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 a Non-Final Action on the Merits. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 5th, 2025 has been considered and entered.
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) are:
“a robot selection part which selects” in at least claim 1
“a robot control part for controlling” in at least claim 1
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.
The published specification provides a corresponding structure for the claim limitations in at least paragraphs 99 and 109.
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.
Contingent Limitations
Claims 1-2, 9-11, and 15 contain conditional limitations:
Claim 1: “a robot control part for controlling to receive from the master robot the position data of the master robot and the slave robots collected by the master robot when the master robot and slave robot are selected by the robot selection part and to transmit the received position data to a server”
Claim 2: “the robot selection part selects one of the plurality of slave robots as a sub robot when the slave robot controlled by the master robot deviates from the communication section taken charge of by the master robot”
Claim 9: “the robot part communicates with the master robot via Bluetooth communication when the robot control part is not able to communicate via Wi-Fi direct”
Claim 10: “receiving by a robot control part from the master robot the position data of the master robot and the slave robots collected by the master robot when the master robot and the slave robot are selected”
Claim 11: “the selecting robots selects one of the plurality of slave robots as a sub robot when the slave robot controlled by the master robot deviates from the communication section taken charge of by the master robot”
Claim 15: “the receiving the position data from the master robot communicates with the master robot via Bluetooth communication when the robot control part is not able to communicate via Wi-Fi Direct”
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitations (1)-(3) as noted above, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to conditional limitations in process claims, MPEP 2111.04 guides
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
As claims 10-11 and 15 are process claims, Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to limitations (1)-(10). See MPEP 2111.04, II “contingent claims” ("[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed . . . [t]herefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);").
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 15 does not require “the receiving the position data from the master robot communicates with the master robot via Bluetooth communication” since the conditional phrases “when” does not require that the determination is actually made (i.e., “when the robot control part is not able to communicate via Wi-Fi Direct”; -- rather than that they are determined).
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, 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 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, 8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20220070736 A) (“Park”) (Translation Attached) in view of Lee (US 20110135189 A1) (“Lee”).
With respect to claim 1, it is important to note per the conditional limitation section above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitation (1) as noted above, such as a robot control part, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 1, Park teaches a smart logistics vehicle control system, the system comprising: a robot selection part which selects, among a plurality of smart logistics vehicles, a master robot in charge of a center of a communication network for each communication section and a plurality of slave robots which are positioned within the communication section taken charge of by the master robot, and which are controlled by the master robot to transmit position data (See at least Park Paragraphs 54-57 “[Referring to FIG. 5, the robot control unit 123 controls the first control area 400a and the second control area through CCTV 1 (200a), CCTV 2 (200b), CCTV 3 (200c), and CCTV 4 (200d). (400a), control robot 1 (300a), control robot 2 (300b), control robot 3 (300c), and control robot 4 (300d) respectively disposed in the third control area 400c and the fourth control area 400d control to move and perform preset actions in the corresponding control area.] [In addition, the robot control unit 123 is an arbitrary control robot, for example, as shown in FIG. 6, with respect to the control robot 1 (300a), the wireless communication network between the control robots 2 to 4 (300b, 300c, 300d) is managed. It is selected as the master robot, and the remaining control robots 2 to 4 (300b, 300c, 300d) are set as slave robots to configure and maintain the wireless communication network.] [Referring to FIGS. 1 to 4 again, the robot control unit 123 analyzes the network state in consideration of the wireless communication resources of the individual control robots 300a, 300b to 300n, the current location and the operating state of the control robot, etc. , it is possible to determine the change in the network environment according to the result.] [At this time, if it is determined that a change has occurred as a result of the determination of the network environment, the robot control unit 123 selects one of the control robots 300a, 300b to 300n as the master robot to dynamically change the network topology. You can control it to change.]” | Paragraph 65 “[For this purpose, the control robots 300a, 300b to 300n may include a data communication unit 310 that transmits and receives data signals to and from the control server 100 and the clustered neighboring control robots.]”).
Park, however, fails to disclose a robot control part for controlling to receive from the master robot the position data of the master robot and the slave robots collected by the master robot when the master robot and slave robot are selected by the robot selection part and to transmit the received position data to a server.
Lee teaches a robot control part for controlling to receive from the master robot the position data of the master robot and the slave robots collected by the master robot when the master robot and slave robot are selected by the robot selection part and to transmit the received position data to a server (See at least Lee FIGS. 6 and 8 and Paragraphs 52-55 “Referring to FIG. 6, an operator selects at least one child robot 210 through an interface provided by the remote controller 240 in step 5600. The selected child robot 210 is controlled at the manual control mode 422 and the remote driving mode 412. Next, the remote controller 240 performs communication with the selected child robot 210 in step 5602. Through such communication, sensed data and/or image data about the surrounding environment of the selected child robot 210 is collected from the selected child robot 210 in step 5604. The collected sensed data and/or image data is provided to the operator through the remote controller 240. Then, the operator can recognize surrounding situation information based on the collected sensed data and/or image data displayed on the remote controller 240. The remote controller 240 generates control data for controlling the movement of the selected child robot 210 depending on the operator's manipulation and transmits the control data to the selected child robot 210 and the parent robot 220, thereby controlling the movement of the selected child robot 210 and the parent robot 220 in step 5606. In the meantime, unselected child robots 210 and parent robots 220 are set to be at the autonomous control mode 424 and autonomous driving mode 414 and travel through communication with the other child robots in the same robot group or through recognition of their surroundings based on the sensed data and/or image data. The remote control station 260 remotely manages the status of multiple remote controllers 240 via a WiBro network, and notifies all the remote controllers 240 of situation information of other areas using a text messaging function, that is, SMS transmission function.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Park to include a robot control part for controlling to receive from the master robot the position data of the master robot and the slave robots collected by the master robot when the master robot and slave robot are selected by the robot selection part and to transmit the received position data to a server, as taught by Lee as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal robot control (Lee Paragraph 8 “Further, the present invention provides a small multi-agent surveillance robot system based on swarm intelligence, which is freely movable in atypical environments, and performs surveillance and guard tasks in cooperation with one another on the basis of an active, collective operating system.”).
The conditional limitations carried out in claim 1 are performed by a robot control part (Spec. FIG. 6, 320 “robot control part”). Park in view of Lee disclose the same structure (Park Paragraphs 54-57 “[Referring to FIG. 5, the robot control unit 123 controls the first control area 400a and the second control area through CCTV 1 (200a), CCTV 2 (200b), CCTV 3 (200c), and CCTV 4 (200d). (400a), control robot 1 (300a), control robot 2 (300b), control robot 3 (300c), and control robot 4 (300d) respectively disposed in the third control area 400c and the fourth control area 400d control to move and perform preset actions in the corresponding control area.] [In addition, the robot control unit 123 is an arbitrary control robot, for example, as shown in FIG. 6, with respect to the control robot 1 (300a), the wireless communication network between the control robots 2 to 4 (300b, 300c, 300d) is managed. It is selected as the master robot, and the remaining control robots 2 to 4 (300b, 300c, 300d) are set as slave robots to configure and maintain the wireless communication network.] [Referring to FIGS. 1 to 4 again, the robot control unit 123 analyzes the network state in consideration of the wireless communication resources of the individual control robots 300a, 300b to 300n, the current location and the operating state of the control robot, etc. , it is possible to determine the change in the network environment according to the result.] [At this time, if it is determined that a change has occurred as a result of the determination of the network environment, the robot control unit 123 selects one of the control robots 300a, 300b to 300n as the master robot to dynamically change the network topology. You can control it to change.]” | Paragraph 65 “[For this purpose, the control robots 300a, 300b to 300n may include a data communication unit 310 that transmits and receives data signals to and from the control server 100 and the clustered neighboring control robots.]”) such that Park in view of Lee disclose a structure capable of performing limitation (1).
With respect to claim 8, and similarly claim 14, Park in view of Lee teaches that the robot control part communicates with the master robot via Wi-Fi Direct (See at least Lee Paragraph 50 “The remote controller 240 is connected to the parent robots 220 or the child robots 210 based on WiFi and/or WiBro, and provides real-time robot operation information processing and image information processing which are required to operate a platform of multiple small mobile robots on the spot. As an example of the remote controller 240, there may be a portable C4I (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence) terminal.”).
With respect to claim 10, Park teaches a smart logistics vehicle control method, the method comprising: selecting by a robot selection part among a plurality of smart logistics vehicles a master robot in charge of a center of a communication network for each communication section and a plurality of slave robots which are positioned within the communication section taken charge of by the master robot, and which are controlled by the master robot to transmit position data (See at least Park Paragraphs 54-57 “[Referring to FIG. 5, the robot control unit 123 controls the first control area 400a and the second control area through CCTV 1 (200a), CCTV 2 (200b), CCTV 3 (200c), and CCTV 4 (200d). (400a), control robot 1 (300a), control robot 2 (300b), control robot 3 (300c), and control robot 4 (300d) respectively disposed in the third control area 400c and the fourth control area 400d control to move and perform preset actions in the corresponding control area.] [In addition, the robot control unit 123 is an arbitrary control robot, for example, as shown in FIG. 6, with respect to the control robot 1 (300a), the wireless communication network between the control robots 2 to 4 (300b, 300c, 300d) is managed. It is selected as the master robot, and the remaining control robots 2 to 4 (300b, 300c, 300d) are set as slave robots to configure and maintain the wireless communication network.] [Referring to FIGS. 1 to 4 again, the robot control unit 123 analyzes the network state in consideration of the wireless communication resources of the individual control robots 300a, 300b to 300n, the current location and the operating state of the control robot, etc. , it is possible to determine the change in the network environment according to the result.] [At this time, if it is determined that a change has occurred as a result of the determination of the network environment, the robot control unit 123 selects one of the control robots 300a, 300b to 300n as the master robot to dynamically change the network topology. You can control it to change.]” | Paragraph 65 “[For this purpose, the control robots 300a, 300b to 300n may include a data communication unit 310 that transmits and receives data signals to and from the control server 100 and the clustered neighboring control robots.]”).
Park, however, fails to disclose receiving by a robot control part from the master robot the position data of the master robot and the slave robots collected by the master robot when the master robot and the slave robot are selected; and transmitting the received position data to a server by the robot control part.
Lee teaches receiving by a robot control part from the master robot the position data of the master robot and the slave robots collected by the master robot when the master robot and the slave robot are selected; and transmitting the received position data to a server by the robot control part (See at least Lee FIGS. 6 and 8 and Paragraphs 52-55 “Referring to FIG. 6, an operator selects at least one child robot 210 through an interface provided by the remote controller 240 in step 5600. The selected child robot 210 is controlled at the manual control mode 422 and the remote driving mode 412. Next, the remote controller 240 performs communication with the selected child robot 210 in step 5602. Through such communication, sensed data and/or image data about the surrounding environment of the selected child robot 210 is collected from the selected child robot 210 in step 5604. The collected sensed data and/or image data is provided to the operator through the remote controller 240. Then, the operator can recognize surrounding situation information based on the collected sensed data and/or image data displayed on the remote controller 240. The remote controller 240 generates control data for controlling the movement of the selected child robot 210 depending on the operator's manipulation and transmits the control data to the selected child robot 210 and the parent robot 220, thereby controlling the movement of the selected child robot 210 and the parent robot 220 in step 5606. In the meantime, unselected child robots 210 and parent robots 220 are set to be at the autonomous control mode 424 and autonomous driving mode 414 and travel through communication with the other child robots in the same robot group or through recognition of their surroundings based on the sensed data and/or image data. The remote control station 260 remotely manages the status of multiple remote controllers 240 via a WiBro network, and notifies all the remote controllers 240 of situation information of other areas using a text messaging function, that is, SMS transmission function.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Park to include receiving by a robot control part from the master robot the position data of the master robot and the slave robots collected by the master robot when the master robot and the slave robot are selected; and transmitting the received position data to a server by the robot control part, as taught by Lee as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal robot control (Lee Paragraph 8 “Further, the present invention provides a small multi-agent surveillance robot system based on swarm intelligence, which is freely movable in atypical environments, and performs surveillance and guard tasks in cooperation with one another on the basis of an active, collective operating system.”).
Claim 2, 6, 9, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20220070736 A) (“Park”) (Translation Attached) in view of Lee (US 20110135189 A1) (“Lee”) further in view of Zisch (EP 3693821 A1) (“Zisch”) (Translation Attached).
With respect to claim 2, it is important to note per the conditional limitation section above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitation (2) as noted above, such as a robot selection part, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
The conditional limitations carried out in claim 2 are performed by a robot selection part (Spec. FIG. 6, 310 “robot selection part”). Park in view of Lee disclose the same structure (Lee FIGS. 6 and 8 and Paragraphs 52-55 “Referring to FIG. 6, an operator selects at least one child robot 210 through an interface provided by the remote controller 240 in step 5600. The selected child robot 210 is controlled at the manual control mode 422 and the remote driving mode 412. Next, the remote controller 240 performs communication with the selected child robot 210 in step 5602. Through such communication, sensed data and/or image data about the surrounding environment of the selected child robot 210 is collected from the selected child robot 210 in step 5604. The collected sensed data and/or image data is provided to the operator through the remote controller 240. Then, the operator can recognize surrounding situation information based on the collected sensed data and/or image data displayed on the remote controller 240. The remote controller 240 generates control data for controlling the movement of the selected child robot 210 depending on the operator's manipulation and transmits the control data to the selected child robot 210 and the parent robot 220, thereby controlling the movement of the selected child robot 210 and the parent robot 220 in step 5606. In the meantime, unselected child robots 210 and parent robots 220 are set to be at the autonomous control mode 424 and autonomous driving mode 414 and travel through communication with the other child robots in the same robot group or through recognition of their surroundings based on the sensed data and/or image data. The remote control station 260 remotely manages the status of multiple remote controllers 240 via a WiBro network, and notifies all the remote controllers 240 of situation information of other areas using a text messaging function, that is, SMS transmission function.”) such that Park in view of Lee disclose a structure capable of performing limitation (2).
With respect to claim 2, Park in view of Lee teaches a slave robot when the slave robot controlled by the master robot deviates from the communication section taken charge of by the master robot (See at least Park Paragraph 48).
Park in view of Lee, however, fail to explicitly disclose that the robot selection part selects one of the plurality of slave robots as a sub robot when the slave robot controlled by the master robot deviates from the communication section taken charge of by the master robot.
Zisch teaches that the robot selection part selects one of the plurality of slave robots as a sub robot (See at least Zisch Paragraph 37 “In an advantageous variant of the invention, the robot group comprises at least three mobile robots. In this case, at least one of the slave robots is preferably operated as a submaster robot, to which the safety information received from the master robot is transmitted via a short-range wireless communication interface and from which this information is forwarded via a further short-range wireless communication interface to at least one other slave robot of the robot group. In this way, it can be achieved that the safety information received from the master robot is forwarded to a plurality of robots of the robot group without the master robot having to have more than one direct connection to other robots of the robot group. As a result, a communication interface can be used in particular as a short-range wireless communication interface, by means of which at most a point-to-point connection can be established at the same time.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Park in view of Lee to include that the robot selection part selects one of the plurality of slave robots as a sub robot, as taught by Zisch as disclosed above, such that that the robot selection part selects one of the plurality of slave robots as a sub robot when the slave robot controlled by the master robot deviates from the communication section taken charge of by the master robot, in order to ensure efficient data transmission (Zisch Paragraph 1 “The invention relates to wireless transmission of safety and/or status information between a robot group comprising a plurality of mobile robots and a stationary communication unit”).
With respect to claim 6, and similarly claim 13, Park in view of Lee fail to explicitly disclose that the robot selection part selects a robot, which minimizes data transmission and reception latency, as the master robot among the plurality of smart logistics vehicles.
Zisch, however, teaches that the robot selection part selects a robot, which minimizes data transmission and reception latency, as the master robot among the plurality of smart logistics vehicles (See at least Zisch Paragraph 30 “Preferably, the robot of the robot group in which the signal strength of a signal transmitted from the stationary communication unit via its long-distance wireless communication interface is the highest is determined with respect to the communication with the communication unit to the master robot. This makes it possible to achieve good transmission quality in the transmission of information between the stationary communication unit and the robot group. Alternatively, the master robot can be selected according to another selection criterion. For example, the selection of the master robot can be effected depending on the positions and/or movement directions of the robots.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Park in view of Lee to include that the robot selection part selects a robot, which minimizes data transmission and reception latency, as the master robot among the plurality of smart logistics vehicles, as taught by Zisch as disclosed above, in order to ensure efficient data transmission (Zisch Paragraph 1 “The invention relates to wireless transmission of safety and/or status information between a robot group comprising a plurality of mobile robots and a stationary communication unit”).
With respect to claim 9, it is important to note per the conditional limitation section above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitation (3) as noted above, such as a robot control part, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
The conditional limitations carried out in claim 9 are performed by a robot control part (Spec. FIG. 6, 320 “robot control part”). Park in view of Lee disclose the same structure (Park Paragraphs 54-57 “[Referring to FIG. 5, the robot control unit 123 controls the first control area 400a and the second control area through CCTV 1 (200a), CCTV 2 (200b), CCTV 3 (200c), and CCTV 4 (200d). (400a), control robot 1 (300a), control robot 2 (300b), control robot 3 (300c), and control robot 4 (300d) respectively disposed in the third control area 400c and the fourth control area 400d control to move and perform preset actions in the corresponding control area.] [In addition, the robot control unit 123 is an arbitrary control robot, for example, as shown in FIG. 6, with respect to the control robot 1 (300a), the wireless communication network between the control robots 2 to 4 (300b, 300c, 300d) is managed. It is selected as the master robot, and the remaining control robots 2 to 4 (300b, 300c, 300d) are set as slave robots to configure and maintain the wireless communication network.] [Referring to FIGS. 1 to 4 again, the robot control unit 123 analyzes the network state in consideration of the wireless communication resources of the individual control robots 300a, 300b to 300n, the current location and the operating state of the control robot, etc. , it is possible to determine the change in the network environment according to the result.] [At this time, if it is determined that a change has occurred as a result of the determination of the network environment, the robot control unit 123 selects one of the control robots 300a, 300b to 300n as the master robot to dynamically change the network topology. You can control it to change.]” | Paragraph 65 “[For this purpose, the control robots 300a, 300b to 300n may include a data communication unit 310 that transmits and receives data signals to and from the control server 100 and the clustered neighboring control robots.]”) such that Park in view of Lee disclose a structure capable of performing limitation (3).
With respect to claim 9, and similarly claim 15, Park in view of Lee teach that the robot control part communicates with the master robot via Wi-Fi direct (See at least Lee Paragraph 50).
Park in view of Lee, however, fail to explicitly disclose that the robot part communicates with the master robot via Bluetooth communication when the robot control part is not able to communicate via Wi-Fi direct.
Zisch teaches communicating via Bluetooth communication (See at least Zisch Paragraph 36 “Preferably, a WLAN interface or a mobile radio interface is used as the long-range wireless communication interface. As the short-range wireless communication interface, a Bluetooth interface or a ZigBee interface is preferably used.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Park in view of Lee to include communicating via Bluetooth communication, as taught by Zisch as disclosed above, such that the robot part communicates with the master robot via Bluetooth communication when the robot control part is not able to communicate via Wi-Fi direct, in order to ensure efficient data transmission (Zisch Paragraph 1 “The invention relates to wireless transmission of safety and/or status information between a robot group comprising a plurality of mobile robots and a stationary communication unit”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20220070736 A) (“Park”) (Translation Attached) in view of Lee (US 20110135189 A1) (“Lee”) in view of Zisch (EP 3693821 A1) (“Zisch”) (Translation Attached) further in view of Goldenberg (US 20180071908 A1) (“Goldenberg”).
With respect to claim 3, Park in view of Lee in view of Zisch fail to explicitly disclose that the robot selection part selects the master robot and the sub robot, respectively by turning on and off a function of the master robot and a function of the sub robot, respectively.
Goldenberg, however, teaches that the robot selection part selects the master robot and the sub robot, respectively by turning on and off a function of the master robot and a function of the sub robot, respectively (See at least Goldenberg Paragraphs 168-172 “At least one pool cleaning robot of the set may act as master pool cleaning robot—it may control at least one slave pool cleaning robot of the set. A single master pool cleaning robot may control one or more other pool cleaning robots. A single slave pool cleaning robot may be controlled by one or more master pool cleaning robots. The roles of the pool cleaning robots may be fixed or may be changed over time. When the roles change over time a slave pool cleaning robot may become a master pool cleaning robot … A pool cleaning robot may be a master pool cleaning robot in relation to certain operations- and may be a slave pool cleaning robot in relation to other operations—either at the same time and/or at different times. There may be provided multiple control layers so that a pool cleaning robot may be a slave of another pool cleaning robot and at the same time be a master of a further pool cleaning robot. For example, a third pool cleaning robot may control a second pool cleaning robot, and the second pool cleaning robot may control a first pool cleaning robot. Yet for another example—the second pool cleaning robot may be controlled by each one of the first and third pool cleaning robots.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Park in view of Lee in view of Zisch to include that the robot selection part selects the master robot and the sub robot, respectively by turning on and off a function of the master robot and a function of the sub robot, respectively, as taught by Goldenberg as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal robot control (Goldenberg Paragraph 170 “The change of roles may occur when the master pool cleaning robot malfunctions—or for any other reason.”).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20220070736 A) (“Park”) (Translation Attached) in view of Lee (US 20110135189 A1) (“Lee”) in view of Zisch (EP 3693821 A1) (“Zisch”) (Translation Attached) further in view of Nishikawa (US 20180337985 A1) (“Nishikawa”).
With respect to claim 4, and similarly claim 12, Park in view of Lee in view of Zisch fails to explicitly disclose that the robot selection part selects as the sub robot the slave robot closest to the slave robot deviated from the communication section.
Nishikawa, however, teaches a change in the selection of a master robot, a slave robot, and a sub robot (See at least Nishikawa FIG. 13 and Paragraph 177 “FIG. 13 illustrates an overview of a process performed by a communication system according to Embodiment 3 of the present disclosure. In the left diagram of FIG. 13, a basic network BN is formed with the telepresence robot A as a master and the telepresence robots B to E as slaves. It is assumed that, in this state, among the slave telepresence robots B to E, for example, the telepresence robot C transmits a master right request that requests transfer of the master right, and the user UA of the master telepresence robot A approves the master right request. In this case, the connection mode switcher 33 forms a basic network BN as illustrated in the right diagram of FIG. 13 with the telepresence robot C switched to a master and the telepresence robot A switched to a slave.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Park in view of Lee in view of Zisch to include a change in the selection of a master robot, a slave robot, and a sub robot, as taught by Nishikawa as disclosed above, such that the robot selection part selects as the sub robot the slave robot closest to the slave robot deviated from the communication section, in order to ensure optimal robot control (Nishikawa Paragraph 1 “The present disclosure relates to a communication system including one master terminal, and a plurality of slave terminals communicatively connected to the master terminal by a basic network representing a one-to-many connection, and a communication controller that controls communication between the master terminal and the plurality of slave terminals.”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20220070736 A) (“Park”) (Translation Attached) in view of Lee (US 20110135189 A1) (“Lee”) in view of Zisch (EP 3693821 A1) (“Zisch”) (Translation Attached) further in view of Hoon (KR 20150000315 A) (“Hoon”) (Translation Attached).
With respect to claim 5, Park in view of Lee in view of Zisch fail to explicitly disclose that the sub robot collects the position data of the sub robot itself and the position data of the slave robot allocated to the sub robot itself and transmits the same to the master robot.
Hoon, however, teaches a slave robot that transmits position data to master robot (See at least Hoon paragraphs 4-11 “In addition, the main control unit includes a master control unit capable of controlling the master control unit and a slave control unit capable of controlling the slave robot, wherein the master control unit sets the joint operating range of the master control unit using master parameters and sets the master work area at the initial position of the current master control unit from design variables, and the slave control unit predicts the work plan of the slave robot using path parameters, sets the slave work area from the predicted work plan of the slave robot, and guides the initial position of the master control unit. In addition, the slave robot operates by receiving position data and direction command data from the main control unit, and is characterized by providing the robot's current position data and direction data generated during operation to the main control unit in real time …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Park in view of Lee in view of Zisch to include a slave robot that transmits position data to master robot, as taught by Hoon as disclosed above, such that the sub robot collects the position data of the sub robot itself and the position data of the slave robot allocated to the sub robot itself and transmits the same to the master robot, in order to ensure accurate communication between robots (Hoon Paragraph 4 “Accordingly, the present invention has been devised to solve the problems of the prior art. The technical objective of the present invention is to provide a master-slave robot device capable of calculating and setting an initial position of a master control unit where the user's input to the master control unit can be most smoothly implemented in the slave work area, based on information regarding the kinematic parameters of the master control unit and the slave robot, the workable area, and the planned work path of the slave robot, and a method for guiding the initial position of a master controlling the same.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20220070736 A) (“Park”) (Translation Attached) in view of Lee (US 20110135189 A1) (“Lee”) further in view of Balakrishnan (US 8954399 B1) (“Balakrishnan”)
With respect to claim 7, Park in view of Lee teach that the master robot transmits collected position data of the master robot and the slave robot to the robot control part (See at least Lee Paragraphs 52-55).
Park in view of Lee, however, fail to explicitly disclose to remove duplicate position data from the collected position data.
Balakrishnan teaches to remove duplicate data (See at least Balakrishnan Col. 14 “FIG. 5C illustrates a routine for managing the de-duplication queue. This routine may be performed by the de-duplication queue discussed above, for example. At 541, the mod ule may await workflow instructions. As discussed above, a schedule may dictate performance of the de-duplication operations. For example, de-duplication operations may be performed periodically, Such as daily, weekly, or at other predetermined time periods. Alternatively, de-duplication operations may be performed on command. At 543, information regarding candidates for de-duplication may be received. When the signature of a chunk matches the signature included in one of the dictionary entries in the de-duplication data structure, a candidate for de-duplication may exist. Information regarding the candidate chunk Such as the chunk identifier, the signature and the timestamp may be communicated to the de-duplication queue. At 545, a determination is made as to whether the de-duplication queue is empty. If YES, the routine may proceed to 543 and await receipt of information regarding candidates for de-duplication. If NO, a call may be made to the kernel module to perform de-duplication operations. The de-duplication finder delegates the de-duplication operations to lower-level processes in the OS and the kernel module. Accordingly, the de-duplication queue works in coordination with the kernel module to perform de-duplication operations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Park in view of Lee to include to remove duplicate data, as taught by Balakrishnan as disclosed above, such that the master robot removes duplicate position data from the collected position data, in order to ensure accurate information is transmitted (Balakrishnan “Technologies are described herein for eliminating duplicate data within a storage system. The de-duplication technology presented herein can efficiently identify duplicate data within a data storage system and eliminate duplication. Such de-duplication can support substantial storage space consolidation.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights