DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 19/266,391 filed on July 11, 2025 in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1-6, 8, 9, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting and claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 11, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to for failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(g), which requires “[t]he least restrictive claim should be presented as claim number 1” (emphasis added). See also, MPEP § 608.01(i)). In the present application, the claim presented as claim number 20 is the least restrictive claim of the independent claims.
This objection will be held in abeyance upon Applicant’s request.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,201. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of parent patent 12,393,201 fully anticipates most of the present claims. Additionally, claim 1 of parent patent 12,393,201 contains the subject matter of present dependent claim 6.
Present Claim 1
Claim 9 of Parent Patent 12,393,201
1. A device, comprising:
9. A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
Claims 2 and 17
obtaining preferences of a user in a first establishment, the first establishment including one or more first robots therein;
Claim 3
configuring, based at least in part on the preferences, the one or more first robots to perform one or more tasks;
Claim 5
assigning, to the one or more first robots, privileges, priorities or a combination thereof, wherein the assigning is performed in accordance with a policy;
Claims 8 and 18
detecting a situation in the first establishment requiring performance of at least one of the one or more tasks; and
in response to the detecting the situation:
Claim 14
coordinating with a controller associated with a second establishment different from and external to the first establishment to borrow and physically transport one or more second robots from the second establishment to the first establishment,
wherein the controller is configured to manage a plurality of carrier bots that are usable to physically transport robots between different establishments
wherein the coordinating triggers the controller to perform actions that include
identifying at least one carrier bot of the plurality of carrier bots to utilize to physically transport the one or more second robots, and
causing the at least one carrier bot of the plurality of carrier bots to obtain the one or more second robots from the second establishment and to physically transport the one or more second robots to the first establishment, and
Claim 9
dynamically reprogramming at least one of the one or more first robots and at least one of the one or more second robots that have been borrowed and physically transported to the first establishment to perform a specialized task to address the situation,
wherein the actions of the controller further include
determining a schedule for sharing of the one or more second robots of the second establishment with the first establishment
based on the schedule, determining first timing of physical transportation of the one or more robots from the second establishment to the first establishment and second timing of physical return transportation of the one or more robots from the first establishment back to the second establishment;
based on the schedule, determining first timing of physical transportation of the one or more second robots by way of the at least one carrier bot of the plurality of carrier bots from the first establishment to the second establishment and second timing of physical return transportation of the one or more seconds robots by way of the at least one carrier bot of the plurality of carrier bots from the first establishment back to the second establishment, and
according to the first timing, commanding at least a first carrier bot of a plurality of carrier bots to physically transport the one or more robots from the second establishment to the first establishment, resulting in the physical transportation; and according to the second timing, commanding at least a second carrier bot of the plurality of carrier bots to physically transport the one or more robots from the first establishment back to the second establishment, resulting in the physical return transportation
causing the physical transportation and the physical return transportation of the one or more second robots to be performed by the at least one carrier bot of the plurality of carrier bots in accordance with the schedule.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al., US Publication 2018/0137456 (hereinafter Fan) in view of Vӓin, US Publication 2021/0256465 (hereinafter Vӓin), as cited on the Information Disclosure Statement dated June 11, 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Fan discloses a device, comprising “a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations.” (Fan ¶ 125). Additionally, Fan discloses “the operations comprising: based on a robot sharing request from a controller associated with a first establishment, determining a schedule for sharing of one or more robots of a second establishment with the first establishment” (Fan ¶¶ 17, 48) where a user request to schedule the moving agent, which may be a robot (Fan ¶ 17), at a future time (Fan ¶ 48) that requires moving the moving agent from a first location to a second location. (Fan ¶ 17). Further, Fan discloses “based on the schedule, determining first timing of physical transportation of the one or more robots from the second establishment to the first establishment and second timing of physical return transportation of the one or more robots from the first establishment back to the second establishment” (Fan ¶¶ 43, 109-124) by describing a list of use cases in which a future time is set for a robot to move from a storage location to a home with items to be moved (Fan ¶¶ 109-124) and indicating that the robot is prescheduled to return “at the end of the day” (i.e., a second time, Fan ¶ 43). Moreover, Fan discloses “according to the first timing, … physically transport the one or more robots from the second establishment to the first establishment, resulting in the physical transportation” (Fan ¶ 81) where the plan is executed as described above including the transportation of the robot from the second establishment to the first establishment. Finally, Fan discloses “according to the second timing, … physically transport the one or more robots from the first establishment back to the second establishment, resulting in the physical return transportation” (Fan ¶ 43) where, at the end of the day, the robot returns.
Fan does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of carrier bots to physical transport the robots and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “according to the first timing, commanding at least a first carrier bot of a plurality of carrier bots to physically transport the one or more robots from the second establishment to the first establishment, resulting in the physical transportation; according to the second timing, commanding at least a second carrier bot of the plurality of carrier bots to physically transport the one or more robots from the first establishment back to the second establishment, resulting in the physical return transportation.”
However, Vӓin discloses the use robot moving vehicles (i.e., carrier bots) for transporting a plurality of robots during the duties of those robots. (Vӓin ¶ 22). A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Vӓin was combined with Fan, the robot moving vehicles of Vӓin would be used to transport the robots of Fan. Therefore, the combination of Fan and Vӓin at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitations “according to the first timing, commanding at least a first carrier bot of a plurality of carrier bots to physically transport the one or more robots from the second establishment to the first establishment, resulting in the physical transportation; and according to the second timing, commanding at least a second carrier bot of the plurality of carrier bots to physically transport the one or more robots from the first establishment back to the second establishment, resulting in the physical return transportation,” rendering them obvious.
Fan and Vӓin are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of using robots to perform tasks between establishments.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fan and Vӓin before him or her to modify the robot transport of Fan to include the robot moving vehicles of Vӓin.
The motivation for doing so would have been a robot moving vehicle allows for quicker transport. (Vӓin ¶ 22).
Regarding claim 16, it merely recites a non-transitory machine readable medium for embodying the device of claim 1. The medium comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Fan and Vӓin comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, it merely recites a method performed by the device of claim 1. The method comprises the execution of computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Fan and Vӓin comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 16 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the first establishment is associated with other robots” (Fan ¶ 51) by indicating that there may be “moving agents” (i.e., other robots).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the other robots are configured to perform one or more tasks in the first establishment” (Fan ¶¶ 109-124) by giving an example of several tasks that can be performed.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the one or more tasks are based on user preferences” (Fan ¶ 26) where user preferences are considered.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the other robots are assigned privileges or priorities in the first establishment in accordance with a policy” (Fan ¶ 106) where the system uses a policy of priorities for each user.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the first establishment is associated with one or more sensors.” (Fan ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the robot sharing request is sent by the controller based on data provided by the one or more sensors” (Fan ¶ 32) where the user’s moving desires (i.e., robot sharing requests) are based on the camera (i.e., sensor) input.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the data indicates a situation that requires assistance to the other robots” (Vӓin ¶ 52) where a failure situation results in another robot to assist in the delivery.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the one or more robots are reprogrammable by the controller to address the situation” (Vӓin ¶ 52) by giving an example of another robot being reprogramed to assist in the delivery (i.e., address the situation).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the device comprises a smart controller for a community” (Fan ¶ 61) where the service provider performs “smart” actions such as using pattern recognition to monitor the community of users.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 10 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the community comprises smart homes or smart businesses” (Fan ¶ 61) where the homes include status detection modules, making them “smart homes.”
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the first establishment or the second establishment is one of the smart homes or one of the smart businesses” (Fan ¶¶ 48, 61) where the first establishment may be a home (Fan ¶ 48), which is a smart home as discussed above. (Fan ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the smart controller maintains an inventory of shareable robots of the smart homes or the smart businesses” (Fan ¶ 60) by organizing a group of agents.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the operations further comprise communicating with a second controller associated with the second establishment based on the robot sharing request” (Fan ¶ 61) where the service provider (i.e., the second establishment) is associated with the item storage and retrieval system 101, which includes a processor (i.e., controller).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the detected situation relates to a need to assist the other robots in one or more tasks” (Vӓin ¶ 52) where a failure situation results in another robot to assist in the delivery.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 16 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses “wherein the operations further comprise communicating with the second establishment based on the detected situation” (Fan ¶45) by giving examples of the system detecting situations and determining to perform the tasks based on that. This necessarily requires communication from the first location to the second location.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Vӓin, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tschirschnitz et al., US Publication 2019/0049931, as cited on the Information Disclosure Statement dated June 11, 2025.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Fan and Vӓin discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fan and Vӓin does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more robots of the second establishment are distinct from additional robots of the second establishment that are not shareable.”
However, Tschirschnitz discloses a robot scheduling system “wherein the one or more robots of the second establishment are distinct from additional robots of the second establishment that are not shareable” (Tschirschnitz ¶ 56) where damaged robots are removed from the swarm, meaning they are not shareable.
Fan, Vӓin, and Tschirschnitz are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of scheduling robot movement.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fan, Vӓin, and Tschirschnitz before him or her to modify the scheduling process of Fan and Vӓin to include the removing damaged robots from the available robots of Tschirschnitz.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that removing damaged robots from the pool of robots would reduce the number of failed requests, which is a well-established advantageous feature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights