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 .
Response to Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on February 19, 2026. Claims 1 and 7-9 are amended. Claims 4 and 6 are filed as previously presented. Claims 2-3, 5, and 10 are cancelled. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Shiwa does not teach the measured communication speed as a “ping measurement” and that it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Schoenfelder to modify the measured communication speed to include a ping measurement (see Remarks Page 7). Applicant’s arguments with respect to the use of ping measurements have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant further argues that Shiwa does not disclose “an autonomous control mode” or “continu[ing] the predetermined motion until the first communication failure is resolved” (see Remarks Page 8). Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant further argues that Breazeal does not teach any “bridging motion” as is defined in claim 1 (see Remarks Page 8). Applicant’s arguments with respect to bridging motions as taught by Brazeal in the rejection of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eto et al. (JP 2020/049596 A; hereinafter “Eto”; included with IDS, references are to Examiner’s attached translation) in view of Yamamoto (US 2020/0133239 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eto teaches a communication system in which a server communicates with a communication partner who is present around the robot via the robot (“In one aspect, the present invention aims to provide a communication robot, a control method, and a control program that enable the communication robot to perform filler operations during processing waiting times, and to output processing results in a posture that should be adopted when outputting the processing results” [0007]. “As shown in Figure 2, the communication robot 1 waits for the target person U1 to speak (step S1), detects the start of the speech, and then detects the end of the speech (steps S2 and S3)” [0014]. Thus, there is a communication system which a server processes speech from a target person, i.e., communication partner, who is present around the robot via the robot. See [0043-0047] regarding the exchange of information between robot and server.), the communication system comprising:
a processor (According to [0107-0109] there is a CPU which executes the control program with instructions for the control method.) programmed to
measure a communication speed between the server and the robot, the communication speed indicating a speed of digital wired communication or digital wireless communication between the server and the robot, the measured communication speed being a ping measurement (“For example, communication robot 1 or 2 can measure the response time of server device 50 using commands such as PING and individually predict the network response delay time from that response time. Furthermore, communication robot 1 or 2 can predict the response delay time related to driving from the transmission time of the control signals sent to the actuators of each part” [0102]. Therefore, a communication speed, i.e., response time, between the server and robot which indicates a transmission speed of wireless communication is measured via a PING measurement.);
determine which communication state a current communication state is among a plurality of communication states based on the ping measurement (Lookup table 13A contains a communication state among a plurality of communication states which are based on the predicted response delay time which is measured by the PING response time as disclosed above (see [0048]).);
…select a bridging motion corresponding to the determined communication state from among a plurality of bridging motions for which required times are different from each other, when the first communication failure occurs between the server and the robot (“The determination unit 14 is a processing unit that determines the filler operation of the communication robot 1 according to the response delay time” [0051]. Thus, a filler operation, i.e., bridging motion, which corresponds to the determined communication state from a plurality of bridging motions which have a required time of communication different from each other is selected based on the lookup table 14A. According to the description of [0053] motions of the robot are only performed for response delay times which are predicted to be 1 or more seconds long. Examiner best interprets any delay which are 1 or more seconds long to be considered as a first communication failure which requires additional motion filler rather than a mere blinking light.); and
cause the robot to enter an autonomous control mode when the first communication failure occurs and perform a selected bridging motion, the bridging motion being a predetermined motion that imitates a motion of a person that causes a conversation to be interrupted during the conversation (See [0075-0078] which describes operation intervals which are assigned unique filler operations. The operation intervals are best described in [0084] as separate intervals corresponding to different filler operations. As described in [0075] and [0078] the goal of such filler operation is to reduce any sense of unease when the conversation is interrupted between outputs by the response delay. Motions are performed autonomously as described in [0053] and are imitations of human-like motions such as “looking upward”, “head tilting”, and/or “raising both arms” while stating “please wait a moment”.), and
continue the predetermined motion until the first communication failure is resolved (See [0094-0095] which indicates that when a filler operation has been completed before the result has been received from the server, i.e., communication failure is resolved, an additional filler operation is performed, i.e., a predetermined motion is continued, until the response is received and the communication failure is resolved.),
wherein as the ping measurement indicates a slower communication speed, the bridging motion has a longer required time (“The control method according to Note 9, characterized in that the process for making the determination is determined to be an operation in which the change in the silhouette of the communication robot is greater the longer the predicted value of the response delay time” [0121]. Thus, the filler operation which changes the silhouette of the communication robot is selected based on the response delay time, i.e., communication speed corresponding to the PING measurement. As described, the longer the response delay time, i.e., the slower the communication speed, the greater the change in silhouette, i.e., the longer the required time of the selected bridging motion.).
However, Eto does not explicitly teach a communication system in which an operator who remotely operates a robot using an operation terminal communicates with a communication partner who is present around the robot via the robot…
…control the robot to operate in a remote operation mode in which the robot is controlled via the operation terminal if the communication state is not a first communication failure…
Yamamoto, pertinent to the problem at hand teaches a communication system in which an operator who remotely operates a robot using an operation terminal communicates with a communication partner who is present around the robot via the robot (“When the mobile robot 100 is in the avatar mode, the mobile robot 100 operates based on an operation instruction by a remote operator. The remote operator operates the remote terminal 300 in a second environment, which is located away from a first environment, thereby transmitting the operation instruction to the mobile robot 100. When, for example, the remote operator says “Aoi, are you busy now?” to the remote terminal 300, trying to talk to Aoi, who is the service user, the mobile robot 100 utters “Aoi, are you busy now?” through a speaker” [0026]. Thus, there is a communication system in which a remote operator operates a robot using an operation terminal. The operation instruction offers communication to a communication partner who is present around the robot via the robot.)…
…control the robot to operate in a remote operation mode in which the robot is controlled via the operation terminal if the communication state is not a first communication failure (Paragraphs [0027-0028] describe an internet connection through a server which connects the remote terminal to the mobile robot. Thus, it would be obvious that so long as such a network is connected, i.e., not in communication failure state, the robot operates in a remote operation mode which the robot is controlled via the operation terminal.)…
Therefore, 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 communication robot of Eto to include a remote operator as taught by Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the inclusion of a remote operation mode would allow a remote operator to perform assistance to service users that feel personal and seamless, while maintaining operator anonymity and safety during assistance communications (see [0054] and [0061]).
Regarding claim 7, Eto teaches a control method of a communication system in which a server communicates with a communication partner who is present around the robot via the robot (“In one aspect, the present invention aims to provide a communication robot, a control method, and a control program that enable the communication robot to perform filler operations during processing waiting times, and to output processing results in a posture that should be adopted when outputting the processing results” [0007]. “As shown in Figure 2, the communication robot 1 waits for the target person U1 to speak (step S1), detects the start of the speech, and then detects the end of the speech (steps S2 and S3)” [0014]. Thus, there is a control method of a communication system which a server processes speech from a target person, i.e., communication partner, who is present around the robot via the robot. See [0043-0047] regarding the exchange of information between robot and server.), the control method comprising:
measuring a communication speed between the server and the robot, the communication speed indicating a speed of digital wired communication or digital wireless communication between the server and the robot, the measured communication speed being a ping measurement (“For example, communication robot 1 or 2 can measure the response time of server device 50 using commands such as PING and individually predict the network response delay time from that response time. Furthermore, communication robot 1 or 2 can predict the response delay time related to driving from the transmission time of the control signals sent to the actuators of each part” [0102]. Therefore, a communication speed, i.e., response time, between the server and robot which indicates a transmission speed of wireless communication is measured via a PING measurement.);
determining which communication state a current communication state is among a plurality of communication states based on the ping measurement (Lookup table 13A contains a communication state among a plurality of communication states which are based on the predicted response delay time which is measured by the PING response time as disclosed above (see [0048]).);
…selecting a bridging motion corresponding to the determined communication state from among a plurality of bridging motions for which required times are different from each other, when the first communication failure occurs between the server and the robot (“The determination unit 14 is a processing unit that determines the filler operation of the communication robot 1 according to the response delay time” [0051]. Thus, a filler operation, i.e., bridging motion, which corresponds to the determined communication state from a plurality of bridging motions which have a required time of communication different from each other is selected based on the lookup table 14A. According to the description of [0053] motions of the robot are only performed for response delay times which are predicted to be 1 or more seconds long. Examiner best interprets any delay which are 1 or more seconds long to be considered as a first communication failure which requires additional motion filler rather than a mere blinking light.); and
causing the robot to enter an autonomous control mode when the first communication failure occurs and perform a selected bridging motion, the bridging motion being a predetermined motion that imitates a motion of a person that causes a conversation to be interrupted during the conversation (See [0075-0078] which describes operation intervals which are assigned unique filler operations. The operation intervals are best described in [0084] as separate intervals corresponding to different filler operations. As described in [0075] and [0078] the goal of such filler operation is to reduce any sense of unease when the conversation is interrupted between outputs by the response delay. Motions are performed autonomously as described in [0053] and are imitations of human-like motions such as “looking upward”, “head tilting”, and/or “raising both arms” while stating “please wait a moment”.), and
continue the predetermined motion until the first communication failure is resolved (See [0094-0095] which indicates that when a filler operation has been completed before the result has been received from the server, i.e., communication failure is resolved, an additional filler operation is performed, i.e., a predetermined motion is continued, until the response is received and the communication failure is resolved.),
wherein as the ping measurement indicates a slower communication speed, the bridging motion has a longer required time (“The control method according to Note 9, characterized in that the process for making the determination is determined to be an operation in which the change in the silhouette of the communication robot is greater the longer the predicted value of the response delay time” [0121]. Thus, the filler operation which changes the silhouette of the communication robot is selected based on the response delay time, i.e., communication speed corresponding to the PING measurement. As described, the longer the response delay time, i.e., the slower the communication speed, the greater the change in silhouette, i.e., the longer the required time of the selected bridging motion.).
However, Eto does not explicitly teach …a communication system in which an operator who remotely operates a robot using an operation terminal communicates with a communication partner who is present around the robot via the robot…
…controlling the robot to operate in a remote operation mode in which the robot is controlled via the operation terminal if the communication state is not a first communication failure…
Yamamoto, pertinent to the problem at hand teaches …a communication system in which an operator who remotely operates a robot using an operation terminal communicates with a communication partner who is present around the robot via the robot (“When the mobile robot 100 is in the avatar mode, the mobile robot 100 operates based on an operation instruction by a remote operator. The remote operator operates the remote terminal 300 in a second environment, which is located away from a first environment, thereby transmitting the operation instruction to the mobile robot 100. When, for example, the remote operator says “Aoi, are you busy now?” to the remote terminal 300, trying to talk to Aoi, who is the service user, the mobile robot 100 utters “Aoi, are you busy now?” through a speaker” [0026]. Thus, there is a communication system in which a remote operator operates a robot using an operation terminal. The operation instruction offers communication to a communication partner who is present around the robot via the robot.)…
…controlling the robot to operate in a remote operation mode in which the robot is controlled via the operation terminal if the communication state is not a first communication failure (Paragraphs [0027-0028] describe an internet connection through a server which connects the remote terminal to the mobile robot. Thus, it would be obvious that so long as such a network is connected, i.e., not in communication failure state, the robot operates in a remote operation mode which the robot is controlled via the operation terminal.)…
Therefore, 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 communication robot of Eto to include a remote operator as taught by Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the inclusion of a remote operation mode would allow a remote operator to perform assistance to service users that feel personal and seamless, while maintaining operator anonymity and safety during assistance communications (see [0054] and [0061]).
Regarding claim 8, Eto teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing a control program of a communication system in which a server communicates with a communication partner who is present around the robot via the robot (“In one aspect, the present invention aims to provide a communication robot, a control method, and a control program that enable the communication robot to perform filler operations during processing waiting times, and to output processing results in a posture that should be adopted when outputting the processing results” [0007]. “For example, the control program 170a is stored on a "portable physical medium" such as a flexible disk, CD-ROM, DVD disk, magneto-optical disk, or IC card, which is inserted into the computer 100. The computer 100 may also acquire and execute the control program 170a from these portable physical media” [0110]. “As shown in Figure 2, the communication robot 1 waits for the target person U1 to speak (step S1), detects the start of the speech, and then detects the end of the speech (steps S2 and S3)” [0014]. Thus, there is non-transitory storage medium storing a control program of a communication system which a server processes speech from a target person, i.e., communication partner, who is present around the robot via the robot. See [0043-0047] regarding the exchange of information between robot and server.), the control program comprising:
measuring a communication speed between the server and the robot, the communication speed indicating a speed of digital wired communication or digital wireless communication between the server and the robot, the measured communication speed being a ping measurement (“For example, communication robot 1 or 2 can measure the response time of server device 50 using commands such as PING and individually predict the network response delay time from that response time. Furthermore, communication robot 1 or 2 can predict the response delay time related to driving from the transmission time of the control signals sent to the actuators of each part” [0102]. Therefore, a communication speed, i.e., response time, between the server and robot which indicates a transmission speed of wireless communication is measured via a PING measurement.);
determining which communication state a current communication state is among a plurality of communication states based on the ping measurement (Lookup table 13A contains a communication state among a plurality of communication states which are based on the predicted response delay time which is measured by the PING response time as disclosed above (see [0048]).);
…selecting a bridging motion corresponding to the determined communication state from among a plurality of bridging motions for which required times are different from each other, when the first communication failure occurs between the server and the robot (“The determination unit 14 is a processing unit that determines the filler operation of the communication robot 1 according to the response delay time” [0051]. Thus, a filler operation, i.e., bridging motion, which corresponds to the determined communication state from a plurality of bridging motions which have a required time of communication different from each other is selected based on the lookup table 14A. According to the description of [0053] motions of the robot are only performed for response delay times which are predicted to be 1 or more seconds long. Examiner best interprets any delay which are 1 or more seconds long to be considered as a first communication failure which requires additional motion filler rather than a mere blinking light.); and
causing the robot to enter an autonomous control mode when the first communication failure occurs and perform a selected bridging motion, the bridging motion being a predetermined motion that imitates a motion of a person that causes a conversation to be interrupted during the conversation (See [0075-0078] which describes operation intervals which are assigned unique filler operations. The operation intervals are best described in [0084] as separate intervals corresponding to different filler operations. As described in [0075] and [0078] the goal of such filler operation is to reduce any sense of unease when the conversation is interrupted between outputs by the response delay. Motions are performed autonomously as described in [0053] and are imitations of human-like motions such as “looking upward”, “head tilting”, and/or “raising both arms” while stating “please wait a moment”.), and
continue the predetermined motion until the first communication failure is resolved (See [0094-0095] which indicates that when a filler operation has been completed before the result has been received from the server, i.e., communication failure is resolved, an additional filler operation is performed, i.e., a predetermined motion is continued, until the response is received and the communication failure is resolved.),
wherein as the ping measurement indicates a slower communication speed, the bridging motion has a longer required time (“The control method according to Note 9, characterized in that the process for making the determination is determined to be an operation in which the change in the silhouette of the communication robot is greater the longer the predicted value of the response delay time” [0121]. Thus, the filler operation which changes the silhouette of the communication robot is selected based on the response delay time, i.e., communication speed corresponding to the PING measurement. As described, the longer the response delay time, i.e., the slower the communication speed, the greater the change in silhouette, i.e., the longer the required time of the selected bridging motion.).
However, Eto does not explicitly teach …a communication system in which an operator who remotely operates a robot using an operation terminal communicates with a communication partner who is present around the robot via the robot…
…controlling the robot to operate in a remote operation mode in which the robot is controlled via the operation terminal if the communication state is not a first communication failure…
Yamamoto, pertinent to the problem at hand teaches …a communication system in which an operator who remotely operates a robot using an operation terminal communicates with a communication partner who is present around the robot via the robot (“When the mobile robot 100 is in the avatar mode, the mobile robot 100 operates based on an operation instruction by a remote operator. The remote operator operates the remote terminal 300 in a second environment, which is located away from a first environment, thereby transmitting the operation instruction to the mobile robot 100. When, for example, the remote operator says “Aoi, are you busy now?” to the remote terminal 300, trying to talk to Aoi, who is the service user, the mobile robot 100 utters “Aoi, are you busy now?” through a speaker” [0026]. Thus, there is a communication system in which a remote operator operates a robot using an operation terminal. The operation instruction offers communication to a communication partner who is present around the robot via the robot.)…
…controlling the robot to operate in a remote operation mode in which the robot is controlled via the operation terminal if the communication state is not a first communication failure (Paragraphs [0027-0028] describe an internet connection through a server which connects the remote terminal to the mobile robot. Thus, it would be obvious that so long as such a network is connected, i.e., not in communication failure state, the robot operates in a remote operation mode which the robot is controlled via the operation terminal.)…
Therefore, 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 communication robot of Eto to include a remote operator as taught by Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the inclusion of a remote operation mode would allow a remote operator to perform assistance to service users that feel personal and seamless, while maintaining operator anonymity and safety during assistance communications (see [0054] and [0061]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eto in view of Yamamoto and further in view of Gambino et al. (“Beyond On-Hold Messages: Conversational Time-Buying in Task-Oriented Dialogue”, SIGDIAL 2017; hereinafter “Gambino”).
Regarding claim 4, Eto as modified by Yamamoto teaches the communication system according to claim 1…
However, Eto as modified does not teach …the processor selects the bridging motion corresponding to a situation in which the robot is actually used from among the plurality of bridging motions set in advance corresponding to situations in which the robot is used, and causes the robot to perform the selected bridging motion.
Gambino, in the same field of endeavor, teaches … the processor selects the bridging motion corresponding to a situation in which the robot is actually used from among the plurality of bridging motions set in advance corresponding to situations in which the robot is used, and causes the robot to perform the selected bridging motion (Additional time-buying categories for system delays during Task-Oriented dialogues between customer and agent deliver conversational responses while the system is delayed. Each category corresponds to a situation in which the robot is used, and such a category may be selected and performed by the agent (robot). See Table 1 for categories and descriptions.).
Therefore, 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 communication system of Eto to include the conversational time-buying techniques as taught by Gambino as a part of the designated bridging motions with a reasonable expectation for success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the study of time-buying strategies for system delays found that participants who interacted with the system preferred “task- and interaction management related acts” to those which simply request the participant to wait via a request for more time (Gambino, Page 244).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eto in view of Yamamoto and further in view of Kawamura (US 2019/0096405; from IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Eto as modified by Yamamoto teaches the communication system according to claim 1…
However, Eto as modified does not teach … the processor is programmed to determine whether a person who speaks just before the communication state becomes a second communication failure state is the operator or the communication partner; and
the communication system further comprises a storage unit that stores, when the person who speaks just before the communication state becomes the second communication failure state is the communication partner, sound uttered by the communication partner to the operator via the robot from when the communication state becomes the second communication failure state until the second communication failure state is resolved.
Kawamura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …the processor is programmed to determine whether a person who speaks just before the communication state becomes a second communication failure state is the operator or the communication partner ("As illustrated in FIG. 4, the additional information-appended speech information 121 is data obtained by recording a communication status and an utterance date and time together with the content uttered by the user U" [0038]. Further, the controller records a time at which a disconnection occurs [0055]. Thus, the system differentiates there was speech uttered by the user just before the communication state becomes a second communication failure state, in which the second communication failure state is a complete disconnect between the robot and operator.); and
the communication system further comprises a storage unit that stores, when the person who speaks just before the communication state becomes the second communication failure state is the communication partner, sound uttered by the communication partner to the operator via the robot from when the communication state becomes the second communication failure state until the second communication failure state is resolved (Fig. 7 shows that after the time of disconnection is recorded, the controller performs a “speech recording step” which uses the speech recorder 111 to record each user utterance during the disconnection and continues recording until connection is reestablished between the communicator, i.e., robot, and the server, i.e., operator.).
Therefore, 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 communication system of Eto to include the speech recognition and recording system of Kawamura with a reasonable expectation for success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by recording the speech during complete communication disconnection, the operator may respond according to communication that was missed, further improving the conversation quality facilitated by the communicator, i.e., robot, after complete communication failure occurs (Kawamura, [0058]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eto in view of Yamamoto, further in view of Breazeal et al. (US 2018/0133900 A1; hereinafter “Breazeal”), further in view of Craig (“Meet Hal: He’s One Sick Robot”, Columbia Magazine (2019)), and further in view of Sufer et al. (US 2018/0326312 A1; hereinafter “Sufer”).
Regarding claim 9, Eto as modified by Yamamoto teaches the communication system according to claim 1, wherein:
Eto further teaches the robot includes a speaker (“As shown in Figure 3, the communication robot 1 includes a head 3, a torso 5, a right arm 7R, a left arm 7L, a voice input unit 9A, a voice output unit 9B, a communication unit 9C, a motor 9M, and a control unit 10” [0024]. “In one embodiment, the audio output unit 9B can be implemented as a speaker unit including one or more speakers” [0034]. Thus, the robot includes a speaker.)…,
and the plurality of communication states includes at least three communication states (Paragraph [0053] includes communication states as intervals of time. There are four communication states based on the response delay times, including 0 to 1 seconds, 1 to 2 seconds, 2 to 5 seconds, and 5 or more seconds.)…
…the processor is programmed to cause the speaker to output a sound of an audio data corresponding to the selected bridging motion (“Furthermore, if the filler action is "raise both hands + voice message", the right arm 7R and left arm 7L of the communication robot 1 are rotated upward around the X-axis in the left-right direction, and the voice output unit 9B outputs the message "Please wait a moment"” [0058]. Thus, the processor is programmed to cause the voice output unit, i.e., speaker, to output a sound of audio data corresponding to the selected filler action, i.e., bridging motion.)…
However, as currently modified, Eto does not teach … the robot includes … a display,
… the plurality of bridging motions includes at least three among (i) a motion of coughing, (ii) a motion of yawning, (iii) a motion of placing a hand over an ear and uttering "I have ringing in my ear", (iv) a motion of rubbing an eye by a hand and uttering "I've got something in my eye," and (v) a motion of sneezing, and
the processor … causes the display to display an image of a display data corresponding to the selected bridging motion.
Yamamoto further teaches …the robot includes …a display (“The display panel 141, which is, for example, a liquid crystal panel, displays a face of a character set so as to correspond to the robot mode by animations, or displays the face of a remote operator set so as to correspond to the avatar mode by a video image” [0036].)…
…the processor … causes the display to display an image of a display data corresponding to an intended response emotion (“For example, the facial expression generation unit 151 is able to estimate the emotion of the service user using a learned model obtained by performing machine learning using training data in which the above features and the respective emotions are associated with each other. Next, the facial expression generation unit 151 determines the emotion that the mobile robot 100 should exhibit in accordance with the emotion of the service user that has been estimated” [0050]. “When the received image data is replaced by the character and this character is displayed, the facial expression generation unit 151 may analyze the image data or the voice data sent from the remote terminal 300, estimate the emotion of the remote operator, acquire the corresponding video image data from the response expression DB 162, and display the acquired video image data on the display panel 141” [0051]. Thus, the display is used to display a facial expression for the robot and/or avatar character corresponding to the emotion which is to be conveyed to the service user based on the intended situation.).
Therefore, 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 robot of Eto to include the robot display of Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the display unit is able to portray an expressed emotion that corresponds to an intended gesture, thus allowing the user to form intimate and empathetic attachments with the robot (see Yamamoto, [0007]).
Although the teachings of Yamamoto are not directed to bridging motions directly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inclusion of such emotional displays with the bridging motion of Eto would further contribute to reducing the sense of unease when interacting with a user. Thus, the inclusion of the display of emotion could be contributed as an obvious to try rationale, wherein displaying a corresponding emotion for the robot would be a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143.I(E)).
However, Eto as currently modified still does not teach … the plurality of bridging motions includes at least three among (i) a motion of coughing, (ii) a motion of yawning, (iii) a motion of placing a hand over an ear and uttering "I have ringing in my ear", (iv) a motion of rubbing an eye by a hand and uttering "I've got something in my eye," and (v) a motion of sneezing…
Breazeal, pertinent to the problem at hand teaches … a motion of yawning (In Table 4, the robot issues a motion of yawning (see also [0232]).)…
Furthermore, Craig teaches …a motion of coughing (“Hal the robot boy doesn’t sound good. He is wheezing, coughing, and gasping for air.” Thus, the robot is programmed to provide a motion of coughing.)… while Sufer teaches …a motion of sneezing (“It is another object of the present invention to provide robotic toy exhibits a plurality of physical animations including a combination of sound and motion and may include head motion, eyes blinking or sound animations (e.g., sound of laughing, sound of sneezing, sound of a kiss and the like)” [0010]. Thus, the robot exhibits a motion of sneezing.)… Both the teachings of Craig and Sufer are pertinent to the problem at hand.
Therefore, 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 bridging motions of the communication system of Eto to include the motion of yawning as taught by Breazeal, the motion of coughing as taught by Craig, and the motion of sneezing as taught by Sufer with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications because such modifications are a mere combination of known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)), as the robot of Eto has already been demonstrated to perform other such human-like motions similar to those set forth above.
Thus, regarding claim 9, Eto as previously modified by Yamamoto and as further modified by each of Breazeal, Craig, and Sufer teaches … the plurality of bridging motions includes at least three among (i) a motion of coughing, (ii) a motion of yawning, (iii) a motion of placing a hand over an ear and uttering "I have ringing in my ear", (iv) a motion of rubbing an eye by a hand and uttering "I've got something in my eye," and (v) a motion of sneezing…
Although not required for the rejection of the claim, Examiner notes that these motions (coughing, yawning, sneezing) and other such motions including …a motion of placing a hand over an ear and uttering “I have ringing in my ear”… and …a motion of rubbing an eye by a hand and uttering “I’ve got something in my eye”… would have been obvious to try, as such motions are a finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP 2143.I(E)) given that the robot as taught by Eto has been demonstrated to provides examples of human-like motions and utterances (see [0053]) to fill the predicted time delay in receiving a communication response.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached on (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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights