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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-19 remain pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, and 13-14 have been amended. Claims 2 and 12 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-10, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 1, “a plurality of robots” in line 13 should be “the plurality of robots” since the plurality of robots have already been recited.
For claim 8, “a plurality of unit functions” in line 3 should be “the plurality of unit functions” as the plurality of unit functions have already been recited in claim 1.
For claim 10, “a plurality of robots” in line 14 should be “the plurality of robots” since the plurality of robots have already been recited.
For claim 18, “a plurality of unit functions” in line 3 should be “the plurality of unit functions” as the plurality of unit functions have already been recited in claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-11, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashi (US 20220281106 A1) in view of Seo et al (US 20210122049 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Higashi and Seo respectively)
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 11, Higashi teaches a cooperation control method of a multi-robot performed by a control device (See at least Higashi Paragraph 0016 and Figure 5), one or more non-transitory computer readable mediums (See at least Higashi Paragraphs 0092-0093, the memory is interpreted as a non-transitory computer readable medium)…, a cooperative control device of a multi-robot (See at least Higashi Paragraph 0016 and Figure 1) comprising:
a communication unit (See at least Higashi Paragraph 0094)…, and
a processing unit…that control a plurality of robots to provide a service necessary for the user (See at least Higashi Paragraphs 0092 and 0103-0105, the control platform, which includes a processor, controls the plurality of robot groups to provide a service), wherein the processing unit is further configured to…
registering one or more unit functions corresponding to actions performable by each of a plurality of robots (See at least Higashi Paragraphs 0104-0106, and 0123-0126, a unit function/job that is able to be provided from each of the plurality of robots is assigned/registered) and pre-generating a task from combinations of the registered unit functions (See at least Higashi Paragraphs 0126-0127, a transmission schedule of the command signal for the five jobs using the three robots is determined, which is interpreted as pre-generating a task from the registered/assigned unit functions/jobs), the task being cooperatively performable by the plurality of robots and including a plurality of unit functions that process complex actions required to achieve a purpose (See at least Higashi Paragraphs 0124-0125, the task/jobs include a plurality of unit functions for the robots to perform in order to achieve a purpose), wherein each of the plurality of unit functions is matched to a robot capable of providing the corresponding unit function (See at least Higashi Paragraphs 0125-0126, each function/job is matched to a robot capable of performing the function/job),;
recognizing an intention or a situational context of the user (See at least Higashi Paragraph 0104, the service desired by the user, which is interpreted as the intent, is recognized)…;
selecting a task that a plurality of robots are able to cooperatively perform in response to the recognized intention or situational context of the user (See at least Higashi Paragraphs 0016, 0046, 0105, 0125-0126, and Figure 5, the tasks/jobs for the plurality of robots to cooperatively perform in response to the recognized intention/service are selected); and
requesting a service provision to each of the plurality of robots that are able to cooperatively perform the selected task by instructing each robot to perform a corresponding unit function (See at least Higashi Paragraphs 0128, 0132, 0136, 0141, 0145 and Figure 5, the command signals, which are interpreted as service provisions, are sent to each of the plurality of robots).
Higashi fails to explicitly disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium…storing instructions, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations,
the communication unit is…configured to receive information on a user or information on surroundings of the user detected using at least one sensor;
the processing unit is…configured to execute instructions,
detecting information on a user or information on surroundings of the user using at least one sensor; and
recognizing an intention or a situational context of the user…based on the detected information.
However, Seo teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium… storing instructions, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (See at least Seo Paragraph 0044, the processor executes programs/instructions stored in the memory),
the communication unit is…configured to receive information on a user or information on surroundings of the user detected using at least one sensor (See at least Seo Paragraphs 0030-0032, 0036, and 0103-0104, sensor information is received, which is information on a user and information on a surrounding of the user);
the processing unit is…configured to execute instructions (See at least Seo Paragraph 0044, the processor executes programs/instructions stored in the memory),
detecting information on a user or information on surroundings of the user using at least one sensor (See at least Seo Paragraphs 0032, 0036, and 0104, information on a user and the surrounding environment is detected using the sensor); and
recognizing an intention or a situational context of the user…based on the detected information (See at least Seo Paragraph 0064, the intention is determined based on the detected information of the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Higashi with Seo to have the processor execute instructions stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium, and to recognize an intention based on the detected information on a user or surrounding of the user. Having a processor execute instructions stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium, as taught by Seo, is routine and well-understood in the art, and allows for the processor to execute the application programs necessary to control components of the system (See at least Seo Paragraph 0044). By using the sensor information on the user or surrounding of the user to recognize an intention of the user, as taught by Seo, the robot may obtain intention information by simply detecting the user’s behavior or voice input and perform operations accordingly (See at least Seo Paragraphs 0032, 0036, 0064, and 0104), which would increase the autonomy of the system.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, modified Higashi teaches wherein the unit function is either a unique function corresponding to an action that a robot is able to perform, or a plurality of functions that are able to be applied as different roles depending on the intention or situational context of the user for an action that a robot is able to perform (See at least Higashi Paragraphs 0123-0126, the unit function is a unique function/job that corresponds to an action that the robot is able to perform).
Regarding Claims 8-9 and 18-19, modified Higashi teaches identifying a plurality of unit functions matched to the selected task (See at least Higashi Paragraphs 0125-0126, a plurality of unit functions/jobs are identified); and instructing each of the plurality of robots capable of performing the identified unit functions to mutually perform the corresponding unit function in time series (See at least Higashi Paragraphs 0126-0128, 0132, 0136, 0141, 0145 and Figure 5, the robots are instructed to mutually perform the unit functions in time series),
wherein requesting the service provision further comprises: controlling an exchange of information on an execution order and an execution process between the robots (See at least Higashi Paragraphs 0127-0137 and Figure 5, the control platform controls an exchange of information on the execution order and process between the robots).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashi in view of Seo, and in further view of Yim et al (US 20210174370 A1) and Brooks et al (US 20230168679 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Yim and Brooks respectively)
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, modified Higashi teaches wherein, in the task, an order of action execution and a target of communication between the plurality of robots cooperating to achieve the purpose are set (See at least Higashi Paragraphs 0127-0137 and Figure 5, a schedule/order of action execution and target of communication between the plurality of cooperating robots are set/determined using the control platform).
Modified Higashi fails to disclose wherein the plurality of robots are controlled to complete the task by sharing, through communication between the plurality of robots, a processing status of a currently performed unit function, a situation sensed by each robot.
However, Yim teaches wherein the plurality of robots are controlled to complete the task by sharing, through communication between the plurality of robots (See at least Yim Paragraphs 0006, 0048, and Figure 2, the robots communicate with each other to complete tasks), a processing status of a currently performed unit function (See at least Yim Paragraphs 0091, 0096, and Figure 6, the completion messages are interpreted as processing statuses of unit functions), a situation sensed by each robot (See at least Yim Paragraphs 0071-0074, 0078-0079, 0234, 0243-0244, and Figure 5, the situation/information sensed by the robots are shared with other robots) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Higashi with Yim to have the robots complete the task by sharing, through communication between the plurality of robots a processing status of a currently performed unit function, and a situation sensed by each robot. This modification, as taught by Yim, would allow the robots to communicate with each other to share the information generated during performance of the functions with other robots within the service area to thereby improve an efficiency of providing the service/task (See at least Yim Paragraphs 0022-0023).
Modified Higashi fails to disclose sharing, through communication between the plurality of robots…environmental information.
However, Brooks teaches sharing, through communication between the plurality of robots…environmental information (See at least Brooks Paragraphs 0091-0093, the robots share environmental information with each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Higashi with Brooks to share, through communication between the plurality of robots, environmental information. This modification, as taught by Brooks, would allow each robot to know about the state of the environment around other robots (See at least Brooks Paragraph 0093), thus, improving the awareness of each robot.
Claims 5-6, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashi in view of Seo, and in further view of Yamada (US 20150274421 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Yamada)
Regarding Claims 5-6 and 15-16, modified Higashi fails to disclose wherein recognizing the intention or situational context of the user comprises: receiving additional information related to a prearranged behavior of the user; and selecting a most similar candidate among candidates for the intention or situational context of the user based on the received additional information and the detected information,
wherein selecting the most similar candidate comprises: pre-configuring multiple candidates with respect to the intention or situational context of the user based on at least two combinations of information on physical characteristics of the user, the information on the surroundings of the user, environmental information on a space where the user is located, and information related to a behavior of the user; and
determining a candidate with a highest degree of matching among the multiple candidates using the received additional information and the detected information.
However, Yamada teaches wherein recognizing the intention or situational context of the user comprises: receiving additional information related to a prearranged behavior of the user (See at least Yamada Paragraphs 0092-0093, 0166-0167, and Figure 6, the request history database is interpreted as additional information related to a prearranged behavior of the user); and selecting a most similar candidate among candidates for the intention or situational context of the user based on the received additional information and the detected information (See at least Yamada Paragraphs 0092-0093, 0165-0169, and Figure 6, the most similar condition from among the candidates in the request history DB is selected/extracted based on the additional and detected information),
wherein selecting the most similar candidate comprises: pre-configuring multiple candidates with respect to the intention or situational context of the user based on at least two combinations of information on physical characteristics of the user, the information on the surroundings of the user, environmental information on a space where the user is located, and information related to a behavior of the user (See at least Yamada Paragraphs 0092-0093, 0165-0169, and Figure 6, there are multiple candidates in the request history DB based on the space where the user is located, and the behavior/posture of the user); and
determining a candidate with a highest degree of matching among the multiple candidates using the received additional information and the detected information (See at least Yamada Paragraphs 0092-0093, 0165-0169, and Figure 6, the candidate that is most similar is extracted using the additional and detected information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Higashi with Yamada to determine a candidate with a highest degree of matching among the multiple candidates using the received additional information and the detected information. This modification, as taught by Yamada, allows the system to determine the user’s intention by comparing the current user’s state to a user state stored in a database, thus, allowing the system to notify the robot about the request/intent in advance, which would reduce the time taken for the robot to perform the task (See at least Yamada Paragraphs 0092-0093, 0165-0169, and Figure 6).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashi in view of Seo, and in further view of Yang et al (CN113268331A) (Hereinafter referred to as Yang)
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, even though modified Higashi teaches a task corresponding to the recognized intention or situational context of the user, modified Higashi fails to disclose selecting a top priority task corresponding to the recognized intention or situational context of the user and checking whether a robot for cooperatively performing the top priority task is in an idle state; and
when the robot for cooperatively performing the top priority task is not in the idle state, selecting a next priority task corresponding to the recognized intention or situational context of the user and in which a robot for cooperatively performing the next priority task is in the idle state.
However, Yang teaches selecting a top priority task and checking whether a robot for cooperatively performing the top priority task is in an idle state (See at least Yang Page 5 Paragraphs 2-3 and Table 1, and Page 7 Paragraphs 3-5 and Table 3, job 3 is the top priority task, and there is no idle robot for performing job 3); and
when the robot for cooperatively performing the top priority task is not in the idle state, selecting a next priority task and in which a robot for cooperatively performing the next priority task is in the idle state (See at least Yang Page 5 Paragraphs 2-3 and Table 1, and Page 7 Paragraphs 3-5 and Table 3, job 1 is a next top priority task, and the idle robot 1 can perform job 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Higashi with Yang to select a next priority task corresponding to the recognized intention or situational context of the user and in which a robot for cooperatively performing the next priority task is in the idle state when the robot for cooperatively performing the top priority task is not in the idle state. This modification, as taught by Yang, would ensure that only the suitable robots that are idle and are capable of performing a task are called to perform the task (See at least Yang Page 7 Paragraphs 3-5 and Table 3), thus, improving the coordination of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on page 11 of the remarks, that Higashi does not disclose Applicant’s unit-function-based cooperative task architecture. Applicant states, that a task is “not merely a service or job assigned to one or more robots. Rather, a task is pre-generated from combinations of unit functions corresponding to actions performable by respective robots”. Applicant goes on to state “During execution, the robots do not simply execute the task itself. Instead, each robot executes a corresponding unit function assigned thereto, thereby achieving the intended purpose”.
However, Examiner disagrees. Higashi teaches the unit function as claimed. Claim 1 states that the unit functions are “corresponding to actions performable by each of a plurality of robots”. Paragraphs 0125-0126 of Higashi state
PNG
media_image1.png
180
921
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The tea serving service is interpreted as the task. The task is comprised of a plurality of jobs/unit functions, which correspond to actions performable by each of a plurality of robots. The greeting robot performs the order reception unit function and the arrival notification unit function. The tea taking robot performs the tea taking unit function. The transfer robot performs the first and second movement unit function. The combination of these unit functions/jobs are executed to achieve the tea serving service.
Applicant further states, on Page 11 of the remarks, that the claimed task is “designed for situations requiring complex cooperative actions that cannot be achieved by a single robot…Different robots respectively perform these unit functions so that the intended purpose can be achieved through cooperation among the robots”.
However, Higashi teaches the tea serving task requires cooperative actions from three different robots. These three different robots perform their corresponding unit functions so that the tea serving service can be achieved.
Applicant further argues, on page 13 of the remarks, that Higashi discloses a relationship of “service [Wingdings font/0xE0] robot” whereas the present invention as claimed requires a structure of “task [Wingdings font/0xE0] unit function [Wingdings font/0xE0] robot”.
However, Higashi does teach a structure of “task [Wingdings font/0xE0] unit function [Wingdings font/0xE0] robot”. The tea serving task is decomposed into five different unit functions of an order reception job, a first movement job, a tea taking job, a second movement job, and an arrival notification job. Each unit function is then assigned to a robot that can perform the corresponding unit function.
Thus, for these reasons, claims 1, and 10-11 remain rejected under 103.
Regarding amended claims 4 and 14, the claims are now rejected in view of Yim and Brooks. Yim teaches the plurality of robots are controlled to complete the task by sharing, through communication between the plurality of robots, a processing status of a currently performed unit function, a situation sensed by each robot. The robots work cooperatively to perform a task for a customer by sharing, through communication between the plurality of robots, a processing status of a currently performed unit function, such as completion of the currently performed unit function, and a situation sensed by each robot, such as customer information and order information. Brooks teaches sharing, through communication between the plurality of robots, environmental information.
Thus, claims 4 and 14 also remain rejected under 103.
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 ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights