to perform the desired function/process etc.) as associated with a respective “resource/workcell” or “processor/instructions”. A recitation of “by a processor” or “by a workcell”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., workflow to resources and messages to acquire or reserve resources for the desired process, microservice triggers runtime); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., resource information); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., analyzing a behavior tree to construct workflow and determining actions to be performed by specified resources) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of constructing and analyzing a behavioral tree including organizing functional blocks to obtain a workflow using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed constructing and analyzing a behavioral tree including organizing functional blocks to obtain a workflow benefit from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0262]-[0271. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “processor” and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “microservice” is identified as generating at least one microservice to trigger a runtime of a workcell to execute the workflow.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., workflow to resources and messages to acquire or reserve resources for the desired process); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., resource information); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., analyzing a behavior tree to construct workflow and determining actions to be performed by specified resources).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of constructing and analyzing a behavioral tree including organizing functional blocks to obtain a workflow. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., constructing and analyzing a behavioral tree including organizing functional blocks to obtain a workflow, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of constructing and analyzing a behavioral tree including organizing functional blocks to obtain a workflow benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 10 and 11, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
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.
[4] 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’)
With respect to 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).
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]).
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 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 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 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.
[5] 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. 2022/024/0244708 hereinafter ‘Gemignani’) in view of Dambman et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0266445 hereinafter ‘Dambman’), 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
[6] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited NON-PATENT Literature:
Iannacci et al., Robotic cell work-flow management through an IEC 61499-ROS architecture, 2016-09-01, 2016 IEEE 21st International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA) (2016, Page(s): 1-7): Relevant Teachings: Iannacci discloses a system/method that provides an inventive process and system for generating robotic collaborative workflows in industrial/manufacturing processes. The publication establishes at least the use of tree structures to model automated workflows implemented through work cells comprising robotic cells is common practice in the art.
Cited PATENT Literature:
Ryu et al., ROBOT AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THEREOF, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0234221, paragraphs [0058]-[0068]: Relevant Teachings: Ryu discloses a system/method that provides for generating and executing control workflows for robots using action flows derived from behavior trees.
Saunders et al., CAUSING A ROBOT TO EXECUTE A MISSION USING A BEHAVIOR TREE AND A LEAF NODE LIBRARY, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0035339, paragraphs [0040]-[0045]: Relevant Teachings: Saunders discloses a system/method that provides generation of behavior trees and derivative command structures for executing coordinated actions by autonomous machines operating in a workflow/mission.
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