DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action in response to U.S. application 18/864,818. Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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: “management device” in claims 1-4 and 10 and “control device” in claims 1 and 5-10;
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. The “management device” will be interpreted as described in paragraph 57 as a computer and the “control device” will be interpreted as described in paragraph 40 as a computer.
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.
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.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because products that do not have a physical or tangible, such as a computer program/product per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations are not directed to any of the statutory categories per MPEP 2106.03. Since the specification also only describes what the storage medium “may” be and does not limit it, the claimed “storage medium” could also include transitory forms of signal transmission (“signals per se”), which are also non statutory. Examiner suggests amending claim 32 to read “A non-transitory program recording medium”
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orita (US 20080109114, IDS) in view of Saboo (US 20180300835).
Regarding claim 1, Orita teaches a production system ([0031]-[0032] discuss the robotic production system) comprising:
a plurality of automated work apparatuses that execute a task on at least one production apparatus ([0031] discusses a plurality of robots with [0010] giving an example of working in a factory where this is interpreted as including production apparatuses); and a management device that issues a task instruction to the automated work apparatuses and manages a task of the automated work apparatuses ([0158]-[0159] discuss the task schedule production unit which determines which robot performs which task),
the automated work apparatuses including a robot that executes a task on the production apparatus ([0031] discusses a plurality of robots with [0010] giving an example of working in a factory where this is interpreted as including production apparatuses); ([0030] discusses robot control system that controls the mobile robots with [0041] discussing the mobile robot having a battery that supplies power),
the management device being configured to monitor a remaining battery power level of each automated work apparatus ([0053]-[0055] discuss the control device generating data indicative of the status of the robots, where the status includes the remaining battery charge), compare a recognized remaining battery power level with a standard remaining power level required to complete an instructed task to check whether the instructed task can be completed ([0014] “a battery level determination unit which compares the remaining amount of charge in the battery of the robot with a threshold that is calculated in consideration given to one of an amount of battery expense required for the robot to complete a currently executing task”), and if an automated work apparatus with an insufficient remaining battery power level that is below the standard remaining power level and is determined to be unable to complete the instructed task exists, search for the automated work apparatus with a sufficient remaining battery power level that exceeds the standard remaining power level and is able to complete the instructed task, and if an automated work apparatus with a sufficient remaining power level exists, instruct a task content instructed to the automated work apparatus with an insufficient remaining power level to the automated work apparatus with a sufficient remaining power level to have the automated work apparatus with a sufficient remaining power level take over the instructed task ([0036] discusses the management device having a task schedule which specifies which robot is assigned to which task and the device rearranges the assigned tasks for the robots according to their battery power level with [0056] discussing the robot outputting status information when the battery level lowers below a predetermined threshold with [0126] discussing determining if the robot has sufficient battery by comparing the battery level with the amount of power required to complete the task as defined by a threshold and with [0228]-[0229] discussing reassigning the task to a robot through the task schedule adjustment unit where [0164] discusses the priority of task assignment to the robots being given to robots that have not determined the need for a battery charge).
While Orita teaches an autonomous bipedal robot as seen in Fig. 1, it does not explicitly teach an automated guided vehicle that has the robot mounted thereon and moves to a work position set to the production apparatus.
Saboo teaches an automated guided vehicle that has the robot mounted thereon and moves to a work position set to the production apparatus ([0034] discusses robotic truck loader/unloader 118 which as seen in Fig. 1A is a robot mounted on an autonomous vehicle and moves to a position to load or unload boxes from a delivery truck).
Orita teaches a bipedal robot working in a production system. Saboo teaches a robot mounted to an automated guided vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Orita with the robot of Saboo as it utilizes each respective teaching in a conventional obvious to try manner such that no undue experimentation is required and yielded nothing more than predictable results, the predictable results being a robotic device completing tasks.
Regarding claim 2, Orita teaches wherein if the automated work apparatus with a sufficient remaining power level does not exist, the management device is configured to instruct the automated work apparatus with an insufficient remaining power level to move to a charging station to have the automated work apparatus with an insufficient remaining power level move to the charging station ([0114]-[0115] discuss a robot with insufficient power for a task moving to the battery charging area with [0172] further discussing controlling the robot with an insufficient battery level to move to the charging station).
Regarding claim 3, Orita teaches wherein if the automated work apparatus with a sufficient remaining power level exists, the management device is configured to have the automated work apparatus with a sufficient remaining power level take over a task and instruct the automated work apparatus with an insufficient remaining power level to move to a charging station to have the automated work apparatus with an insufficient remaining power level move to the charging station ([0056] discusses the robot outputting status information when the battery level lowers below a predetermined threshold with [0126] discussing determining if the robot has sufficient battery by comparing the battery level with the amount of power required to complete the task as defined by a threshold and with [0228]-[0229] discussing reassigning the task to a robot through the task schedule adjustment unit where [0164] discusses the priority of task assignment to the robots being given to robots that have not determined the need for a battery charge with [0172] further discussing controlling the robot with an insufficient battery level to move to the charging station).
Regarding claim 5, Orita teaches a production system ([0031]-[0032] discuss the robotic production system) comprising: a plurality of automated work apparatuses that execute a task on at least one production apparatus ([0031] discusses a plurality of robots with [0010] giving an example of working in a factory where this is interpreted as including production apparatuses),
the automated work apparatuses including a robot that executes a task on the production apparatus ([0031] discusses a plurality of robots with [0010] giving an example of working in a factory where this is interpreted as including production apparatuses); ([0030] discusses robot control system that controls the mobile robots with [0041] discussing the mobile robot having a battery that supplies power),
a control device of each of the automated work apparatuses being configured to monitor its own remaining battery power level ([0053]-[0055] discuss the control device generating data indicative of the status of the robots, where the status includes the remaining battery charge), compare a recognized remaining battery power level with a standard remaining power level required to complete a scheduled task to check whether the scheduled task can be completed ([0014] “a battery level determination unit which compares the remaining amount of charge in the battery of the robot with a threshold that is calculated in consideration given to one of an amount of battery expense required for the robot to complete a currently executing task”), and if the remaining battery power level is below the standard remaining power level and is determined to be unable to complete the scheduled task, search for another automated work apparatus with a remaining battery power level that exceeds the standard remaining power level and is able to complete the task by mutual communication, and if another automated work apparatus with a remaining battery power level that is able to complete the task, have the other automated work apparatus take over its own task ([0036] discusses the management device having a task schedule which specifies which robot is assigned to which task and the device rearranges the assigned tasks for the robots according to their battery power level with [0056] discussing the robot outputting status information when the battery level lowers below a predetermined threshold with [0126] discussing determining if the robot has sufficient battery by comparing the battery level with the amount of power required to complete the task as defined by a threshold and with [0228]-[0229] discussing reassigning the task to a robot through the task schedule adjustment unit where [0164] discusses the priority of task assignment to the robots being given to robots that have not determined the need for a battery charge).
While Orita teaches an autonomous bipedal robot as seen in Fig. 1, it does not explicitly teach an automated guided vehicle that has the robot mounted thereon and moves to a work position set to the production apparatus.
Saboo teaches an automated guided vehicle that has the robot mounted thereon and moves to a work position set to the production apparatus ([0034] discusses robotic truck loader/unloader 118 which as seen in Fig. 1A is a robot mounted on an autonomous vehicle and moves to a position to load or unload boxes from a delivery truck).
Orita teaches a bipedal robot working in a production system. Saboo teaches a robot mounted to an automated guided vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Orita with the robot of Saboo as it utilizes each respective teaching in a conventional obvious to try manner such that no undue experimentation is required and yielded nothing more than predictable results, the predictable results being a robotic device completing tasks.
Regarding claim 6, Orita teaches wherein if the other automated work apparatus does not exist, the control device of each automated work apparatus is configured to move to a charging station to charge the battery ([0114]-[0115] discuss a robot with insufficient power for a task moving to the battery charging area with [0172] further discussing controlling the robot with an insufficient battery level to move to the charging station).
Regarding claim 7, Orita teaches wherein if the other automated work apparatus exists, the control device of each automated work apparatus is configured to take over its own task to the other automated work apparatus and move to a charging station to charge the battery ([0056] discusses the robot outputting status information when the battery level lowers below a predetermined threshold with [0126] discussing determining if the robot has sufficient battery by comparing the battery level with the amount of power required to complete the task as defined by a threshold and with [0228]-[0229] discussing reassigning the task to a robot through the task schedule adjustment unit where [0164] discusses the priority of task assignment to the robots being given to robots that have not determined the need for a battery charge with [0172] further discussing controlling the robot with an insufficient battery level to move to the charging station).
Regarding claim 9, Orita teaches a production system management method for managing a task of an automated work apparatus by issuing a task instruction to the automated work apparatus in a production system provided that includes a plurality of automated work apparatuses executing a task on at least one production apparatus ([0031] discusses a plurality of robots with [0010] giving an example of working in a factory where this is interpreted as including production apparatuses and with [0158]-[0159] discussing the task schedule production unit which determines which robot performs which task), the automated work apparatuses including a robot that executes a task on the production apparatus ([0031] discusses a plurality of robots with [0010] giving an example of working in a factory where this is interpreted as including production apparatuses),electric power ([0030] discusses robot control system that controls the mobile robots with [0041] discussing the mobile robot having a battery that supplies power), the method comprising:
monitoring a remaining battery power level of each automated work apparatus ([0053]-[0055] discuss the control device generating data indicative of the status of the robots, where the status includes the remaining battery charge);
comparing a recognized remaining battery power level with a standard remaining power level required to complete an instructed task to check whether the instructed task can be completed ([0014] “a battery level determination unit which compares the remaining amount of charge in the battery of the robot with a threshold that is calculated in consideration given to one of an amount of battery expense required for the robot to complete a currently executing task”);
if an automated work apparatus with an insufficient remaining battery power level that is below the standard remaining power level and is determined to be unable to complete the instructed task, searching for an automated work apparatus with a sufficient remaining battery power level that exceeds the standard remaining power level and is able to complete the instructed task ([0036] discusses the management device having a task schedule which specifies which robot is assigned to which task and the device rearranges the assigned tasks for the robots according to their battery power level with [0056] discussing the robot outputting status information when the battery level lowers below a predetermined threshold with [0126] discussing determining if the robot has sufficient battery by comparing the battery level with the amount of power required to complete the task as defined by a threshold); and
if an automated work apparatus with a sufficient remaining power level exists, instructing a task content instructed to an automated work apparatus with an insufficient remaining power level to an automated work apparatus with a sufficient remaining power level to have the automated work apparatus with an insufficient remaining power level take over the instructed task ([0228]-[0229] discuss reassigning the task to a robot through the task schedule adjustment unit where [0164] discusses the priority of task assignment to the robots being given to robots that have not determined the need for a battery charge).
While Orita teaches an autonomous bipedal robot as seen in Fig. 1, it does not explicitly teach an automated guided vehicle that has the robot mounted thereon and moves to a work position set to the production apparatus.
Saboo teaches an automated guided vehicle that has the robot mounted thereon and moves to a work position set to the production apparatus ([0034] discusses robotic truck loader/unloader 118 which as seen in Fig. 1A is a robot mounted on an autonomous vehicle and moves to a position to load or unload boxes from a delivery truck).
Orita teaches a bipedal robot working in a production system. Saboo teaches a robot mounted to an automated guided vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Orita with the robot of Saboo as it utilizes each respective teaching in a conventional obvious to try manner such that no undue experimentation is required and yielded nothing more than predictable results, the predictable results being a robotic device completing tasks.
Regarding claim 10, Orita teaches a program recording medium having a management device program used for a production system management device recorded thereon, the production system including: a plurality of automated work apparatuses that execute a task on at least one production apparatus ([0031] discusses a plurality of robots with [0010] giving an example of working in a factory where this is interpreted as including production apparatuses); and a management device that issues a task instruction to the automated work apparatuses and manages a task of the automated work apparatuses ([0158]-[0159] discuss the task schedule production unit which determines which robot performs which task), the automated work apparatuses including a robot that executes a task on the production apparatus ([0031] discusses a plurality of robots with [0010] giving an example of working in a factory where this is interpreted as including production apparatuses); ([0030] discusses robot control system that controls the mobile robots with [0041] discussing the mobile robot having a battery that supplies power),
the management device program being configured to execute:
a process of monitoring a remaining battery power level of each automated work apparatus ([0053]-[0055] discuss the control device generating data indicative of the status of the robots, where the status includes the remaining battery charge);
a process of comparing a recognized remaining battery power level with a standard remaining power level required to complete an instructed task to check whether the instructed task can be completed ([0014] “a battery level determination unit which compares the remaining amount of charge in the battery of the robot with a threshold that is calculated in consideration given to one of an amount of battery expense required for the robot to complete a currently executing task”);
if an automated work apparatus with an insufficient remaining battery power level that is below the standard remaining power level and is determined to be unable to complete the instructed task, a process of searching for an automated work apparatus with a sufficient remaining battery power level that exceeds the standard remaining power level and is able to complete the instructed task ([0036] discusses the management device having a task schedule which specifies which robot is assigned to which task and the device rearranges the assigned tasks for the robots according to their battery power level with [0056] discussing the robot outputting status information when the battery level lowers below a predetermined threshold with [0126] discussing determining if the robot has sufficient battery by comparing the battery level with the amount of power required to complete the task as defined by a threshold); and
if an automated work apparatus with a sufficient remaining power level exists, a process of instructing an automated work apparatus with a sufficient remaining power level to take over a task content instructed to an automated work apparatus with an insufficient remaining power level to have the automated work apparatus with a sufficient remaining battery take over the instructed task ([0228]-[0229] discuss reassigning the task to a robot through the task schedule adjustment unit where [0164] discusses the priority of task assignment to the robots being given to robots that have not determined the need for a battery charge).
While Orita teaches an autonomous bipedal robot as seen in Fig. 1, it does not explicitly teach an automated guided vehicle that has the robot mounted thereon and moves to a work position set to the production apparatus.
Saboo teaches an automated guided vehicle that has the robot mounted thereon and moves to a work position set to the production apparatus ([0034] discusses robotic truck loader/unloader 118 which as seen in Fig. 1A is a robot mounted on an autonomous vehicle and moves to a position to load or unload boxes from a delivery truck).
Orita teaches a bipedal robot working in a production system. Saboo teaches a robot mounted to an automated guided vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Orita with the robot of Saboo as it utilizes each respective teaching in a conventional obvious to try manner such that no undue experimentation is required and yielded nothing more than predictable results, the predictable results being a robotic device completing tasks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Henrichs (US 20200139845) teaches redirecting an autonomous vehicle to a charging station when it does not have enough battery to complete a task; Ebrahimi Afrouzi (US 11352071) teaches signaling to a second robot when a first robot’s power falls below a threshold when performing a task; and Theobald (US 10549915) teaches a first robot handing over a load and a delivery schedule to a second robot when its power falls below a threshold when performing a task.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M JACKSON whose telephone number is (303) 297-4364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:30 MT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/D.M.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657