DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant amendment/remarks filed 07/07/2026. Claims 1-2, 7, and 9-10 have been amended. Claim 3 have been cancelled and claims 12-22 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-2 and 4-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the claim objections of claims 2-3 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 2-3 and 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-14 filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant discloses that the cited references fail to disclose, teach, or suggest local device-robot communication links without involving the communication network, through which commands are sent to the robot and that the LAN 600 (in the primary refence Fukuta) is the communication network through which all devices in the cluster communicate. The examiner respectfully disagrees, since the examiner maps internet 700 as the communication network. The device-robot links (Wi-Fi (AP) and Wi-Fi (CL)) does not traverse internet 700 (i.e. without involving the communication network). Therefore, the rejection remains.
The applicant discloses that the cited references fail to disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed latency relationship since the secondary reference Guim Bernat only discloses general observations about network layer characteristics in an edge computing testing environment. The examiner respectfully disagrees, since Guim Bernat expressly quantifies latency by location and is a specific teaching that communication with local devices have lower latency than communication with a cloud server. The primary reference Fukuta discloses “the (primary) robot application management device 100 can build a local area network for the robot system as an environment separated from the other networks, so that the computer resource can be optimally distributed. For example, virtual containers for services that are required to quickly respond or require communication security can be placed in the local area network” (Para. 0060). The primary reference already discloses that a local area network is required for quick responses but does not specifically recite that the quicker response from a local network is due to latency, which is why Guim Bernat is used as a secondary reference to disclose that local networks have lower latency. Therefore, the rejection remains.
The applicant discloses that the combination of all four references still fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed architecture, and that the office action does not provide sufficient rationale for combining four references from different technical fields. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Fox is geared towards robotics and communications, Brown is geared towards devices installing/downloading software, and Guim Bernat discloses in Para. 0143 that this process can be deployed in a robot. The secondary prior arts on record are reasonably pertinent to the problem of the applicant’s local-link and latency limitations. Additionally, the applicant discloses that claim 1 recites a specific lifecycle in which local devices in the robot’s environment download and install software applications. The applicant respectfully disagrees, since that lifecycle is not claimed and installing/downloading software is common in the art. Therefore, the rejection remains.
The applicant discloses that Bozak fails to teach the features of claim 9, since it does not involve a remote server causing devices to uninstall software applications that were specifically involved to support a robot procedure. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Bozak discloses in Para. 0034, “process 250 installs an application (e.g., IPC server 122) on a computer device (e.g., 14) in the grid computing environment 100 to set up an available resource for the application, using the available resource, and removing or deinstalling the application to free up the resource for use by subsequent applications when the resource is no longer needed.” The secondary prior art is only used to disclose that an application can be uninstalled after use. The robot procedure is not required for this secondary reference, since this art is only used for uninstalling an application after being used. Therefore, the rejection remains.
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 1-2, 10-12, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuta et al. US20210034479A1 (henceforth Fukuta) in view of Guim Bernat et al. US20210011823A1 (henceforth Guim Bernat), Brown et al. US20010032278A1 (henceforth Brown), and Fox et al. US20200233436A1 (henceforth Fox)
Regarding claim 1,
Fukuta discloses:
A method for controlling the operation of a robot in an environment, the robot being configured to exchange data with a remote server (Fig. 3, “Cloud Computer 800 and 900”) by establishing a robot-remote server communication through a communication network, (See at least Fig. 3, internet 700) the method comprising:
requiring the robot to perform a task in the environment; (See at least Para. 0010, “robot application management device that executes a robot application by executing a plurality of kinds of virtual containers in cooperation with each other”. Further see Para. 0032. The robot application management devices requires the robot to perform a task in the environment by executing a robot application.)
generating a robot procedure adapted to be performed by the robot for executing the task, (See at least Para. 0127 and 0146), a robot procedure adapted to be performed by the robot for executing the task, the robot procedure comprising a corresponding set of procedures each corresponding to one or more software applications comprising instructions for controlling the robot to perform the corresponding procedure. (See at least Para. 0032, 0034-0035 and Para. 0042-0043, wherein a robot procedure (adapted to be performed by the robot for executing the task) comprises a corresponding set of procedures each corresponding to one or more software applications comprising instructions for controlling the robot to perform the corresponding procedure.)
selecting a set of at least one device, each device of the set having a processing unit configured to execute at least one of the software applications, each device of the set being located in the environment; (See at least Fig. 3, wherein the robotic devices and the robot application management devices are located in the environment. Further see Para. 0011, “a robot application management device that executes a robot application by executing a plurality of kinds of virtual containers in cooperation with each other; and at least one robot device and at least one computer device that are connected to the robot application management device via a local area network, wherein the system further includes: means for managing the group of devices in the system as a cluster for executing the robot application; and means for placing and activating each of the plurality of kinds of virtual containers in any of the group of devices composing the cluster”. At least one device is selected to execute the software application.)
wherein: each device of the set exchanges data with the robot by establishing a corresponding local device-robot communication link without involving the communication network, (See at least Fig. 3, and Para. 0054, “the robot application management device may further include means for assisting a network connection to enable the virtual containers in the devices composing the cluster to communicate with each other via the local network, and the robot application management device may be provided with at least a part of the means as a result of one of the plurality of kinds of virtual containers being placed and activated in the robot application management device.” Each device of the set located in the environment (i.e. the primary and secondary robot application management devices 100, 200-1, and 200-2) is configured to exchange data by establishing a corresponding local device-robot communication link without involving the communication network. Additionally, see Para. 0090, “The (primary) robot application management device 100 can build a local area network for the robot system as an environment separated from the other networks, so that the computer resource can be optimally distributed. For example, virtual containers for services that are required to quickly respond or require communication security can be placed in the local area network.” A local network is established without involving the communication network)
having the processing unit of the at least a device of the set executing the instructions of the installed at least one software application. (See at least Fig. 3, Para. 0032 and 0042-0043, wherein each of the virtual container provides the robot application’s functions and placement/activation across the cluster devices is automated by the orchestration tool, which sends commands to each device to execute its assigned virtual container.)
Fukuta does not specifically state a transmission latency of each local device-robot communication link is lower than a transmission latency of the robot-remote server communication between the robot and the remote server.
However, Guim Bernat teaches:
a transmission latency of each local device-robot communication link is lower than a transmission latency of the robot-remote server communication between the robot and the remote server.
(See at least Fig. 2 and Para. 0028, “Examples of latency, resulting from network communication distance and processing time constraints, may range from less than a millisecond (ms) when among the endpoint layer 200, under 5 ms at the edge devices layer 210, to even between 10 to 40 ms when communicating with nodes at the network access layer 220.” Fig. 2 demonstrates the latency resulting from network communication distance and processing time constraints. The transmission latency of each local device communication link is lower than a transmission latency of the robot and the remote server.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Guim Bernat to include “a transmission latency of each local device-robot communication link is lower than a transmission latency of the robot-remote server communication between the robot and the remote server” in order to “reduce application and network latency” and “improve service capabilities” (Para. 0001, Guim Bernat). This would further create a more robust system for devices that requires lower latency transmission. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Guim Bernat. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Fukuta further discloses causing each device of the set of devices to obtain the at least one of the software applications (Para. 0038, “each device can automatically obtain an executable program”) but does not specifically state causing each device of the set of devices to download and install at least one of the software applications.
However, Brown teaches:
causing each device of the set of devices to download and install at least one of the software applications. (See at least Para. 0016, “the present invention is designed to allow an end user of a particular programmable device to define a desired task, interact with a remote computer over a communications network to generate a command program, and then download the command program into the programmable device over the communications network” and Para. 0045, “Memory 58 stores the end user's unique identification code, script programs received from the server, and a script interpreter used by microcontroller 56 to execute the script programs.” Each device (i.e. devices 26 and 28 in Fig. 1) are caused to download and install at least one of the software applications.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Brown to include “causing each device of the set of devices to download and install at least one of the software applications” in order to “facilitate the generation and distribution of command programs for programmable devices” (Para. 0016, Brown). Additionally, “The script programs allow flexible and dynamic updating of the movement of messages delivered by the toys, as well as convenient tailoring of toy movement and/or the communicated messages to the needs of particular end users” (Para. 0035, Brown). This would create a more robust system for distributing command programs to devices. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Brown. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Fukuta does not specifically state controlling the robot to perform the robot procedure at least partially based on the commands sent by at least one device of the set.
However, Fox teaches:
the commands being generated by the at least one device and controlling the robot to perform the robot procedure at least partially based on the commands sent by at least one device of the set. (See at least Fig. 2, Para. 0015, “The cluster of nodes in the network is configured to process the at least one message by parallel computing; and also configured to generate a robot command to control the operation of the robot” and Para. 0066, “controlling an operation of a robot 102 using a cluster of nodes 104 in a network 106.”The cluster of nodes generates a command and a robot procedure such that the robot is controlled to perform the robot procedure at least partially based on the commands. Additionally, see Para. 0014, wherein the robot command is converted into a robot operation system message (i.e. a robot procedure is generated), which is transmitted to the robot to control operation of the robot. Additionally, see Para. 0072.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Fox to include “controlling the robot to perform the robot procedure at least partially based on the commands sent by at least one device of the set” since delivering computed collision free velocity commands to the robot enables it to navigate its environment safely (Para. 0059, Fox). This would create a more robust system for controlling robots in an environment. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Fox. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2,
Fukuta discloses:
wherein the robot comprises at least one of:
a mechanical arm or a gripper configured to allow interaction of the robot with the environment;
a track system, a wheel system, or a spinning rotors system configured to allow movement of the robot in the environment; (The robot devices of Fig. 3 have wheel systems configured to allow movement of the robot in the environment.)
and a camera, a proximity sensor, or a temperature sensor configured to collect data from the environment, (See at least Para. 0145, “an image inspection mobile robot including a plurality of cameras (the image inspection mobile robot is a robot that autonomously moves to anywhere to take a high-resolution image and performs analysis of the real world by image analysis”. The camera collects data from the environment.)
controlling operation of at least one of the mechanical arm, the gripper, the track system, the wheel system, the spinning rotor system, the camera, the proximity sensor, or the temperature sensor as to perform at least one corresponding procedure. (See at least Para. 0042-0043, wherein each of the virtual container provides part of the robot application’s functions and placement/activation across the cluster devices is automated by the orchestration tool, which sends commands to each device to execute its assigned virtual container, and Para. 0032, wherein the virtual container includes performing a task that requires the motor or the sensor (Para. 0064 for proximity sensor). Additionally, see Para. 0145 and Para. 0149 (camera).)
Fukuta does not specifically state the commands sent by at least one device of the set.
However, Fox teaches:
the commands sent by at least one device of the set. (See at least Fig. 2, Para. 0015, “The cluster of nodes in the network is configured to process the at least one message by parallel computing; and also configured to generate a robot command to control the operation of the robot” and Para. 0066, “controlling an operation of a robot 102 using a cluster of nodes 104 in a network 106.”The cluster of nodes generates a command and a robot procedure such that the robot is controlled to perform the robot procedure at least partially based on the commands. Additionally, see Para. 0014, wherein the robot command is converted into a robot operation system message (i.e. a robot procedure is generated), which is transmitted to the robot to control operation of the robot. Additionally, see Para. 0072.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Fox to include “the commands sent by at least one device of the set” since delivering computed collision free velocity commands to the robot enables it to navigate its environment safely (Para. 0059, Fox). This would create a more robust system for controlling robots in an environment. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Fox. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 10,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, and Fox discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 11,
Fukuta discloses:
the remote server is configured to select the set of at least one device; (See at least Para. 0011 and Para. 0030.)
Fukuta does not specifically state wherein: the remote server is configured to generate the robot procedure configured to be performed by the robot for executing a task in the environment. However, Fox teaches:
the remote server is configured to generate the robot procedure configured to be performed by the robot for executing a task in the environment
(See at least Para. 0072, where the remote server is configured to generate the robot procedure configured to be performed by the robot for executing a task in the environment).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Fox to include “the remote server is configured to generate the robot procedure configured to be performed by the robot for executing a task in the environment” in order to “to develop an improved cloud based robotic control system and method that can enhance the performance and efficiency at reduced operating costs” (Para. 0007, Fox). This would create a more robust cloud-based robotic control system for controlling robots in an environment. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Fox. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Fukuta does not specifically state the remote server is configured to cause each device of said set of devices to download and install at least one of said software applications.
However, Brown teaches:
the remote server is configured to cause each device of said set of devices to download and install at least one of said software application (See at least Para. 0016, wherein the remote server causes each device to download and install at least one software application.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Brown to include “the remote server is configured to cause each device of said set of devices to download and install at least one of said software applications” in order to “facilitate the generation and distribution of command programs for programmable devices” (Para. 0016, Brown). Additionally, “The script programs allow flexible and dynamic updating of the movement of or messages delivered by the toys, as well as convenient tailoring of toy movement and/or the communicated messages to the needs of particular end users” (Para. 0035, Brown). This would create a more robust system for distributing command programs to devices. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Brown. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, and Fox discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 18,
Fukuta discloses:
wherein the software applications comprise robot operating system (ROS) nodes, wherein each device of the set is configured to share a ROS environment of the robot, and ROS interfaces are shared between the robot and the devices of the set. (See at least Para. 0147 and 0153, wherein the software application comprises ROS nodes wherein each device of the set is configured to share an ROS environment of the robot. Additionally, see Para. 0136, wherein the containers are coupled through the ROS topic communication model.)
Fukuta does not specifically state wherein the ROS nodes are configured to control the operation of the robot for performing the procedures.
However, Fox teaches:
wherein the ROS nodes are configured to control the operation of the robot for performing the procedures (See at least Para. 0072, “convert the velocity command message into a ROS message which is then sent to the correct ROS topic so that the robot can be controlled”, wherein the ROS nodes are configured to control the operation of the robot for performing the procedures.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Fox to include “wherein the ROS nodes are configured to control the operation of the robot for performing the procedures” since delivering computed collision free velocity commands to the robot enables it to navigate its environment safely (Para. 0059, Fox). This would create a more robust system for controlling robots in an environment. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Fox. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 21,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, and Fox discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 18 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, and Fox further in view of Francis, Jr. et al. US8996429B1 (henceforth Francis, Jr).
Regarding claim 4,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, and Fox discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Fukuta further discloses:
Causing the robot to inspect the environment (See at least Para. 0145, “an image inspection mobile robot” that moves to take a high-resolution image and perform analysis of the real world.)
collect device hardware specifications of each one of the identified devices, wherein: the selecting a set of at least one device comprises selecting the set of at least one device among the identified device, wherein: the selecting a set of at least one device comprises selecting the set of at least one device among the identified devices. (See at least Para. 0036-0037, and Para. 0152-0153 wherein the device that is selected among the identified devices is based on restrictions of the devices, wherein the restriction includes hardware specifications. Additionally, see Para. 0031-0032).
Fukuta does not specifically state causing the robot to inspect the environment to identify devices in the environment; and causing the robot to collect device hardware specifications of each one of the identified devices.
However, Francis, Jr teaches:
causing the robot to inspect the environment to identify devices in the environment; and causing the robot to collect device hardware specifications of each one of the identified devices (See at least Fig. 5 (blocks 502-508) and Column 12, line 65 to Column 13, line 6, “As another example, in an instance in which the robot may communicate with the object, the robot may capture additional data of the object, such as by accessing memory of the object. For instance, if the object has communication capabilities (such as WiFi, Bluetooth, infrared or other wireless or wired methods), the robot may communicate with the object to determine any type of data. Additionally, the object may have serial/parallel ports through which the robot may communicate with the object.” Further see Column 13, lines 22-26, wherein an exact television model is determined from the robot’s captured image. The robot inspects the environment to identify devices in the environment, wherein the collecting includes device hardware specifications of the devices.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Francis, Jr to include “causing the robot to inspect the environment to identify devices in the environment; and causing the robot to collect device hardware specifications of each one of the identified devices” such that the “the robot may capture additional data of the object, such as by accessing memory of the object. For instance, if the object has communication capabilities (such as WiFi, Bluetooth, infrared or other wireless or wired methods), the robot may communicate with the object to determine any type of data” (See Column 12, line 65 to Column 13, line 6, Francis, Jr). This would create a more robust robotic system for collecting hardware specifications data from another object. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Francis, Jr. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 13,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, Fox, and Francis Jr discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 5 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, Fox, and Francis, Jr. further in view of Kattepur et al. US20190049975A1 (henceforth Kattepur).
Regarding claim 5,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, Fox, and Francis, Jr discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 4 as recited above. Fukuta further discloses:
select the set of at least one device among the identified devices based on the collected device hardware specifications
(See at least Para. 0036-0037, and Para. 0152-0153 wherein the device that is selected among the identified devices is based on restrictions of the devices, wherein the restriction includes hardware specifications. Additionally, see Para. 0031-0032).)
Fukuta does not specifically state wherein the selecting a set of at least one device comprises having the remote server select the set of at least one device among the identified devices based on the collected device hardware specifications.
However, Kattepur teaches:
wherein the selecting a set of at least one device comprises having the remote server select the set of at least one device among the identified devices based on the collected device hardware specifications. (See at least Para. 0050, “the system 300 causes the coordinating agent to receive a global task associated with the warehouse and information associated with the plurality of robotic agents available for the global task. The information associated with the plurality of robotic agents may include a count and status of the plurality of robotic agents. The status of the robotic agents may include information such as location, capacity, energy levels, and so on associated with the robotic agents.” Further see Para. 0043, wherein system 300 is an example of system 202, and wherein the remote server selects a robotic agent for performing at task (see Para. 0040). Therefore, selecting a set of at least one device comprises having the remote server select the device among the identified devices based on the collected device hardware specifications (i.e. robot capacity and/or robot energy levels).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Kattepur to include “wherein the selecting a set of at least one device comprises having the remote server select the set of at least one device among the identified devices based on the collected device hardware specifications” in order to “facilitate optimal allocation of warehouse procurement tasks to distributed robotic agents by utilizing optimization techniques such as primal optimization and dual optimization that may consider constraints such as utilization of robotic agent, procurement latency, energy depletion rates and fault tolerance capabilities” (Para. 0042, Kattepur). This would create a more robust system for selecting a device based on the device’s specifications, which would increase the efficiency of the task. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Kattepur. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, Fox, Francis Jr, and Kattepur discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 5 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 6-8, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, Fox, and Francis, Jr further in view of Kuffner et al. US20160023351A1 (henceforth Kuffner).
Regarding claim 6,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, Fox, and Francis, Jr discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 4 as recited above. Fukuta does not specifically state further comprising: causing the robot to send to the remote server a robot procedure request for the generation of the robot procedure, the robot procedure request further comprising request parameters comprising at least one among: the collected device hardware specifications, a task description describing the task to be executed by the robot in the environment, and-hardware specifications of the robot, causing the remote server to generate the robot procedure based on the request parameters.
However, Kuffner teaches:
further comprising: causing the robot to send to the remote server a robot procedure request for the generation of the robot procedure, (See at least Para. 0055, “ the robots described and illustrated in FIGS. 2A-2C, may connect to a network of computers (e.g., the cloud), and may request data or processing to be performed by the cloud”. The robot sends to the remote server a robot procedure request for the generation of the robot procedure)
the robot procedure request further comprising request parameters comprising at least one among:
the collected device hardware specifications, (See at least Fig. 2B-2C and Para. 0050-0055, wherein the robot procedure request comprises the collected device hardware specifications (i.e. sensors, camera feeds, vision sensors), such that the cloud can process this data to enable the robot to perform dedicated functions.)
a task description describing the task to be executed by the robot in the environment (See at least Para. 0009.)
and-hardware specifications of the robot, (See at least Fig. 2B-2C and Para. 0050-0055, wherein the robot procedure request comprises the collected device hardware specifications (i.e. sensors, camera feeds, vision sensors), such that the cloud can process this data to enable the robot to perform dedicated functions.)
causing the remote server to generate the robot procedure based on the request parameters. (See at least Para. 0055, “Outputs of the sensors, such as camera feeds, vision sensors, etc., may be provided to the cloud, which can process the outputs to enable the robot to perform functions. The cloud may process a camera feed, for example, to determine a location of a robot, perform object recognition, or to indicate a navigation pathway for the robot.” The remote server (i.e. the cloud) generates the robot procedure (i.e. a navigation path for the robot) based on the request parameters.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Kuffner to include the limitations as recited above since “the cloud-based service may interact with a robotic system via a communication network to receive information from the robotic system as well as to send information to the robotic system. Such a configuration may reduce (or eliminate) the need for additional on-board memory and processing power on the robotic system in order to carry out certain tasks by the robotic system. Additionally, the cloud-based service may allow for data sharing among multiple robotic systems. Further, the cloud-based service may be continuously updated as robotic systems obtain information from the environment.” (Para. 0007, Kuffner). This would create a more robust robotic system, by eliminating/reducing the need for additional on-board memory on the robotic system by offloading the processing to a remote server. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Kuffner. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 7,
Fukuta further discloses:
causing the robot to collect data from the environment; (See at least Para. 0145, “an image inspection mobile robot” that moves to take a high-resolution image and perform analysis of the real world.)
Fukuta does not specifically state causing the robot to send the collected data to the remote server; causing the remote server to generate the task description based on the received collected data; and causing the remote server to send said the generated task description to the robot.
However, Kuffner teaches:
causing the robot to collect data from the environment; causing the robot to send the collected data to the remote server; (See at least Para. 0026, “the robot may operate with situational awareness such that a robot may inventory objects in a scene, and if given a command by a user, the robot can determine the content or interpret the meaning of the command based on a situation of the scene or by comparing with objects in the scene. For example, the robot may receive a command to retrieve a soda from the refrigerator. The robot may send the command to the server as an input. Optionally, the robot may send the command to the server, which may recognize the refrigerator and the soda. In embodiments, the robot and/or server may use contextual as well as situational data to recognize the object.” The robot collects data from the environment such as a command from a user, wherein the robot sends this collected data to the remote server.)
causing the remote server to generate the task description based on the received collected data; and causing the remote server to send said generated task description to the robot. (Further see Para. 0026, “Moreover, once the object is recognized, the server may determine an interaction associated with the command and identify one or more computer executable instructions that the robot may execute to perform the interaction”. Based on the collected data received, the remote server generates the task and sends the task to the robot to perform the interaction.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Kuffner to include the limitations as recited above since “the cloud-based service may interact with a robotic system via a communication network to receive information from the robotic system as well as to send information to the robotic system. Such a configuration may reduce (or eliminate) the need for additional on-board memory and processing power on the robotic system in order to carry out certain tasks by the robotic system. Additionally, the cloud-based service may allow for data sharing among multiple robotic systems. Further, the cloud-based service may be continuously updated as robotic systems obtain information from the environment.” (Para. 0007, Kuffner). This would create a more robust robotic system, by eliminating/reducing the need for additional on-board memory on the robotic system by offloading the processing to a remote server. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Kuffner. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 8,
Fukuta does not specifically state causing a user of the remote server to generate the task description and causing the remote server to send the generated task description to the robot. However, Brown teaches:
causing a user of the remote server to generate the task description and causing the remote server to send the generated task description to the robot
(See at least Para. 0016, “the present invention is designed to allow an end user of a particular programmable device to define a desired task, interact with a remote computer over a communications network to generate a command program, and then download the command program into the programmable device over the communications network”. Further see Para. 0053, “Script generator 38 is designed to generate script programs 32 from script information entered through workstation 20. The script programs 32 are a specific type of command program such as those typically executed by programmable devices. The script programs 32 contain the information necessary for the microcontroller 56 to cause the toy 26 to perform a desired task”. A user of the remote server generates the task description and causes the remote server to send the generated task description of the robot.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Brown to include “causing a user of the remote server to generate the task description and causing the remote server to send the generated task description to the robot” in order to “facilitate the generation and distribution of command programs for programmable devices” (Para. 0016, Brown). Additionally, “The script programs allow flexible and dynamic updating of the movement of or messages delivered by the toys, as well as convenient tailoring of toy movement and/or the communicated messages to the needs of particular end users” (Para. 0035, Brown). This would create a more robust system for distributing command programs to devices. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Brown. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 15,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, Fox, Francis, Jr and Kuffner discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 6 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 16,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, Fox, Francis, Jr and Kuffner discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 7 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 17,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, Fox, Francis, Jr and Kuffner discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 8 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, and Fox further in view of Bozak et al. US20050027843A1 (henceforth Bozak).
Regarding claim 9,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, and Fox discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Fukuta does not specifically state further comprising the remote server, once said procedure has been performed, cause each device of the set of devices to uninstall the at least one of said software applications that was installed in the device itself. However, Bozak teaches:
the remote server, once said procedure has been performed, cause each device of the set of devices to uninstall the at least one of said software applications that was installed in the device itself. (See at least Para. 0034, “process 250 installs an application (e.g., IPC server 122) on a computer device (e.g., 14) in the grid computing environment 100 to set up an available resource for the application, using the available resource, and removing or deinstalling the application to free up the resource for use by subsequent applications when the resource is no longer needed. Process 250 includes IPC manager 118 transferring (252) an application file containing code for IPC server 122 in addition to instructions on how to install, customize, track and remove the application from computer device 14 so that the grid manager 154 can return computer device 14 to an original state after executing the application.“ A remote server can cause each of the devices to uninstall the software application after the procedure has been performed.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Bozak to include “comprising the remote server, once said procedure has been performed, cause each device of the set of devices to uninstall the at least one of said software applications that was installed in the device itself” in order to “to free up the resource for use by subsequent applications when the resource is no longer needed” (Para. 0034, Bozak). This would create a more robust system for distributing software such that the software can also be removed when not needed. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Bozak. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, and Fox further in view of Tellex et al. US20180307779A1 (henceforth Tellex).
Regarding claim 19,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, and Fox discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Fukuta does not specifically state wherein generating the robot procedure comprises processing a task description describing the task using an artificial intelligence algorithm to translate the task description into the set of procedures.
However, Tellex teaches:
wherein generating the robot procedure comprises processing a task description describing the task using an artificial intelligence algorithm to translate the task description into the set of procedures. (See at least Para. 0016, “the present invention provides an approach for mapping natural language commands of varying complexities to reward functions at different levels of abstraction within a hierarchical planning framework. The approach enables a system to quickly and accurately interpret both abstract and fine-grained commands. The system uses a deep neural network language model that learns how to map natural language commands to the appropriate level of the planning hierarchy. By coupling abstraction level inference with the overall grounding problem, the present invention fully exploits the subsequent hierarchical planner to efficiently execute the grounded tasks.” AI is used to translate the task description into the set of procedures.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Tellex to include “wherein generating the robot procedure comprises processing a task description describing the task using an artificial intelligence algorithm to translate the task description into the set of procedures” since “existing approaches generally map between natural language commands and a formal representation at some fixed level of abstraction. While effective at directing robots to complete predefined tasks, mapping to fixed sequences of robot actions is unreliable when faced with a changing or stochastic environment” (Para. 0005, Tellex). This would create a more robust system to direct robots to complete tasks when faced with a changing environment. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Tellex. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 22,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, Fox, and Tellex discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 19 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, and Fox further in view of Torii et al. US20200282549A1 (henceforth Torii).
Regarding claim 20,
Fukuta, Guim Bernat, Brown, and Fox discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Fukuta does not specifically state receiving an input via a device of the set, wherein the input grants or denies utilization of the device to support the operation of the robot. However, Torii teaches:
receiving an input via a device of the set, wherein the input grants or denies utilization of the device to support the operation of the robot. (See at least Para. 0135-0136, wherein an input via a device of the set is receives that grants or denies utilization of the device to support the operation of the robot.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuta to incorporate the teachings of Torii to include “receiving an input via a device of the set, wherein the input grants or denies utilization of the device to support the operation of the robot” to “enable a robot to flexibly cooperate with another robot in order to execute an allocated task in an environment where the situation changes dynamically” (Para. 0007, Torii). This would create a more robust system to direct robots to complete tasks and cooperate when faced with a changing environment. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fukuta and Torii. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights