DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on July 2, 2025. Claims 1 – 17 are pending and examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they include rectangular boxes without appropriate legends. For example, elements need appropriate legends. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes in a circuit are not descriptive, and therefore incomplete. See 37 CFR 1.83(a) and 1.84(o).
Suitable descriptive legends are required by the examiner as necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible. See 37 CFR 1.84(o). Corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. No new matter should be entered.
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 6 – 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In line 1 of claim 6, applicant recites “[t]he controller arrangement of claim 1, any
of the preceding claims . . . .” It’s unclear whether claim 6 is dependent on more than claim 1. Clarification required.
In claim 1, the “controller arrangement” is positively recited as having three (3) elements: “the robot controller; an external controller for the industrial robot; [and] a wireless data link disposed between the external controller and the industrial robot; and a quality of service (QOS) monitor configured to assign responsibility to the external controller while the QoS of the wireless data link is above a QoS threshold, and to assign responsibility to the robot controller while the QoS is below the QoS threshold”. The “industrial robot” is not positively recited as an element of the controller arrangement. The industrial robot is inferentially claimed. However, in claims 7, 12 and 13, applicant is attempting to further limit the scope of the invention, by reciting “the industrial robot is a mobile robot”, the “. . . robot having an arm and a base” and “the robot controller is battery powered”, as if the industrial robot had been positively recited as an element of the controller arrangement. Please clarify whether the industrial robot is an element of the controller arrangement.
Any claims not specifically mentioned herein above, but nonetheless rejected as being indefinite, are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 10, 12 and 14 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by cited Non-Patent Literature entitled, “Redundancy Concepts for Real-Time Cloud- and Edge-based Control of Autonomous Mobile Robots” to Nouruzi-Pur et al. (herein after “Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 12, 14, 15 and 17,
the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication discloses a controller arrangement for controlling an industrial robot that includes a robot controller and a robot manipulator (see FIG. 1, Abstract and Section IV for a controller arrangement for controlling an industrial or mobile robot that includes a redundancy-controller and/or a redundant navigation module and a robot manipulator/arm), the controller arrangement comprising:
the robot controller (see FIG. 1 and Section IV for the redundancy-controller and/or the redundant navigation module);
an external controller for the industrial robot (see FIG. 1 and Section IV for a primary server or a primary navigation module and/or a secondary server or a redundant navigation module used for the industrial or mobile robot);
a wireless data link disposed between the external controller and the industrial robot (see FIG. 1 and Section IV for “wireless network” which forms a link between the primary server/primary navigation module and/or the secondary server/redundant navigation module and the industrial or mobile robot); and
a quality of service (QoS) monitor being configured to assign responsibility to the external controller while the QoS of the wireless data link is above a QoS threshold, and to assign responsibility to the robot controller while the QoS is below the QoS threshold (see Section I, where the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication discloses that “today's 4G and 5G networks meet the QoS requirements of the navigation algorithms with regard to latency, jitter and bandwidth. However, there is no guarantee that latency requirements are met at any time and even a temporary connection loss is possible. The eventuality of software or hardware failures within the controlling computing infrastructure is also subject to uncertainty. In order to execute real-time critical algorithms in an industrial environment from a remote controller and to benefit from its advantages, fallback mechanisms are required. To address this, [the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication] propose real-time redundancy mechanisms, which take effect if the outsourced main controller no longer meets the quality of service (QoS) requirements. Switching to a redundant controller should in the best case enable the autonomous mobile robots to continue to function seamlessly”)(Emphasis added);
wherein the QoS monitor includes a component that is external to the industrial robot (Section II for “a QoS-capable cloud framework” that includes at least one component external to the industrial robot and configured to measure the QoS to an outsourced service on the robot side and starts a local redundant service if a maximum acceptable latency is exceeded in order to further ensure functionality.)
As to claim 2,
the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication is considered to disclose the QoS monitor further including a further component that is carried in the mobile robot. (See FIG. 1 and Sections II thru IV.)
As to claim 3,
the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication is considered to disclose the QoS monitor being implemented at least in part in a networked processing resource. (See FIG. 1 and Sections II thru IV.)
As to claim 4,
the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication is considered to disclose the QoS monitor being implemented at least in part in an edge processing resource. (See FIG. 1 and Sections II thru IV.)
As to claim 5,
the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication is considered to disclose the QoS monitor being configured to estimate a current QoS of the wireless data link at runtime. (See FIG. 1 and Sections II thru IV.)
As to claim 6,
the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication is considered to disclose the external controller being configured to perform work planning using a greater planning horizon than the robot controller. (See FIG. 1 and Section IV thru V for “path planning” and “global path[/plan]”.)
As to claim 7,
the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication is considered to disclose the industrial robot being a mobile robot, and wherein the robot controller is an onboard motion planner. (See FIG. 1 and Section IV.)
As to claims 8 and 9,
the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication is considered to disclose the external controller being an external motion planner configured to perform coordinated motion planning for the mobile robots. (See FIG. 1 and Section IV.)
As to claim 16,
the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication is considered to disclose the industrial robot being a mobile robot; and wherein controlling the mobile robot includes performing motion planning. (See FIG. 1, Section I thru IV for “path planning for mobile robots".)
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 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0215660 A1 to Tan et al. (herein after “Tan et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 11,
the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the onboard motion planner being configured for motion planning by a potential-field algorithm.
Motion planning for a mobile robot using a potential-field algorithm is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Tan et al. publication who discloses “controller 118 us[ing] motion planning algorithms to determine paths for body 110 and arm 112. For example, motion planning algorithms include a potential field algorithm and a rapidly-exploring random tree (RRT)-connect algorithm.” (See ¶32.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication so that the onboard motion planner is configured for motion planning by a potential-field algorithm, as suggested by the Tan et al. publication, in order to facilitate movement of the mobile robot.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0410399 A1 to Yoshikuwa et al. (herein after “Yoshikuwa et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 13,
the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the robot controller being battery powered.
Battery powered robot controllers are old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Yoshikuwa et al. publication who discloses “robot cell [that] includes the articulated arm and the robot controller that controls operation thereof, and includes the robot battery serving at least as a power source of the robot controller. Thus, even when the automated guided vehicle is separated from the robot cell after the robot cell is placed, the robot cell can perform predetermined work, using the articulated arm.” (See ¶8.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Nouruzi-Pur et al. publication so that the robot controller is battery powered, as suggested by the Yoshikuwa et al. publication, in order to facilitate movement of the mobile robot..
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their 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. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights