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 . Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the 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. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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: “communication device” in claims 1-10.
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.
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.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “communication device” in claims 1-10 uses a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Communication device: [0051] - The communication device 130 may support communication between the robot control apparatus 100 and the first server 140, the second server 150, or the robot 160. For example, the communication device 130 may include one or more components for communicating between the robot control apparatus 100 and the first server 140, the second server 150, or the robot 160. For example, the communication device 130 may include a short-range wireless communication device, a microphone, or the like. In this case, short-range communication technologies include wireless LAN (Wi-Fi), Bluetooth, ZigBee, Wi-Fi Direct (WFD), ultra-wideband (UWB), infrared data association (IrDA), Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), and near field communication (NFC), and the like, but are not limited thereto.
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6, 9-10, 12-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Examiner note: The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The use of similar terms to define different limitations is unclear. For example, the use of the words first, second, first user’s setting, second user’s setting, target information, target setting, first setting information, second setting information, setting, first selection information, second selection information. It is generally unclear whether the various limitations defined as “first” correspond to the first configuration file, the first user, etc., and it is generally unclear whether the various limitations defined as “second” correspond to the second configuration file, the second user, etc. It is generally unclear if the first user’s setting, first setting information, setting, first selection information, etc., are referring to the same limitations or different ones. It is generally unclear if the second user’s setting, second setting information, setting, second selection information, etc., are referring to the same limitations or different ones.
Claim 2 recites “first setting information and second setting information… a parameter name associated with a setting or a value related to the setting…first selection information… second selection information… the setting” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 1 introduces similar terms (first information, second information, a first user’s setting, a second user’s setting). It is unclear if the first setting information is the different from or the same as the first information or the first user’s setting corresponding to the first information. It is unclear if the second setting information is different from or the same as the second information or the second user’s setting corresponding to the second information. Furthermore, since the first setting information and second setting information are determined based on the first configuration file or the second configuration file, it is unclear if the first setting information is tied only to the first configuration file and if the second setting information is tied only to the second configuration file. If not, the use of “first” to define the first configuration file corresponding to the first user’s setting and to additionally define the first setting information is misleading and unclear. Similarly, if not, the use of “second” to define the second configuration file corresponding to the second user’s setting and to additionally define the second setting information is misleading and unclear. The metes and bounds of the claim are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such as to determine, based on the first configuration file or the second configuration file, first setting information or second setting information comprising at least one of a parameter name associated with a setting or a value related to the setting; and determine first selection information of the first setting information or second selection information of the second setting information, wherein the first selection information or the second selection information comprises information about permission of the setting. Claim 12 is similarly rejected.
Claim 3 recites “apply, based on the first selection information being decided by the first user… apply, based on the second selection information being decided by the second user” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation. Claim 2 recites that the processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine first and second selection information. Does claim 3 now require that each of the first user and the second user select the first and second selection information, or does the first user select the information/setting associated with the first configuration file and the second user select the information/setting associated with the second configuration file? The metes and bounds of the claim are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such as to apply, based on the first selection information being decided by the first user, the first setting information to the target file, wherein the first setting information is included in the first configuration file; or apply, based on the second selection information being decided by the second user, the second setting information to the target file, wherein the second setting information is included in the second configuration file. Claim 13 is similarly rejected.
Claim 4 recites “apply, based on the first selection information being decided by the second user… apply, based on the second selection information being decided by the first user” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation. Claim 2 recites that the processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine first and second selection information. Does claim 4 now require that each of the first user and the second user select the first and second selection information, or does the first user select the information/setting associated with the first configuration file and the second user select the information/setting associated with the second configuration file? Specifically in claim 4, if the first selection information corresponds to the first configuration file of the first user, why would the second user made that decision? If the second selection information corresponds to the second configuration file of the second user, why would the first user made that decision? The metes and bounds of the claim are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such as to apply, based on the first selection information being decided by the first user, the first setting information to the target file, wherein the first setting information is included in the first configuration file; or apply, based on the second selection information being decided by the second user, the second setting information to the target file wherein the second setting information is included in the second configuration file. Claim 14 is similarly rejected.
Claim 5 recites “based on the first selection information of the first setting information being the same as the second selection information of the second setting information, apply at least one of the first setting information or the second setting information to the target file by comparing a first priority of the first setting information with a second priority of the second setting information, wherein the first selection information of the first setting information comprises information about permission, wherein the first setting information is decided by at least one of the first user or the second user, and wherein the second selection information of the second setting information comprises information about permission, where the second setting information is decided by at least one of the first user or the second user” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation. In addition to the clarity issues presented above, if the first setting information corresponds to the first configuration file of the first user, why would the second user made that decision? If the second setting information corresponds to the second configuration file of the second user, why would the first user made that decision? The metes and bounds of the claim are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that based on the first selection information of the first setting information being the same as the second selection information of the second setting information, apply at least one of the first setting information or the second setting information to the target file by comparing a first priority of the first setting information with a second priority of the second setting information, wherein the first selection information of the first setting information comprises information about permission, wherein the first setting information is decided by the first user, and wherein the second selection information of the second setting information comprises information about permission, where the second setting information is decided by the second user. Claim 15 is similarly rejected.
Claim 6 recites “determine, based on the second selection information being decided by the second user, the second setting information from the second configuration file; based on the second setting information not being determined from the second configuration file, transmit, to the second server, information for requesting a decision of the second user about the second setting information; and apply, based on receiving the second configuration file decided by the second user from the second server, the second setting information to the target file, wherein the second setting information is included in the second configuration file” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation. In addition to the clarity issues presented above, the limitation of determining the second setting information based on the second selection information and the limitation of based on the second setting information not being determined appear to be contradictory. The metes and bounds of the claim are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such as to determine, based on the second selection information being decided by the second user, the second setting information from the second configuration file; transmit, to the second server, information for requesting a decision of the second user about the second setting information; and apply, based on receiving the second configuration file decided by the second user from the second server, the second setting information to the target file, wherein the second setting information is included in the second configuration file. Claim 16 is similarly rejected.
Claim 9 recites “determine a third configuration file pre-stored before the first configuration file is stored in the at least one memory; determine the target information about the target setting of the robot from the third configuration file; and determine whether the target information is included in the first configuration file” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation. If the target information about the target setting in claim 1 is determined based on the first configuration file and the second configuration file, how it is now determined by the third configuration file? Is it determined only by the third configuration file, and if so it appears to be contradictory to claim 1. The metes and bounds of the claim are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such as to determine a third configuration file pre-stored before the first configuration file is stored in the at least one memory; determine the target information about the target setting of the robot from the third configuration file. Claim 19 is similarly rejected.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 9 and 19, respectively, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 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 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 117601130 A, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon) in view of Kim (KR 10-2012-0050347 A, cited in the IDS dated 10/10/2024, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses an apparatus for controlling a robot, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing at least one instruction (see at least [0130-0136] – a memory storing a computer program); a communication device configured to support communication with at least one server (see at least [0131] – communication unit 19); and at least one processor operatively coupled to the at least one memory, wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to cause the apparatus to (see at least [0131-0136] – processor 11 executing the computer program): store, based on determining that a first configuration file is received, the first configuration file, wherein the first configuration file comprises first information about a first user’s setting of the robot (see at least [0050-0054] – Obtain and parse the configuration files, the configuration files include a platform configuration file which is provided by the robot system building platform, a customized configuration file determined based on the robot model, and a private configuration file which can be imported by users and are mainly used for personalized configurations of each machine (i.e., any one of these reads on the first configuration file)); determine a second configuration file received, wherein the second configuration file comprises second information about a second user’s setting of the robot, and wherein the second user is different from the first user (see at least [0050-0054] – Obtain and parse the configuration files, the configuration files include a platform configuration file which is provided by the robot system building platform, a customized configuration file determined based on the robot model, and a private configuration file which can be imported by users and are mainly used for personalized configurations of each machine (i.e., any one of these reads on the second configuration file)); determine, based on the first configuration file and the second configuration file, a target file, wherein the target file comprises target information about a target setting associated with control of the robot (see at least [0050-0056] - Obtain and parse the configuration files… Merge the configuration files according to their configuration priorities to obtain the target configuration file.); and control, based on the target information, the robot (see at least [0081, 0085] – Merge the configuration files according to their configuration priorities to obtain the target configuration file… the robot can operate efficiently and accurately in the current environment… apply to the robot system).
Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first configuration file is received via the communication device from a first server; wherein the second configuration file is received from a second server different from the first server.
However, Wang does disclose a first server and a second server in communication with the communication device (see at least [0139] – a computing system may include clients and servers, clients and servers interact through a communication network).
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the first configuration file is received via the communication device from a first server (see at least Fig. 1, [0029] – software storage device 110 can store various robot software developed by robot software developers); wherein the second configuration file is received from a second server different from the first server (see at least Fig. 1, [0030] – profile storage device 120 can store various profile information about the service robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the features of Kim into the invention of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing is to set or change the attribute values of the robot software to match the robot hardware platform specifications of each network robot, thereby having the effect of easily providing various application services (Kim – [0005-0023]). Furthermore, implementing different servers from which Wang’s platform configuration file, customized configuration file, and/or private configuration file would be obtained would be considered generally obvious since receiving files from different servers is something one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a robot to be capable of. This implementation would not change the end result of creating a target file configuration for controlling the robot. Instead, this implementation merely improves the capabilities of the apparatus by allowing different configuration files to be retrieved from different servers, and doing so would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the least one processor, is configured to cause the apparatus to: determine, based on the first configuration file or the second configuration file, first setting information and second setting information, wherein each of the first setting information and the second setting information comprises at least one of a parameter name associated with a setting or a value related to the setting; and determine first selection information of the first setting information and second selection information of the second setting information, wherein each of the first selection information and the second selection information comprises information about permission of the setting (see at least [0086, 0098] – The private configuration includes a motion strategy configuration, which provides configuration parameters for different motion modes of the robot… Motion strategies are pre-tuned configuration items adapted to a series of scenarios. For example, the factory strategy is designed for relatively open environments, adjusting relevant parameters in mapping and localization; while the restaurant delivery strategy is optimized for the characteristics of many dynamic obstacles such as pedestrians and tables and chairs. Under the factory strategy, the robot's movement speed is relatively high, reaching more than 1.5m/s, and the requirements for obstacle avoidance flexibility are low; while the restaurant delivery strategy generally requires a speed of no more than 0.7m/s and flexible obstacle avoidance. In this way, each motion strategy will have a unique configuration for robot localization and motion characteristics.).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to cause the apparatus to: apply, based on the first selection information being decided by the first user, the first setting information to the target file, wherein the first setting information is included in the first configuration file; and apply, based on the second selection information being decided by the second user, the second setting information to the target file, wherein the second setting information is included in the second configuration file (see at least [0086, 0098] – The private configuration includes a motion strategy configuration, which provides configuration parameters for different motion modes of the robot… Motion strategies are pre-tuned configuration items adapted to a series of scenarios. For example, the factory strategy is designed for relatively open environments, adjusting relevant parameters in mapping and localization; while the restaurant delivery strategy is optimized for the characteristics of many dynamic obstacles such as pedestrians and tables and chairs. Under the factory strategy, the robot's movement speed is relatively high, reaching more than 1.5m/s, and the requirements for obstacle avoidance flexibility are low; while the restaurant delivery strategy generally requires a speed of no more than 0.7m/s and flexible obstacle avoidance. In this way, each motion strategy will have a unique configuration for robot localization and motion characteristics.).
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to cause the apparatus to: apply, based on the first selection information being decided by the second user, the first setting information to the target file, wherein the first setting information is included in the second configuration file; and apply, based on the second selection information being decided by the first user, the second setting information to the target file wherein the second setting information is included in the first configuration file (see at least [0086, 0098] – The private configuration includes a motion strategy configuration, which provides configuration parameters for different motion modes of the robot… Motion strategies are pre-tuned configuration items adapted to a series of scenarios. For example, the factory strategy is designed for relatively open environments, adjusting relevant parameters in mapping and localization; while the restaurant delivery strategy is optimized for the characteristics of many dynamic obstacles such as pedestrians and tables and chairs. Under the factory strategy, the robot's movement speed is relatively high, reaching more than 1.5m/s, and the requirements for obstacle avoidance flexibility are low; while the restaurant delivery strategy generally requires a speed of no more than 0.7m/s and flexible obstacle avoidance. In this way, each motion strategy will have a unique configuration for robot localization and motion characteristics.).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to cause the apparatus to: based on the first selection information of the first setting information being the same as the second selection information of the second setting information, apply at least one of the first setting information or the second setting information to the target file by comparing a first priority of the first setting information with a second priority of the second setting information (see at least [0055-0058, 0066-0067] - Merge the configuration files according to their configuration priorities to obtain the target configuration file. The configuration items in each configuration file can be merged according to the configuration priority to form a comprehensive configuration file, namely the target configuration file. Specifically, the configuration priority of private configuration, custom configuration, and platform configuration is from high to low… Different configuration items of the same configuration object in two files to be merged can be merged… The merging principle is to overwrite the configuration items with higher configuration priority with those with lower configuration priority, and import the configuration items of different configuration objects into one file to obtain the configuration merged file), wherein the first selection information of the first setting information comprises information about permission, wherein the first setting information is decided by at least one of the first user or the second user, and wherein the second selection information of the second setting information comprises information about permission, where the second setting information is decided by at least one of the first user or the second user (see at least [0086, 0098] – The private configuration includes a motion strategy configuration, which provides configuration parameters for different motion modes of the robot… Motion strategies are pre-tuned configuration items adapted to a series of scenarios. For example, the factory strategy is designed for relatively open environments, adjusting relevant parameters in mapping and localization; while the restaurant delivery strategy is optimized for the characteristics of many dynamic obstacles such as pedestrians and tables and chairs. Under the factory strategy, the robot's movement speed is relatively high, reaching more than 1.5m/s, and the requirements for obstacle avoidance flexibility are low; while the restaurant delivery strategy generally requires a speed of no more than 0.7m/s and flexible obstacle avoidance. In this way, each motion strategy will have a unique configuration for robot localization and motion characteristics.).
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to cause the apparatus to: determine, based on the first user deciding the first information about the first user’s setting of the robot, the first configuration file, wherein the first user is a robot software provider (see at least [0052] – The platform configuration can be provided by the robot system building platform. The configuration items are set according to the computing platform that the robot is paired with. They mainly record parameters such as the robot's CPU computing power, memory size, and hard disk size. They can be used to set the robot's mapping area, the amount of computing resources, whether computing power-consuming functions are enabled, and so on. The platform configuration can be included in the robot firmware package, and each firmware upgrade can cover the latest platform configuration.); and determine, based on the second user deciding the second information about the second user’s setting of the robot, the second configuration file (see at least [0054] - Private configurations can be imported by users and are mainly used for personalized configurations of each machine. Users can set these through the SDK interface, such as calibrated radar extrinsic parameters and actively set motion strategies.).
Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose the first user deciding the first information about the first user’s setting of the robot through the first server, determine the first configuration file from the first server; the second user deciding the second information about the second user’s setting of the robot through the second server, and determine the second configuration file from the second server, wherein the second server is configured to provide a robot operation control.
However, Wang does disclose a first server and a second server (see at least [0139] – a computing system may include clients and servers, clients and servers interact through a communication network).
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the first user deciding the first information about the first user’s setting of the robot through the first server, determine the first configuration file from the first server (see at least Fig. 1, [0029] – software storage device 110 can store various robot software developed by robot software developers); the second user deciding the second information about the second user’s setting of the robot through the second server, and determine the second configuration file from the second server, wherein the second server is configured to provide a robot operation control (see at least Fig. 1, [0030] – profile storage device 120 can store various profile information about the service robot).
The motivation to combine Wang and Kim is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to cause the apparatus to: store, based on identifying a notification regarding a change in the first configuration file from the first server, the first configuration file, which is changed, in the at least one memory.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to cause the apparatus to: store, based on identifying a notification regarding a change in the first configuration file from the first server, the first configuration file, which is changed, in the at least one memory (see at least [0032, 0038, 0045, 0059-0060] – The software management device 130 can provide various robot software to a number of service robots, periodically searches for various robot software stored in the software storage device 110, and downloads robot software that needs to be installed or updated based on the search results… The service robot 140 installs or updates various robot software from the software management device 130. When a service robot 140 receives robot software from a software management device 130, it checks whether the attribute values included in the received robot software match the specifications of the corresponding hardware platform and then installs or updates the robot software.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the features of Kim into the invention of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing is to update the robot software when necessary, for example when the hardware platform specifications are changed (Kim – [0032, 0060]). This modification would ensure that the robot has the most updated software in the platform or customized configuration files for safe and smooth operation, and doing so would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to cause the apparatus to: determine a third configuration file pre-stored before the first configuration file is stored in the at least one memory; determine the target information about the target setting of the robot from the third configuration file; and determine whether the target information is included in the first configuration file (see at least [0052] - The platform configuration can be provided by the robot system building platform. The configuration items are set according to the computing platform that the robot is paired with. They mainly record parameters such as the robot's CPU computing power, memory size, and hard disk size. They can be used to set the robot's mapping area, the amount of computing resources, whether computing power-consuming functions are enabled, and so on. The platform configuration can be included in the robot firmware package, and each firmware upgrade can cover the latest platform configuration.).
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to cause the apparatus to: determine, based on the target information being included in the first configuration file, the target file by determining the first information about the first user’s setting of the robot from the first configuration file; and determine, based on the target information not being included in the first configuration file, the target file through the third configuration file (see at least [0055-0058, 0065-0067] - Specifically, the configuration priority of private configuration, custom configuration, and platform configuration is from high to low. Private configurations have the highest priority, and their configuration items will not be overwritten by updates to custom configurations and platform configurations. Custom configurations have the second highest priority, and their configuration items will not be updated or overwritten by platform-configured items… For each second configuration item in the second file to be merged; if a first configuration item with the same configuration object as the second configuration item exists in the first file to be merged, the second configuration item will overwrite the first configuration item; otherwise, the second configuration item will be added to the first file to be merged; the merged first file to be merged will be determined as the configuration merged file.).
With respect to claims 11-15 and 17-20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-5 and 7-10, and it has been determined that claims 11-15 and 17-20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1-5 and 7-10; therefore, claims 11-15 and 17-20 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1-5 and 7-10.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kim and Zhu (CN 113076128 A, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to cause the apparatus to: determine, based on the second selection information being decided by the second user, the second setting information from the second configuration file (see at least [0054] - Private configurations can be imported by users and are mainly used for personalized configurations of each machine. Users can set these through the SDK interface, such as calibrated radar extrinsic parameters and actively set motion strategies.); transmit, information for requesting a decision of the second user about the second setting information; and apply, based on receiving the second configuration file decided by the second user, the second setting information to the target file, wherein the second setting information is included in the second configuration file (see at least [0054-0058, 0065-0067] - Private configurations can be imported by users and are mainly used for personalized configurations of each machine. Users can set these through the SDK interface, such as calibrated radar extrinsic parameters and actively set motion strategies… Private configurations have the highest priority, and their configuration items will not be overwritten by updates to custom configurations and platform configurations.).
Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose based on the second setting information not being determined from the second configuration file, transmit, to the second server, information for requesting a decision of the second user about the second setting information; receiving the second configuration file decided by the second user from the second server.
However, Wang does disclose a second server (see at least [0139] – a computing system may include clients and servers, clients and servers interact through a communication network).
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: receiving the second configuration file decided by the second user from the second server (see at least Fig. 1, [0030] – profile storage device 120 can store various profile information about the service robot).
The motivation to combine Wang and Kim is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Zhu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: based on the second setting information not being determined from the second configuration file, transmit, to the second server, information for requesting a decision of the second user about the second setting information; receiving the second configuration file decided by the second user from the second server (see at least [0092-0094] - S21, when configuring robot resource files, a data request is sent to the server. The data request carries the identifier of the target functional module to be configured in the robot. The robot configuration method in this application is applied to the robot end, so it can be implemented through the robot's controller (or processor), or through an electronic device connected to the robot, such as a personal computer or smartphone. When it is necessary to configure the robot's resource files, a data request carrying the identifier of the target functional module to be configured in the robot is sent to the server. For example, users can use the robot's web interface to input configuration parameters, select the functional modules to be configured, or select the robot type. The robot then generates a data request based on the user's input and sends the data request to the server. S22, receive the resource file package corresponding to the data request returned by the server, wherein the resource file package includes the target resource files corresponding to each target functional module.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the features of Zhu into the invention of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing is to request configuration when necessary of the robot’s resource files by user input (Zhu – [0093]). This would ensure that all necessary parameters in the private configuration file are set by the user. This modification would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 6; therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Ryu (US 2024/0103543 A1) is directed to a robot configured to, if a plurality of users included in one group are identified in an image captured via the camera, acquire profile information of each of the plurality of users, based on the profile information, acquire group feature information including group type information of the group, priority information of the plurality of users, and preferred waypoint information of the one group, and control the driving unit to perform a route guidance function based on the group feature information and destination information.
Thackston (US 2020/0101614 A1) is directed to a teleoperation system includes a robot comprising an actuator configured to move at least a portion of the robot, and a remote computing device comprising: one or more processors, one or more sensors communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, a non-transitory memory component communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, and machine readable instructions stored in the non-transitory memory component. The remote computing device obtains information about a user proximate to the remote computing device, identifies the user based on the obtained information, obtains an action of a user, retrieves an individual profile for the user based on the identified user, determines an intended instruction related to a task based on the action of the user related to the task and the individual profile for the user, and instructs the robot to implement the task with the actuator based on the intended instruction.
Mallinson (US 2019/0077007 A1) is directed to methods and systems for using a robot to provide feedback to a user when the user is engaged in a physical activity includes detecting presence of the user in a geo-location. The user is identified and associated with the robot. User activity in the geo-location is monitored and when the robot detects the user is performing an exercise from an exercise routine, the robot is positioned to one or more positions proximate to the user so as to capture image of a posture held by the user while performing the exercise. The captured image is analyzed and feedback provided to the user to allow the user to improve their posture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669