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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Examiner’s Note
While claims 5 and 17 use the British English spelling of “realised” Examiner suggests amending to instead read “realized” to more appropriately match the American English spelling for the US filing.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 3 and Fig. 5 appear blurry and difficult to read. New copies that clarify the text in the steps in Fig. 5 and the distance path deviations in Fig. 3 are required. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10, and 15-21 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 13 are rejected because of the following informalities: the claims recite a robotic device in the preamble, and then introduce another robotic device making it unclear if the robot device is intended to be the same or different devices. For example, claim 1 recites the limitation “A method performed by a control node for handling a performance of a robotic device… a command message received from a robot device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, claim 10 recites the limitation “A control unit for handling a performance of a robot device, the control node being configured to” wherein the control node is not previously recited. Examiner believes the control node is the intended structure in the preamble, but it is currently unclear what the structure is intended to be. Appropriate correction is required.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions
and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 and 13-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental observation or a mental process without significantly more.
The claims recite “determining a distance from one or both of a planned trajectory and path,
and determining a distance from a boundary surface, … the boundary surface being associated to an accuracy requirement; measuring a performance of the trajectory based on the determined distance from one or both of the planned trajectory and path, and the determined distance from the boundary surface; and evaluating an effect of the measured…” and “using the evaluated effect of the measured performance for one or more of: to quantify a quality of execution of the planned trajectory, to monitor a performance …” and “wherein a closest point of the planned path is used to determine the path distance” and “wherein the planned trajectory and a realised trajectory are calculated at a same time point” which is recognizing a planned path to travel, determining when there is a deviation, and determining how well a path is followed.
Step 1: These claims is directed to a method, medium and the apparatuses for performing the methods.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The limitations of determining a driving condition of a vehicle over a time and at a certain sampling rate is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a control node for handling a performance of a robot device,” or “wherein the robot device is a link of a robot arm.” or “wherein the control node and a servo motor associated to the robot device” or “A computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “control node, processor, robot, and medium” language, recognizing a trajectory to follow for oneself or another object, and any deviations from the trajectory can simply be performed by a user noticing the travel of an object such as a robot arm, or in a more detailed example recording information such as positions of a robot using a coordinate system, such as a coordinate system with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite additional elements: “or as trajectory execution quality features input to an artificial intelligence agent” and “wherein the determined distance from the one or both of the planned trajectory and path, and the determined distance from the boundary surface is calculated in a Cartesian space” and “wherein a closest point of the planned path is used to determine the path distance” and “wherein the planned trajectory and a realised trajectory are calculated at a same time point” and “wherein the determined distance from the one or both of the planned trajectory and path are measured for one or more points of the planned trajectory where measured position information is available” and “sending a command message to the robot device, wherein the command message comprises a unique hash value; receiving the command message as a feedback to the sent command message, from the robot device, wherein the command message comprises the unique hash value; and determining which command that is in use and for how long time the command has been in use, based on the sent command message and the received command message comprising the unique hash value”. The distance measurement calculations, calculations, and measurements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering information of a vehicle on a roadway for comparison), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, the sending and receiving steps with a unique hash value are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere “apply it”, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, the processor and memory for storing and using information, and the input to an artificial intelligence agent is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of applying instructions for a system), and amounts to mere “apply it”, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the various units are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component as described in the specification pages 13-14. For example, the steps of acquiring data determining some information from the data have been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as seen in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) recited here “ Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));” Also, the steps of applying the process using a processor and a memory have been held by the courts as a form of a mere instructions to apply an exception, as recited in the MPEP 2106.05(f) as recited here “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” For the reasons seen above, the claims are ineligible.
Additionally, Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “computer readable storage media” encompasses signals per se. See MPEP §2106.03.11 (“Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: ... Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave”). Claim 13 in particular recites “A computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out a method for handing the performance of a robot device, the method comprising:” Page 14 of the specification states that “In some embodiments, the
computer-readable storage medium may be a transitory or a non-transitory computer- readable storage medium. which may comprise transitory signals, and therefore is directed towards signals per se. In order to overcome this rejection, Examiner recommends that Applicant amends claim 13 to disclose “non-transitory computer readable storage media”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sinyavskiy et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2022/0016778 A1 hereinafter “Sinyavskiy”).
Regarding claim 1 Sinyavskiy discloses:
A method performed by a control node for handling a performance of a robot device, the method comprising: (Sinyavskiy [0050] wherein the system includes a robot controlled by a controller, memory interface, sensors, actuators, and other units) determining a distance from one or both of a planned trajectory and path, (Sinyavskiy [0081] [0104-0106] [0112] [0169] wherein the system determines a distance as the trajectory deviates from a planned trajectory while moving in an environment) and determining a distance from a boundary surface, (Sinyavskiy [0039] [0079-0081] wherein distances from a plurality of obstacles to avoid is determined to avoid collisions) which distances are related to a command message received from a robot device, the boundary surface being associated to an accuracy requirement; (Sinyavskiy [0047-0048] [0079-0081] wherein command motions are used to reward motion that avoids the obstacles, and improves the robotic accuracy) measuring a performance of the trajectory based on the determined distance from one or both of the planned trajectory and path, (Sinyavskiy [0105-0112] wherein the system determines a distance of the deviations, uses the deviations with a cost function to determine how the robot should maneuver while emphasizing the importance of following a trajectory) and the determined distance from the boundary surface; (Sinyavskiy [0039] [0079-0081] wherein distances from a plurality of obstacles to avoid is determined to avoid collisions) and evaluating an effect of the measured performance for the robot device. (Sinyavskiy [0054] wherein the robots use the information, errors, and data captured to learn and improve performance of the robots).
Regarding claim 2 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: using the evaluated effect of the measured performance for one or more of: to quantify a quality of execution of the planned trajectory, (Sinyavskiy [0077] wherein the system uses an associated cost graph to quantify the quality of the controls of the robot while operating) to monitor a performance of the robot device, (Sinyavskiy [0048-0049] [0054] wherein the system uses the performance to determine how to improve movement and minimize costs) …
Sinyavskiy does not appear to disclose “or as trajectory execution quality features input to an artificial intelligence agent” However, examiner notes that due to the “one or more of” language only one of the evaluated effect performances is needed to fully teach the claim.
Regarding claim 3 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the determined distance from the one or both of the planned trajectory and path, and the determined distance from the boundary surface is calculated in a Cartesian space. (Sinyavskiy [0097] wherein the robotic system uses a cartesian representation for the robot footprint to evaluate navigation)
Regarding claim 4 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a closest point of the planned path is used to determine the path distance. (Sinyavskiy [0114-0118] wherein the robot system determines points where the path may collide with an object, and alters the trajectory at that point while minimizing the cost of running in the environment).
Regarding claim 5 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the planned trajectory and a realised trajectory are calculated at a same time point. (Sinyavskiy [0038] [0086] wherein the robot commands for the trajectory and the planned trajectory are updated in real time).
Regarding claim 6 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the determined distance from the one or both of the planned trajectory and path are measured for one or more points of the planned trajectory where measured position information is available. (Sinyavskiy [0158] wherein the motion information and trajectory motion determining the distance to the target minimizing the cost of the motion system i.e. the measured destination is used for the trajectory measuring and cost optimization).
Regarding claim 7 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the robot device is a link of a robot arm. (Sinyavskiy [0090-0091] wherein the robot motion is determined for is a robot with a robotic arm).
Regarding claim 9 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the control node and a servo motor associated to the robot device have synchronized clocks. (Sinyavskiy [0059-0060] [0055] wherein the robot uses a driven actuator to move and various controllers with the ability to synchronize the unit clocks).
Regarding claim 10 Sinyavskiy discloses:
A control unit for handling a performance of a robot device, the control node being configured to: (Sinyavskiy [0050] wherein the system includes a robot controlled by a controller, memory interface, sensors, actuators, and other units) determine a distance from one or both of a planned trajectory and path, (Sinyavskiy [0081] [0104-0106] [0112] [0169] wherein the system determines a distance as the trajectory deviates from a planned trajectory while moving in an environment) and determine a distance from a boundary surface, (Sinyavskiy [0039] [0079-0081] wherein distances from a plurality of obstacles to avoid is determined to avoid collisions) which distances are related to a command message received from a robot device, the boundary surface being associated to an accuracy requirement; (Sinyavskiy [0047-0048] [0079-0081] wherein command motions are used to reward motion that avoids the obstacles, and improves the robotic accuracy) measure a performance of the trajectory based on the determined distance from the one or both of the planned trajectory and path, (Sinyavskiy [0105-0112] wherein the system determines a distance of the deviations, uses the deviations with a cost function to determine how the robot should maneuver while emphasizing the importance of following a trajectory) and the determined distance from the boundary surface; (Sinyavskiy [0039] [0079-0081] wherein distances from a plurality of obstacles to avoid is determined to avoid collisions) and evaluate an effect of the measured performance for the robot device. (Sinyavskiy [0054] wherein the robots use the information, errors, and data captured to learn and improve performance of the robots).
Regarding claim 11 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The control node according to claim 10, wherein the control node is further configured to use the evaluated effect of the measured performance for one or more of: to quantify a quality of execution of the planned trajectory, (Sinyavskiy [0077] wherein the system uses an associated cost graph to quantify the quality of the controls of the robot while operating) to monitor a performance of the robot device, (Sinyavskiy [0048-0049] [0054] wherein the system uses the performance to determine how to improve movement and minimize costs) …
Sinyavskiy does not appear to disclose “or as trajectory execution quality features input to an artificial intelligence agent” However, examiner notes that due to the “one or more of” language only one of the evaluated effect performances is needed to fully teach the claim.
Regarding claim 13 Sinyavskiy discloses:
A computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, (Sinyavskiy [0051-0052] wherein a medium and processor control the system) cause the at least one processor to carry out a method for handing the performance of a robot device, the method comprising: (Sinyavskiy [0050] wherein the system includes a robot controlled by a controller, memory interface, sensors, actuators, and other units) determining a distance from one or both of a planned trajectory and path, (Sinyavskiy [0081] [0104-0106] [0112] [0169] wherein the system determines a distance as the trajectory deviates from a planned trajectory while moving in an environment) and determining a distance from a boundary surface, (Sinyavskiy [0039] [0079-0081] wherein distances from a plurality of obstacles to avoid is determined to avoid collisions) which distances are related to a command message received from a robot device, the boundary surface being associated to an accuracy requirement; (Sinyavskiy [0047-0048] [0079-0081] wherein command motions are used to reward motion that avoids the obstacles, and improves the robotic accuracy) measuring a performance of the trajectory based on the determined distance from one or both of the planned trajectory and path, (Sinyavskiy [0105-0112] wherein the system determines a distance of the deviations, uses the deviations with a cost function to determine how the robot should maneuver while emphasizing the importance of following a trajectory) and the determined distance from the boundary surface; (Sinyavskiy [0039] [0079-0081] wherein distances from a plurality of obstacles to avoid is determined to avoid collisions) and evaluating an effect of the measured performance for the robot device. (Sinyavskiy [0054] wherein the robots use the information, errors, and data captured to learn and improve performance of the robots).
Regarding claim 14 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the determined distance from the one or both of the planned trajectory and path, and the determined distance from the boundary surface is calculated in a Cartesian space. (Sinyavskiy [0097] wherein the robotic system uses a cartesian representation for the robot footprint to evaluate navigation).
Regarding claim 15 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The control unit of claim 10, wherein the determined distance from the one or both of the planned trajectory and path, and the determined distance from the boundary surface is calculated in a Cartesian space. (Sinyavskiy [0097] wherein the robotic system uses a cartesian representation for the robot footprint to evaluate navigation).
Regarding claim 16 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The control unit of claim 10, wherein the control node is further configured to use a closest point of the planned path to determine the path distance. (Sinyavskiy [0114-0118] wherein the robot system determines points where the path may collide with an object, and alters the trajectory at that point while minimizing the cost of running in the environment).
Regarding claim 17 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The control unit of claim 10, wherein the control node is further configured to calculate the planned trajectory and a realised trajectory at a same time point. (Sinyavskiy [0038] [0086] wherein the robot commands for the trajectory and the planned trajectory are updated in real time).
Regarding claim 18 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The control unit of claim 10, wherein the determined distance from the one or both of the planned trajectory and path are measured for one or more points of the planned trajectory where measured position information is available. (Sinyavskiy [0158] wherein the motion information and trajectory motion determining the distance to the target minimizing the cost of the motion system i.e. the measured destination is used for the trajectory measuring and cost optimization).
Regarding claim 19 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The control unit of claim 10, wherein the robot device is a link of a robot arm. (Sinyavskiy [0090-0091] wherein the robot motion is determined for is a robot with a robotic arm).
Regarding claim 21 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The control unit of claim 10, wherein the control node and a servo motor associated to the robot device have synchronized clocks. (Sinyavskiy [0059-0060] [0055] wherein the robot uses a driven actuator to move and various controllers with the ability to synchronize the unit clocks).
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 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinyavskiy in view of Artes et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2018/0292827 A1 hereinafter “Sinyavskiy”).
Regarding claim 8 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The method according to claim 1, further comprises: sending a command message to the robot device, (Sinyavskiy [0089-0092] wherein the robot command is sent to the robot)
… receiving the command message as a feedback to the sent command message, from the robot device, (Sinyavskiy [0089-0092] wherein feedback to minimize the costs are used by the robot)
… and determining which command that is in use and for how long time the command has been in use, based on the sent command message and the received command message (Sinyavskiy [0038] [0089-0092] wherein the commands are time commands are executed and last are determined) …
Sinyavskiy does not appear to disclose:
… wherein the command message comprises a unique hash value; … wherein the command message comprises the unique hash value; … comprising the unique hash value.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Artes discloses:
“wherein the command message comprises a unique hash value;” (Artes [0059] wherein the robot system uses unique hash identifier for the interactions and operation of the robot) …
“ wherein the command message comprises the unique hash value;” (Artes [0059] wherein the robot system uses unique hash identifier for the interactions and operation of the robot)
… “comprising the unique hash value.” (Artes [0059] wherein the robot system uses unique hash identifier for the interactions and operation of the robot).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the unique hash of Artes with the robotic system of Sinyavskiy with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure that the specific code to perform a certain operation or certain robot is used to complete a task (Artes [0059]).
Regarding claim 20 Sinyavskiy discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and Sinyavskiy further discloses:
The control unit of claim 10, wherein the control node is further configured to: send a command message to the robot device, (Sinyavskiy [0089-0092] wherein the robot command is sent to the robot) … receive the command message as a feedback to the sent command message, from the robot device, (Sinyavskiy [0089-0092] wherein feedback to minimize the costs are used by the robot) … and determine which command that is in use and for how long time the command has been in use, based on the sent command message and the received command message (Sinyavskiy [0038] [0089-0092] wherein the commands are time commands are executed and last are determined) …
Sinyavskiy does not appear to disclose:
… wherein the command message comprises a unique hash value; … wherein the command message comprises the unique hash value; … comprising the unique hash value.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Artes discloses:
“wherein the command message comprises a unique hash value;” (Artes [0059] wherein the robot system uses unique hash identifier for the interactions and operation of the robot) …
“ wherein the command message comprises the unique hash value;” (Artes [0059] wherein the robot system uses unique hash identifier for the interactions and operation of the robot)
… “comprising the unique hash value.” (Artes [0059] wherein the robot system uses unique hash identifier for the interactions and operation of the robot).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the unique hash of Artes with the robotic system of Sinyavskiy with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure that the specific code to perform a certain operation or certain robot is used to complete a task (Artes [0059]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2025/0214242 A1 discloses a robotic system identifying a workspace and uses sensors to plot a motion of the arm to move in the environment
US 2020/0338733 A1 discloses a robot movement sweep movement based on overlapping paths to travel in the environment
US 2019/0201136 A1 discloses a surgical visualization system determining images of the scene and determines how the robot should move
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle T Johnson whose telephone number is (303)297-4339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 MT.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/KYLE T JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights