DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a robot control device (i.e. a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite abstract ideas (emphasized below in bold).
Claim 1 recites:
A robot control device that is couplable to at least one appliance based on Ethernet, the robot control device comprising:
a control unit; and
a plurality of Ethernet ports,
wherein the control unit includes:
a detecting unit configured to detect a state of a loss of a packet in at least one Ethernet port among the plurality of Ethernet ports; and
a transitioning unit configured to cause, when interrupt processing is executed with respect to a packet from at least one Ethernet port among the plurality of Ethernet ports, and a loss of the packet exceeds a threshold value that is set in advance, the interrupt processing to transition to polling processing.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of this limitation as a mathematical concept. For example, “a detecting unit configured to detect a state of a loss of a packet in at least one Ethernet port among the plurality of Ethernet ports” in the context of this claim encompasses metering the rate and calculating the rate or amount of data packets that are lost. Additionally, the limitation, “a transitioning unit configured to cause, when interrupt processing is executed with respect to a packet from at least one Ethernet port among the plurality of Ethernet ports, and a loss of the packet exceeds a threshold value that is set in advance, the interrupt processing to transition to polling processing” encompasses a calculation to determine when the packet loss exceeds a threshold then to implement a polling processing function. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one or more abstract idea(s).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A robot control device that is couplable to at least one appliance based on Ethernet, the robot control device comprising:
a control unit; and
a plurality of Ethernet ports,
wherein the control unit includes:
a detecting unit configured to detect a state of a loss of a packet in at least one Ethernet port among the plurality of Ethernet ports; and
a transitioning unit configured to cause, when interrupt processing is executed with respect to a packet from at least one Ethernet port among the plurality of Ethernet ports, and a loss of the packet exceeds a threshold value that is set in advance, the interrupt processing to transition to polling processing.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “a robot control device that is couplable to at least one appliance based on Ethernet, the robot control device comprising: a control unit” and “and a plurality of Ethernet ports, wherein the control unit includes:” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, all of these limitations are just further defining and adding elements to the mathematical concept.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong II which discusses that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed, above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “a robot control device that is couplable to at least one appliance based on Ethernet, the robot control device comprising: a control unit” and “and a plurality of Ethernet ports, wherein the control unit includes:” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a robot control device that is couplable to at least one appliance based on Ethernet, the robot control device comprising: a control unit” and “and a plurality of Ethernet ports, wherein the control unit includes:” are well-understood, routine and conventional activities.
Dependent claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well -understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 5,414,858) in view of Nielsen (US 2010/0189887 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hoffman teaches wherein the control unit includes: a detecting unit configured to detect a state of a loss of a packet in at least one Ethernet port among the plurality of Ethernet ports; and a transitioning unit configured to cause, when interrupt processing is executed with respect to a packet from at least one Ethernet port among the plurality of Ethernet ports, and a loss of the packet exceeds a threshold value that is set in advance, the interrupt processing to transition to polling processing. [(see at least Abstract, Col.2 lines 3-14) As in abstract “A system and method for managing service requests from peripherals connected to a personal computer or workstation by operating both in an interrupt mode and a polling mode, with selective transition therebetween. In one practice of the invention, peripheral device service requests are first managed on an interrupt basis, then transition to a polling mode when the interrupt rate exceeds a rate threshold, and subsequently revert back to the interrupt mode when the rate again decreases below a threshold.” As in Col.2 “an efficient system for managing service requests from multiple peripheral devices connected to a computer through the use of a means for operating the system in a first mode responsive to interrupt type service requests generated by one or more peripherals, a means for operating the system in a second mode involving a polling of one or more peripherals for service requests, and system means for transitioning between the first mode and the second mode responsive to the rate of the service requests. In another form, the invention relates to the methods practiced by the system so defined.”]
Hoffman does not explicitly teach a robot control device that is couplable to at least one appliance based on Ethernet, the robot control device comprising: a control unit; and a plurality of Ethernet ports.
However, Nielsen teaches a robot control device that is couplable to at least one appliance based on Ethernet, the robot control device comprising: a control unit; and a plurality of Ethernet ports [(see at least paragraph 145) “In one exemplary implementation, a Linux-based processing system for embedded handheld and/or wireless devices may be employed in the marking device 110 to implement various components of the control electronics 112. For example, the Fingertip4.TM. processing system, including a Marvell PXA270 processor and available from InHand Electronics, Inc. (www.inhandelectronics.com/products/fingertip4), may be used. In addition to the PXA270 processor (e.g., serving as the processor 118), the Fingertip4.TM. includes flash memory and SDRAM (e.g., serving as local memory 122), multiple serial ports, a USB port, and other I/O interfaces (e.g., to facilitate interfacing with one or more input devices and other components of the marking device), supports a variety of wired and wireless interfaces (WiFi, Bluetooth.RTM., GPS, Ethernet, any IEEE 802.11 interface, or any other suitable wireless interface) to facilitate implementation of the communication interface 124, and connects to a wide variety of LCD displays (to facilitate implementation of a user interface/display).”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Hoffman to incorporate the teachings of Nielsen of a robot control device that is couplable to at least one appliance based on Ethernet, the robot control device comprising: a control unit and a plurality of Ethernet ports in order to monitor and effectively process operation data in real-time and store data packets for electronic record. [(Nielsen 221)]
Regarding claim 2, In view of the above combination of references, Hoffman further teaches wherein the transitioning unit causes, when a loss of the packet, the loss being detected by the detecting unit, becomes equal to or less than the threshold value, the polling processing to transition to the interrupt processing. [(see at least Col.2 lines 23-34) “The rates of the service requests are tracked through comparisons which relate the number of interrupts to units of time. If the rate exceeds a threshold or limit adjustable by a user application program, the mode transitions from interrupt responsive to a polling of the peripheral devices for service needs. The polling mode continues until such time that the rate decreases below the threshold, reverting the system to the initial interrupt mode of operation. In this way, the management of peripheral device servicing is dynamically optimized to the needs of the application program and peripheral devices.”]
Regarding claim 3, In view of the above combination of references, Hoffman further teaches wherein the control unit executes the interrupt processing when packets are received in a predetermined amount from one of the Ethernet ports, the one of the Ethernet ports being coupled to the control unit. [(see at least Col.2 line 63-Col.3 line 20) “In this architecture, the peripheral devices communicate service requests through interrupt lines, which service requests are managed by operating-system 2. For example, the receipt of an interrupt signal initiates, through operating system code, workstation processor actions to determine the origin of the interrupt, to resolve interrupt concurrency conflicts, and to compare interrupt priorities either among concurrent interrupts or with reference to the application program, such as application program 1 executing on the workstation at the time of the interrupt. In most situations, the processor temporarily ceases executing the application code to process the interrupt code. Interference with ongoing applications is particularly detrimental when the interrupt priority is such that the operating system must invoke a second application, such as application 2 in workstation 1, to service a high priority peripheral device. Disruptions initiated by interrupt mode operation materially decreases both the average processing rate and service request response times of the workstation as the frequency of the service requests increases. With the advent of more peripheral devices, especially those operating at higher data rates, as is common for graphics animation or video information processing, an interrupt mode of operation has proven to be very inefficient.”]
Regarding claim 4, In view of the above combination of references, Hoffman further teaches wherein the polling processing is executed at a first cycle during a predetermined period of time, and, after the predetermined period of time has passed, executed at a second cycle that is shorter than the first cycle. [(see at least Col.3 lines 30-51) “The present invention defines a system and method for transitioning or switching between an interrupt mode and a polling mode for the servicing peripheral devices. In a preferred implementation, the system begins operation in the interrupt mode. A workstation timer is related to an interrupt counter to determine interrupt rates. When the rate during a selected interval of time increases above a set threshold or limit, the system transitions to a polling mode. In the context of the system of FIG. 1, the polling mode code is incorporated in application program 1. The selection of the peripheral device to be serviced is based upon an application program controlled polling of the interrupt lines. While in the polling mode, a similar timing and counting practice provides rate information suitable to determine when the service request rate decreases below the specified threshold. Thereupon, the system and method revert to the interrupt mode of operation. In this way, peripheral device servicing is dynamically switched between an interrupt mode and a polling mode depending on the rates of the service requests generated by the peripheral devices.”]
Regarding claim 5, In view of the above combination of references, Hoffman further teaches wherein the second cycle is shortened in a stepwise manner. [(see at least Col.3 line 30- Col.4 line 7) “FIG. 2 depicts along a time line an example of multiple service requests, designated by arrows, and the effects upon the modes defined by the present system and method. Operation begins in the interrupt mode and continues in that mode until such time that the rate of the service requests exceeds a threshold value. Thereupon, the polling mode is invoked and continues likewise until the rate drops below the defined threshold value. At that point, the interrupt mode is again initiated. FIG. 3 depicts by flow diagram the methods implemented in the system of FIG. 1 to initiate the interrupt mode and determine the need for transition to the polling mode, as defined by a combination of an interrupt count and elapsed time. FIG. 4 depicts a corresponding flow diagram for the polling mode, including the rate defined transition back to the interrupt mode of operation. The polling mode also utilizes the combination of service requests count and elapsed time to determine rate. Note that the transitions between modes as depicted with reference to the time line plot in FIG. 2 correspond to counter values of N=2 and M=3 as defined in the respective interrupt and polling mode flow diagrams of FIGS. 3 and 4.”]
Regarding claim 6, Modified Hoffman has all of the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hoffman does not explicitly teach wherein a loss of the packet includes a packet that could not be received from the appliance.
However, Nielsen teaches wherein a loss of the packet includes a packet that could not be received from the appliance. [(see at least paragraph 29) “The foregoing is particularly true if at some point during the locate operation the technician loses a signal from an underground facility in the process of being detected (e.g., due to a broken transmitter circuit path from a damaged tracer wire, and loss of the transmitter test signal). In view of the foregoing, it may be readily appreciated that collecting and logging geographic location information throughout this process may result in excessive and/or imprecise data, or in some instances incomplete relevant data (e.g., in the case of signal loss/broken tracer wire), from which it may be difficult to cull the data that is truly complete and representative of where the underground facility ultimately was detected”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Hoffman to further incorporate the teachings of Nielsen of wherein a loss of the packet includes a packet that could not be received from the appliance in order to limit collecting and logging geographic location information throughout this process may result in excessive and/or imprecise data, or in some instances incomplete relevant data.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Nielsen and in further view of Zhang (CN 11289822A).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Hoffman has all of the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hoffman does not explicitly teach wherein the appliance is a teach pendant.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the appliance is a teach pendant. [(see at least Summary of Invention- paragraph 3-Step 1) “Connect the L, N, GND ports of the switching power supply to the power port of the junction box, the I/O port of the tested teach pendant is connected to the I/O port of the junction box, and the pulse input port of the oscilloscope is also connected to the junction box. The I/O port is connected; the communication port of the junction box is connected with the Ethernet port of the host computer; the L1 port, N port, and PE port of the coupling decoupling network are connected to the L, N, and GND ports of the switching power supply respectively. The coupling and decoupling network is used to filter out clutter signals and couple the electrical fast transient pulse group pulse to the switching power supply. The switching power supply provides power for the tested teach pendant.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Hoffman to incorporate the teachings of Zhang of wherein the appliance is a teach pendant in order to implement a robot teach pendant testing system.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2022/0066456 A1) Ebrahimi Afrouzi - OBSTACLE RECOGNITION METHOD FOR AUTONOMOUS ROBOTS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA whose telephone number is (571)272-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 with flex.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656