DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 19/102,675 and the preliminary amendment filled on 01/20/2026.
Claims 8-10 and 12-15 are canceled, claims 1-7, 11-13 and 16-18 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5 and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 cites “the module identities” on line last line of the claim 1, where in the previous line, the claim cites “a module identity of a respective identified module being assigned to the response origination from it”. Therefore, a citation of “the module identities” is not conventional. The claim limitation “verifying the configured identifiers using the module identities” may be re-written as “verifying each of the configured identifiers using respective module identity”. Appropriate correction is required.
On line 8 of claim 3, the acronym word, “GPIO” should be presented for what it stands for.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “the correctness” should apparently be “[[the]] correctness”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the “double dot” (..) symbol at the beginning of the lines 7-8 and 9 to be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “the order of the modules” should apparently be “[[the]]an order of the modules”. Claim 7 is also objected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 cites the phrase “each motor”, where in the previous line, the claim should apparently cite the limitation “where each of the modules comprises a motor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “each of the discovered at least one further modules” on line 14 should apparently be “where
Claim 5 cites “after the triggering of the response of one of the modules the response is first received, then the identification of the module from which the response originates is carried out, and then the configured identifier used for the triggering of this response is verified based on the identification of the module before the response of another one of the modules is triggered”, which is not grammatically correct and/or not written in conventional format. Rearrange the claim language and/or appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 12 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “each of the saved files” on line 8, where in the previous lines 3 and 6, the claim cites “providing a file” and “saving the provided file”. Therefore, a citation of “each of the saved files” makes the claim ambiguous.
Claim 4 further cites “the originally provided file” on line 9, which lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite because there is no prior citation of originally provided file in the claim.
Claim 12 depends from claim 8, which has been cancelled. Therefore, claim 12 is incomplete and its scope cannot be determined because the subject matter of the claim from which it depends is not present in the application. Accordingly, the claim 12 is indefinite. For continuing an examination, the examiner considered that the claim 12 depends on independent claim 11.
Claim 12 further cites “the module identities”, which lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim because there is no prior citation of module identities.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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: “first master” in claims 2, 11, 13, 16; “second master” in claims 2, 11, 13, 16, 18; “master device” and “further modules” in claim 7; “another master” in claim 16; have has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
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.
A review of the specification, , filed 09/23/2024, in para. [0078], cites “the flight controller 42 corresponding to the drive control unit”. Therefore, “the drive control unit is interpreted as “controller”.
A review of the original specification, filed 09/23/2024, Para. [0062], cites “remote ID reception unit 522 includes a demodulation circuit”, and in para. [0078], cites “the remote ID reception unit 522 corresponding to the other-device information reception unit”. Therefore, other-device information reception unit is interpreted as any circuit that would be able to receive unique information sent out from another moving object.
In Specification, para. [0051], cites “the flight controller 42 records the position information of the drone 10 in the memory 80. The recording of the position information of the drone 10 may be periodically performed. In addition, the flight controller 42 records, in the memory 80, pieces of the unique information received from the other-device drones 101 to 103 and the like”. Therefore, recording unit in claim 5 is interpreted as the flight controller 42.
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.
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 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 Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 11-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malzahn et al. (US 2023/0028405 A1) (hereinafter Malzahn) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0213604 A1) (hereinafter Lee).
Claim 1. Malzahn et al. (US 2023/0028405 A1) teaches a method for a configuration of a modular industrial robot (See Abstract, Fig. 1, and/or Para. [0102], discloses “A modular configurable robot 10”), the method comprising:
obtaining a module specification about a current structure of the robot, the module specification being specific for a number of modules of the robot (See Para. [0043], “obtain a corresponding record containing robot module parameters”, and see Para. [0254]-[0258], Fig. 12, steps 130, 140, 150 and 160, discloses “acquiring information OI of a relative orientation of the coupling of said robot module, e.g. the upstream module 12.sub.1, with respect to the adjacent module 12.sub.2 and associating such information OI of a relative orientation to the respective nodes 84 in said graph structure VNT”);
configuring identifiers for the modules using the module specification, the identifiers being used for addressing the modules via an industrial communication network (See Para. [0107], [0188], [0300], discloses “an identification code I which identifies the robot module”, and/or see Para. [0288], “the controller 80 may assign an index to each slave”);
triggering responses of the modules depending on the configured identifiers (See Para. [0248], “configured to be triggered either via periodic trigger, to check whether there are changes to the robot”);
Nevertheless, Malzahn fails to teach, where the method comprising: receiving each of the responses via an additional communication network; identifying each of the modules from which the responses originate, a module identity of a respective identified module being assigned to the response originating from it; and verifying the configured identifiers using the module identities.
However, Lee et al. (US 2021/0213604 A1) teaches a modular robot (see Abstract”), where the method comprising: receiving each of the responses via an additional communication network (See Para. [0004], “receives predetermined signals, thereby determining whether or not the modular robot is coupled to other robots”, and/or see Para. [0082], “receives predetermined signals, thereby determining whether or not the modular robot is coupled to other robots”, and see Para. [0078], “device 100a to 100e may be connected to each other through the cloud network, and can communicate with each other through base stations”);
identifying each of the modules from which the responses originate (See Abstract, “identifying the module device”), a module identity of a respective identified module being assigned to the response originating from it “(See Para. [0138], “using the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510”)”, and in Para. [0144], “the modular robot 400 may determine that it is compatible with the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510 corresponding to a predetermined manufacturer or model. In addition, the modular robot 400 may determine that it is not compatible with the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510 that does not correspond to a predetermined manufacturer or model”); and
verifying the configured identifiers using the module identities (See Para. [0144], “the modular robot 400 may determine that it is not compatible with the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510 that does not correspond to a predetermined manufacturer or model”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Malzahn to incorporate the above claimed feature as taught by Lee in order to control function of modular robot, and a function of module device based on the identification.
Claim 2. The teaching of Malzahn as modified by the teaching of Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of configuring is carried out by at least one first master, the first master being used for controlling a communication with the modules via the industrial communication network using the identifiers for the addressing (See Malzahn, Abstract, and Para. [0039], discloses “the robot comprising a master communication module forming with said slave modules a master slave communication network topology, a server hosting a database of robot module parameters, accessible by unique identification code”, and Para. [0040], “a server device configured to host a centralized robot module database or lookup table comprising a set of records containing robot module parameters, in particular functional, kinematic and inertial and semantic parameters, accessible by a respective unique identification code”);
wherein the step of obtaining the module specification comprises:
determining the module specification by a second master using an identification procedure to identify the currently present modules of the robot via the additional communication network, the second master being used for controlling a communication with the modules via the additional communication network (See Malzahn, Para. [0254], [0300], “retrieving from said centralized module database or lookup table 9), as a function of said unique identification code I stored in said accessed slave module register 81 corresponding records containing robot module parameters FKI, e.g. functional, kinematic and inertial and semantic parameters”, and see Para. [0102], “Each slave robot module includes a controller module 52, as shown in FIG. 2, which controls the specific functions of the robot module 12, i.e. controls and drives servomotors and actuators to perform the kinematic required for that slave module 12 and/or acquires values and controls sensors or controls other functions performed by that specific slave robot module 12”); and
transmitting the determined module specification to the first master via a data connection between the first master and the second master (See Malzahn, Para. [0039], “master network communication module coupled in signal exchange relationship to said communication network slave modules to form a master slave communication network topology, in particular a EtherCAT network”).
Claim 3. The teaching of Malzahn as modified by the teaching of Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identifiers are configured in a way that the identifiers are uniquely assigned to the modules (See Malzahn, Para. [0061], “configuration retrieval stage comprises activating the master controller to, sequentially, perform operations of: retrieving unique identification codes of respective robot modules of the assembled robot”, and see Para. [0124], “a first hub module 12 may be configured to couple the master module or base 11 with up to two other robot assemblies, and a second twin hub module 18 may be configured to couple the base module 11 with up to four other robot assemblies”), the uniquely assigned identifiers being used to send commands and/or data to and/or from the modules via the industrial communication network (See Malzahn, Para. [0107], “the slave processor module also stores an identification code I which identifies the specific robot module 12. As better shown in FIG. 7 the slave processor module 72 also is configured to send commands C to the controller module 52”), and/or
wherein the step of triggering comprises:
initiating an activation of a GPIO of one of the modules by transmitting a corresponding message to the module (See Malzahn, Para. [0178], “EtherCAT (slave) controller 84, (directly) coupled to the microprocessor 72 in signal exchange relationship via a communication interface per se known (e.g., SPI, BLISS, etc.), and/or Para. [0220], “the first port P0 of the EtherCAT Controller slave device 84 may be referred to as “upstream port” and may be configured to receive signals from an EtherCAT master node 300 of the network 30”, and/or see Para. [0225], “The master device 300 may be configured to send one or more information/control signals (known as data telegrams, i.e. network signals NS, to devices.”).
Claim 4. The teaching of Malzahn as modified by the teaching of Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of configuring the identifiers comprises:
setting the identifiers for the modules by providing a file for the modules, the file being modified for each of the modules to include the identifier (See Malzahn, Para. [0254], “automatic reconfiguration stage 1002 may comprise: [0255] a virtual network topology detection operation 130 comprising accessing by said master network communication module 300 said respective port state values stored in said slave module memory register 81 of said network communication slave modules 84 in said ring or chain network and computing at said master network communication module 300 a graph structure VNT, having the slave modules 84 as nodes and the connection among their ports as edges of said graph structure VNT, representative of a virtual topology of the communication network 30 of the assembled configurable robot 10 as a function of said respective port state values”, and see Para. [0288], “assign an index to each slave”);
saving the provided file after each modification to the respective module (See Malzahn, Para. [0258], “generating an updated robot description file FD including updated robot kinematics and dynamics model UM, as a function of said graph structure VNT representative of the detected virtual topology in step 130, including said information OI of a relative orientation and said robot module parameters FKI”); and
verifying the correctness of each of the saved files by reading back the file and comparing the read back file with the originally provided file (See Malzahn, Para. [0288],” check which ports are open in (slave) devices 80, for instance reading the respective state register, in order to determine its parent”).
Claim 5. The teaching of Malzahn as modified by the teaching of Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein after the triggering of the response of one of the modules the response is first received, then the identification of the module from which the response originates is carried out, and then the configured identifier used for the triggering of this response is verified based on the identification of the module before the response of another one of the modules is triggered (See Malzahn, Para. [0248], “periodic trigger to check whether there are changes to the robot,”).
Claim 6. The teaching of Malzahn as modified by the teaching of Lee teaches the method of claim 1, the module specification being specific for the type of each of the modules of the robot, wherein the method further comprises:
selecting a part of the modules depending on the type of each of the modules (See Malzahn, Para. [0107] “the slave processor module also stores an identification code I which identifies the specific robot module 12”);
wherein the response is only triggered for the selected modules (See Malzahn, Para. [0107], “the slave processor module also is configured to send commands to the controller module”);
wherein
the module specification being specific for the order of the modules of the robot (See Malzahn, Para. [0285], “the automatic detection stage 130 configured for detecting the network communication topology of the robot modules assembled in the robot assembly stage 120 may comprise automatically reconstructing the apparent network topology as a function of the ordered sequence of the (sets of) slave devices as seen by the master controller 300 along the network ring),
wherein position data from each motor is transmitted via the industrial communication network (See Malzahn, Para. [0105], “each slave robot module 12 includes a controller module 52, which is the module driving the motors and/or actuators and/or the sensors of the robot module according to its function.”, and see Para. [0107], “the slave processor module 72 of the robot module can obtain an indication of the relative orientation on the basis of the orientation electrical signal O which can be transmitted over the communication network in the network signals NS to the master module 300.”),
wherein a position of the robot is determined using the position data and the module specification (See Malzahn, Para. [0288], “a slave device position along the network 30, 30A, 30B, and may check which ports are open in (slave) devices 80, for instance reading the respective state register, in order to determine its parent”).
Claim 11. Malzahn teaches a safety control system for a modular industrial robot, the system comprising:
a first master for controlling a communication with at least two modules of the robot via an industrial communication network (See Abstract, “the robot comprising a master communication module forming with said slave modules a master slave communication network topology”, and/or see Para. [0039], “said modular configurable robot further comprises a master robot module comprising a master network communication module coupled in signal exchange relationship to said communication network slave modules to form a master slave communication network topology, in particular a EtherCAT network”); and
a second master for controlling a communication with the modules of the robot via an additional communication network (See Para. [0102]-[0103], “the master slave architecture is implemented by a master slave communication network architecture, where a master communication node 300 is included in the master robot module 11 and communicates through signal passing through said EMI 100 which slave communication modules 84 arranged in each of the slave robot modules 12”, and Para. [0103], [0106], “The master module 11 may also include a further processor equipped module to perform other functionalities required to the master module 11 or such functionalities can be performed by the circuitry of the module 300 itself”);
wherein the first master is configured to address the modules via the industrial communication network using identifiers of the modules (See at least Para. [0103], “the master module 11 includes also a server device configured to host a centralized robot module database 90, comprising a set of records containing robot module parameters, in particular functional, kinematic and inertial and semantic parameters, accessible by a respective unique identification code I, which, as shown in FIG. 2, is stored in a processor module 72 of each robot module 12. In variant embodiments the server device or the robot module database 90 may not be arranged inside the master module 11, but may be disposed outside, in particular remote, for instance being accessed by the master communication node 300 by a wireless link”, and/or Para. [0220] and [0222], [0225], “”);
wherein the second master is configured to receive responses via the additional communication network, the responses being triggered previously depending on the identifiers (See Para. [0106], “network signals NS passing through the couplings 50 and the EMIs 100 to reach the slave communication modules 84 to enable network communication between the slave modules 84 and the master module 300 and among the slave modules 84 themselves”, and Para. [0107], “the slave processor module 72 of the robot module can obtain an indication of the relative orientation on the basis of the orientation electrical signal O which can be transmitted over the communication network in the network signals NS to the master module 300”, and see Para. [0248], “configured to be triggered either via periodic trigger, to check whether there are changes to the robot”);
Nevertheless, Malzahn fails to teach, wherein the second master is further configured to perform an identification of each of the modules from which the respective response originates;
wherein the first master and the second master are in data connection with each other for carrying out a verification of the identifiers using the identification.
However, Lee teaches, wherein the second master is further configured to perform an identification of each of the modules from which the respective response originates See Para. [0138], “using the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510”)”, and in Para. [0144], “the modular robot 400 may determine that it is compatible with the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510 corresponding to a predetermined manufacturer or model. In addition, the modular robot 400 may determine that it is not compatible with the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510 that does not correspond to a predetermined manufacturer or model”);
wherein the first master and the second master are in data connection with each other for carrying out a verification of the identifiers using the identification (See Para. [0144], “the modular robot 400 may determine that it is not compatible with the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510 that does not correspond to a predetermined manufacturer or model”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Malzahn to incorporate the above claimed feature as taught by Lee in order to control function of modular robot, and a function of module device based on the identification.
Claim 12. The teaching of Malzahn as modified by the teaching of Lee teaches the safety control system of claim 8, wherein the safety control system is configured to carry out a method (100) comprising the following steps: obtaining a module specification about a current structure of the robot, the module specification being specific for a number of modules of the robot configuring identifiers for the modules using the module specification, the identifiers being used for addressing the modules via an industrial communication network (See Lee, Para. [0004], “receives predetermined signals, thereby determining whether or not the modular robot is coupled to other robots”, and/or see Para. [0082], “receives predetermined signals, thereby determining whether or not the modular robot is coupled to other robots”, and see Para. [0078], “device 100a to 100e may be connected to each other through the cloud network, and can communicate with each other through base stations”);
triggering responses of the modules depending on the configured identifiers (See Malzahn, Para. [0178], “EtherCAT (slave) controller 84, (directly) coupled to the microprocessor 72 in signal exchange relationship via a communication interface per se known (e.g., SPI, BLISS, etc.), and/or Para. [0220], “the first port P0 of the EtherCAT Controller slave device 84 may be referred to as “upstream port” and may be configured to receive signals from an EtherCAT master node 300 of the network 30”, and/or see Para. [0225], “The master device 300 may be configured to send one or more information/control signals (known as data telegrams, i.e. network signals NS, to devices”);
receiving each of the responses via an additional communication network (See Lee, see Abstract, where the method comprising: receiving each of the responses via an additional communication network (See Lee, Para. [0004], “receives predetermined signals, thereby determining whether or not the modular robot is coupled to other robots”, and/or see Para. [0082], “receives predetermined signals, thereby determining whether or not the modular robot is coupled to other robots”, and see Para. [0078], “device 100a to 100e may be connected to each other through the cloud network, and can communicate with each other through base stations”);
identifying each of the modules from which the responses originate (See Lee, Abstract, “identifying the module device”), a module identity of a respective identified module being assigned to the response originating from it (See Lee, Para. [0138], “using the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510”)”, and in Para. [0144], “the modular robot 400 may determine that it is compatible with the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510 corresponding to a predetermined manufacturer or model. In addition, the modular robot 400 may determine that it is not compatible with the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510 that does not correspond to a predetermined manufacturer or model”); and
verifying the configured identifiers using the module identities (See Lee, Para. [0144], “the modular robot 400 may determine that it is not compatible with the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510 that does not correspond to a predetermined manufacturer or model”).
Claim 13 is a modular industrial robot and having substantially the same technical features as claim 11 except for assembling process, differing only in the category of invention. However, the primary reference, Malzahn discloses in fig. 12, stage 120, an operation for assembly”. Therefore, the claim 13 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 11.
Claim 16. The teaching of Malzahn as modified by the teaching of Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the steps of receiving and identifying and verifying being carried out by the second master (See Malzahn, Para. [0039], “a master network communication module coupled in signal exchange relationship to said communication network slave modules to form a master slave communication network topology”, and/or Para. [0107], “The orientation electrical signal O is supplied to the slave processor module 72 of the upstream robot module 12, which is in signal exchange with the slave network module 84”, and see Para. [0248], “periodic trigger to check whether there are changes to the robot”), and the step of triggering being carried out by the first master or another master (See Malzahn, Para. [0225], “The master device 300 may be configured to send one or more information/control signals”, and Para. [0288],” check which ports are open in (slave) devices 80, for instance reading the respective state register, in order to determine its parent. Additionally, see Lee, Para. [0144], “the modular robot 400 may determine that it is not compatible with the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510 that does not correspond to a predetermined manufacturer or model”, and/or Para. [0152], “The slave mode may be a mode in which the first function 1012 of the modular robot 400 is controlled by the module device 510 operating in the master mode. According to the embodiment, the modular robot 400 may transfer the control authority of the first function 1012 that can be performed by the modular robot 400 itself to the module device 510, and may perform a function corresponding to a control command received from the module device 510.”).
Claim 17. The teaching of Malzahn as modified by the teaching of Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of triggering comprises storing an identity of each of the modules for which the response was triggered (See Malzahn, Para. [0037], [0057], [0103], “a microcontroller circuit portion comprising a non-volatile memory circuit portion configured to store a unique identification code of the robot module”, and/or see Para. [0107], “the slave processor module also stores an identification code I which identifies the specific robot module 12”. Additionally, see Lee, Para. [0145], “the modular robot 400 may control the function of the mounted module device 510 by using a compatibility control program stored within the modular robot 400 (e.g., the memory 440), in response to the identification of the compatible module device 510”).
Claim 18. The teaching of Malzahn as modified by the teaching of Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of verifying, comprises:
determining the module identity of each of the identified modules by the second master, each module identity being assigned to the response originating from it (See Lee, See Para. [0138], “using the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510”)”, and in Para. [0144], “the modular robot 400 may determine that it is compatible with the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510 corresponding to a predetermined manufacturer or model. In addition, the modular robot 400 may determine that it is not compatible with the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510 that does not correspond to a predetermined manufacturer or model”); and
comparing the determined module identity with the stored identity for each of the responses (See Para. [0144], “the modular robot 400 may determine that it is not compatible with the module device 510 in response to the identification of the module device 510 that does not correspond to a predetermined manufacturer or model”).
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and written to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and claims objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 7, the closest prior art, Malzahn et al. (US 2023/0028405 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2021/0213604 A1) fails to suggest, disclose or teach individually or in combination to render obvious limitations of “the method of claim 1 further comprising the following steps: transmitting a discovery message by a master device via a communication network to discover a first module of the modules, the discovered first module responding to the discovery message; incrementing a number and setting an address of the discovered first module depending on the response to the discovery message, the address being used for addressing the discovered module via the communication network, the address further being specific for the order of the modules, and the number being specific for the amount of the modules; transmitting at least one further discovery message by the master device via the communication network to discover at least one further module of the modules, each of the discovered at least one further modules responding to the discovery message; and incrementing the number and setting at least one further address of the discovered at least one further module depending on each response to the discovery message; wherein the number and/or addresses are used as the module specification” and in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights