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 .
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 3, 10, 13 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the option group paired with the target task”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “including performing an assessment of data included in a communication format about the connection between the robot and the processor depending on the first option and the second option, based on that the target task is the monitoring of the robot.” It is unclear what is required by this recitation. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. As best understood, the recitation was intended to require performing the diagnostic assessment based on the monitoring of the robot.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “the option group paired with the target task”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “performing an assessment of data included in a communication format about the connection between the robot and the processor depending on the first option and the second option, based on that the target task is the monitoring of the robot.” It is unclear what is required by this recitation. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. As best understood, the recitation was intended to require performing the diagnostic assessment based on the monitoring of the robot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11 and 19-20 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosenberg (US 10,335,962 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Rosenberg discloses a robot diagnosis apparatus, comprising: at least one processor (Figs. 1-2 and 9, elements 106, 210, 901, 905; column 4, line 40; column 8, lines 35-36; column 23, lines 37-41); a communication device (Figs. 1-2 and 9, elements 130, 208, 920, 930) configured to assist in communicating with a server (Figs. 1-2 and 9, elements 106-4, 901; column 4, lines 53-56; column 23, line 59 through column 24, line 5; column 24, lines 47-52); and a storage medium (Figs. 1-2 and 9, elements 210, 910, 915) storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (column 8, lines 35-36; column 23, lines 41-52; column 24, lines 6-12), enable the at least one processor to: identify a target task (Figs. 5 and 7, operation 501, 705; generate commands) including monitoring (via Figs. 5 and 7, operation 505, 711; obtain real-time sensor data) of a robot (Figs. 1-2, element 100) and a test on the robot (via Figs. 5 and 7, operation 503, 709; perform exercises / functions), based on receiving a database (Fig. 5, operation 501 via Fig. 9, element 950) stored in the server (column 4, lines 24-35; column 17, lines 18-35; column 18, lines 11-16; column 20, line 43 through column 21, line 24; column 24, lines 53-58), identify an option group including a first option about a type of the robot (column 25, lines 1-3) and a second option about a connection between the robot and the processor (column 6, line 1-39), and perform a diagnosis of the robot (Figs. 5 and 7, operation 509, 715), based on the target task and the option group (column 18, line 58-59; column 21, lines 17-20).
Regarding claim 9, Rosenberg discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to: obtain a result about a movement operation of the robot (Figs. 5 and 7, option 505, 711), depending on the first option and the second option (via Figs. 5 and 7, option 503, 709), based on the target task is the test (exercises / perform functions) on the robot (column 17, lines 25-35, column 18, lines 11-16; column 21, line 1-7).
Regarding claim 10, Rosenberg discloses a robot diagnosis apparatus, comprising: at least one processor (Figs. 1-2 and 9, elements 106, 210, 901, 905; column 4, line 40; column 8, lines 35-36; column 23, lines 37-41); a communication device (Figs. 1-2 and 9, elements 130, 208, 920, 930) configured to assist in communicating with a server (Figs. 1-2 and 9, elements 106-4, 901; column 4, lines 53-56; column 23, line 59 through column 24, line 5; column 24, lines 47-52); and a storage medium (Figs. 1-2 and 9, elements 210, 910, 915) storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (column 8, lines 35-36; column 23, lines 41-52; column 24, lines 6-12), enable the at least one processor to: identify a target task (Figs. 5 and 7, operation 501, 705; generate commands) including monitoring (via Figs. 5 and 7, operation 505, 711; obtain real-time sensor data) of a robot (Figs. 1-2, element 100), based on receiving a database (Fig. 5, operation 501 via Fig. 9, element 950) stored in the server (column 4, lines 24-35; column 17, lines 18-35; column 18, lines 11-16; column 20, line 43 through column 21, line 24; column 24, lines 53-58), identify an option group including a first option about a type of the robot (column 25, lines 1-3) and a second option about a connection between the robot and the processor (column 6, line 1-39), and perform a diagnosis of the robot (Figs. 5 and 7, operation 509, 715), based on the target task and the option group, including performing an assessment of data (Figs. 5 and 7, operation 505, 711) included in a communication format about the connection between the robot and the processor depending on the first option and the second option, based on that the target task is the monitoring of the robot (column 18, lines 11-16 and 58-59; column 21, lines 1-7 and 17-20).
Regarding claim 11, Rosenberg discloses a robot diagnosis method comprising: identifying a target task (Figs. 5 and 7, operation 501, 705; generate commands) including monitoring (via Figs. 5 and 7, operation 505, 711; obtain real-time sensor data) of a robot (Figs. 1-2, element 100) and a test on the robot (via Figs. 5 and 7, operation 503, 709; perform exercises / functions), based on receiving a database (Fig. 5, operation 501 via Fig. 9, element 950) stored in a server (Figs. 1-2 and 9, elements 106-4, 901; column 4, lines 24-35 and 53-56; column 17, lines 18-35; column 18, lines 11-16; column 20, line 43 through column 21, line 24; column 24, lines 3 and 47-58); identifying an option group including a first option about a type of the robot (column 25, lines 1-3) and a second option (column 6, line 1-39) about a connection (Figs. 1-2 and 9, elements 130, 208, 920, 930) between the robot and a processor (Figs. 1-2 and 9, elements 106, 210, 901, 905) included in an apparatus (Figs. 1-2, 5, 7; Fig. 9, element 906) for diagnosing the robot (column 4, line 40; column 8, lines 35-36; column 23, line 15 through column 24, line 58); and perform a diagnosis of the robot (Figs. 5 and 7, operation 509, 715), based on the target task and the option group (column 18, line 58-59; column 21, lines 17-20).
Regarding claim 19, Rosenberg discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the performing of the diagnosis of the robot comprises performing an assessment of data (Figs. 5 and 7, operation 505, 711) included in a communication format about the connection between the robot and the processor depending on the first option and the second option, based on that the target task is the monitoring of the robot (column 18, lines 11-16 and 58-59; column 21, lines 1-7 and 17-20).
Regarding claim 20, Rosenberg discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the performing of the diagnosis of the robot comprises: obtaining a result about a movement operation of the robot (Figs. 5 and 7, option 505, 711), depending on the first option and the second option (via Figs. 5 and 7, option 503, 709), based on the target task is the test (exercises / perform functions) on the robot (column 17, lines 25-35, column 18, lines 11-16; column 21, line 1-7); and providing (via Fig. 9, element 935, 940) a user with the obtained result (column 24, lines 20-38; column 26, lines 31-42).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-8 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Baba (US 2021/0011792 A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, Rosenberg teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to: receive (Fig. 5, operation 501, 507) the database through wired communication from the server (column 6, lines 1-39; column 8, line 4-18; column 9, lines 4-7; column 17, lines 18-24; column 25, lines 1-9); and identify (Fig. 5, operation 503) the target task from the database (column 17, lines 25-35). Rosenberg is silent regarding the wired communication being “Ethernet”. Baba teaches a technique for providing an Ethernet protocol over a wired communication network (paragraph 0020). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing data to apply the well-known Ethernet protocol taught by Baba to the prior art system taught by Rosenberg. Application of the well-known Ethernet technique to the prior art system would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including the wired communication using Ethernet.
Regarding claim 4, Rosenberg teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to: receive a format for generating the target task from a user (column 20, lines 48-51; column 24, lines 34-36; column 26, lines 31-42), based on not being dependent upon identifying the target task; store the target task in the database (Fig. 9, element 950, diagnostic exercise library), based on generating the target task using the format (column 24, lines 53-58); and transmit (Fig. 5, operation 501) the database to the server through the Ethernet communication (column 17, lines 18-24).
Regarding claim 5, Rosenberg teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to: provide the user with an interface (Fig. 9, elements 935, 940) implemented based on the instructions stored in the storage medium; and receive the format through the interface (column 24, lines 20-38; column 26, lines 31-43).
Regarding claim 6, Rosenberg teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to: receive the first option and the second option from the user through the interface (column 20, lines 48-51; column 24, lines 34-36; column 26, lines 31-42); and identify common information associated with communication, data packet information about a data packet for each communication format (via Ethernet protocol), and monitoring information about the monitoring, based on the second option (column 14, lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 7, Rosenberg teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to transmit a result of diagnosing the robot through the interface, in response to the diagnosis of the robot being performed based on the target task and the option group (column 24, lines 20-38).
Regarding claim 8, Rosenberg teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions further enable the at least one processor to provide information about the connection with the robot, based on the target task and the option group (column 23, line 59 through column 24, line 19). Rosenberg is silent regarding the provided information being “port” information. Baba teaches a technique for establishing communication with a robot that includes providing a port number about the connection with the robot (Fig. 2, protocol 2, setting and parameter; paragraph 0025). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply the well-known technique for establishing communication with a robot as taught by Baba to the prior art system taught by Rosenberg. Application of the well-known technique to the prior art system would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because the result of such application would have been predictable. The predictable results including providing port information about the connection with the robot.
Regarding claims 12-13, Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the identifying of the target task comprises: receiving (Fig. 5, operation 501, 507) the database, through wired communication from the server (column 6, lines 1-39; column 8, line 4-18; column 9, lines 4-7; column 17, lines 18-24; column 25, lines 1-9); and identifying (Fig. 5, operation 503) the target task from the database (column 17, lines 25-35). Rosenberg is silent regarding the wired communication being “Ethernet”. Baba teaches a technique for providing an Ethernet protocol over a wired communication network (paragraph 0020). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing data to apply the well-known Ethernet protocol taught by Baba to the prior art system taught by Rosenberg. Application of the well-known Ethernet technique to the prior art system would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including the wired communication using Ethernet.
Regarding claim 14, Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the identifying of the target task further comprises: receiving a format for generating the target task from a user (column 20, lines 48-51; column 24, lines 34-36; column 26, lines 31-42), based on not being dependent on identifying the target task; storing the target task in the database (Fig. 9, element 950, diagnostic exercise library), based on generating the target task by use of the format (column 24, lines 53-58); and transmitting (Fig. 5, operation 501) the database to the server through the Ethernet communication (column 17, lines 18-24).
Regarding claim 15, Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the receiving of the format comprises: providing the user with an interface (Fig. 9, elements 935, 940) implemented based on instructions stored in the apparatus for diagnosing the robot; and receiving the format through the interface (column 24, lines 20-38; column 26, lines 31-43).
Regarding claim 16, Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the receiving of the format comprises: receiving the first option and the second option from the user through the interface (column 20, lines 48-51; column 24, lines 34-36; column 26, lines 31-42); and identifying common information associated with communication, data packet information about a data packet for each communication format (via Ethernet protocol), and monitoring information about the monitoring, based on the second option (column 14, lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 17, Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the performing of the diagnosis of the robot comprises transmitting a result of diagnosing the robot through the interface, in response to the diagnosis of the robot being performed based on the target task and the option group (column 24, lines 20-38).
Regarding claim 18, Rosenberg teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the performing of the diagnosis of the robot comprises providing information about the connection with the robot, based on the target task and the option group. (column 23, line 59 through column 24, line 19). Rosenberg is silent regarding the provided information being “port” information. Baba teaches a technique for establishing communication with a robot that includes providing a port number about the connection with the robot (Fig. 2, protocol 2, setting and parameter; paragraph 0025). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply the well-known technique for establishing communication with a robot as taught by Baba to the prior art system taught by Rosenberg. Application of the well-known technique to the prior art system would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because the result of such application would have been predictable. The predictable results including providing port information about the connection with the robot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE MOYER whose telephone number is (571)270-7821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PT.
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, Khoi H Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. 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.
/Dale Moyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656