CTFR 18/944,123 CTFR 93592 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagi (US Pub # 20220292196) in view of Cisler (U.S Pub # 20080034011) . With regards to claim 1, Bhagi discloses a method for managing a project file of a robot, the method comprising: (a) a step for acquiring a specific first backup file of the project file and a second backup file that was backed up before the first backup file ([0336] sequential backups); (b) a step for creating difference information by detecting a difference from the second backup file to the first backup file ([0336] determine differences between sequential backups); (c) a step for classifying one or more difference items included in the difference information into a plurality of categories (Fig. 7 [0366] anomaly type); (d) a step for extracting, among the difference items, a specific difference item that belongs in a specific category of the plurality of categories (Fig. 11b [0387] specific files that were modified); and (e) a step for notifying about the specific category of the specific difference item. (Fig. 11b #1108 [0384] change column 1108 identifies the changes that were determined and/or detected by the monitoring process is displayed); (f) a step for creating a backup file history list including the second backup file and the first backup file ([0142] Index 153 provides a fast and efficient mechanism for locating/browsing secondary copies 116 or other data stored in secondary storage devices). Bhagi does not disclose however Cisler discloses: displaying, on the backup file history list, a tag indicating the specific category of the specific difference item (Fig. 5 [0074] changed items only checkbox to display only changed items. These items have albums and artists names). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Bhagi by Cisler to display categories that difference items belong to. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to evaluate a current view of an application (Cisler [0024]). Claims 9 and 10 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly. With regards to claim 2, Bhagi further discloses: wherein the steps (a) through (e) are executed by triggering a backup process of the first backup file ([0402] determine differences between the newly created backup and a prior corresponding backup). With regards to claim 3, Bhagi further discloses: wherein the step (e) includes a step for informing a preset contact point of the specific category of the specific difference item ([0387] display on gui). With regards to claim 5, Bhagi further discloses: wherein the first backup file includes data that has a difference from the second backup file, without including data that has no difference from the second backup file ([0270] incremental backup). With regards to claim 6, Bhagi further discloses: a step for exporting a list of one or more backup files, each of which includes the specific category of the specific difference item ([0406] communicate the determined differences to the storage manager or store this information in an anomaly detection database. [0379] allow a user to download a particular file or directory that was affected by detected activity). With regards to claim 7, Bhagi further discloses: wherein the step (e) includes a step for notifying about content of the specific difference item together with the specific category ([0406] communicate the determined differences to the storage manager or store this information in an anomaly detection database). With regards to claim 8, Bhagi further discloses: wherein the project file includes a plurality of data files and the content of the specific difference item includes a data file name in which the specific difference item exists ([0387] file name) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagi (US Pub # 20220292196) in view of Cisler (U.S Pub # 20080034011) and in further view of Grebennikov (U.S Pub # 20220197731) . With regards to claim 11, Bhagi does not disclose however Grebennikov discloses: the tag is selectable, and selecting the tag causes a display to display details of the difference information corresponding to the specific category ([0042] a file is selected for drill-down analysis. Suppose that a user selects one of the visual indicators of a time point in user interface 300. The selection may launch a window in the user interface that lists all of the files that changed between the selected time point and a previous time point (e.g., a time point right before or a time point further in the past such as the first time point). For example, the user interface may be a table that lists files and describes the modifications (e.g., change in size, deletion, addition, change in location, etc.) performed on the file). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Bhagi and Cisler by Grebennikov to display what has changed for an item. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to identify differences in a list of extracted files (Grebennikov [0006]). With regards to claim 12, Bhagi does not disclose however Grebennikov discloses: wherein the details include at least a data name having the difference and details of the difference ([0042] a file is selected for drill-down analysis. Suppose that a user selects one of the visual indicators of a time point in user interface 300. The selection may launch a window in the user interface that lists all of the files that changed between the selected time point and a previous time point (e.g., a time point right before or a time point further in the past such as the first time point). For example, the user interface may be a table that lists files and describes the modifications (e.g., change in size, deletion, addition, change in location, etc.) performed on the file). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Bhagi and Cisler by Grebennikov to display what has changed for an item. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to identify differences in a list of extracted files (Grebennikov [0006]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagi (US Pub # 20220292196) in view of Cisler (U.S Pub # 20080034011) and in further view of Namikoshi (U.S Pub # 20190272103) . With regards to claim 13, Bhagi does not disclose however Namikoshi discloses: a conveyor of the robot; a force sensor of the robot; a parts feeder of the robot; a vision sensor of the robot; a teaching point of the robot; a robot calibration; a robot control program; a robot parameter; and a set value of the robot ([0049] processor 4 may preserve the current backup file 26Aa in the memory 6 or may preserve a difference between the current backup file 26Aa and the backup file of the immediately previously preserved robot operation program 12 in the memory). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified Bhagi and Cisler by Namikoshi to determine a difference between robot operations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to store an information set to control the operation of a robot (Namikoshi [0006]). Claims 14 and 15 correspond to claim 13 and are rejected accordingly. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TONY WU whose telephone number is (571)272-2033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5). 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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. /TONY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/944,123 Page 2 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/944,123 Page 3 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/944,123 Page 4 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/944,123 Page 5 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/944,123 Page 6 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/944,123 Page 7 Art Unit: 2166 Application/Control Number: 18/944,123 Page 8 Art Unit: 2166
Prosecution Insights