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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-18 are apparatus claims reciting various method steps, and therefore should be amended to contain “configured to” language, such as claim 1 being amended to read “…comprising a control unit configured to control an action unit…”. Similarly, claim 2 should be amended to recite “…the control unit is configured to detect…”, with the remaining claims being amended in a similar manner.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 8-10, 19, and 20, and thus their dependent claims 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, 19 and 20 all recite various descriptions of “points of time”, such as “a control unit that controls an action unit at a third point of time, on a basis of a signal indicating a voluntary movement of a user at a first point of time”, with “the third point of time being included in a period from the first point of time to a second point of time”, with “the second point of time being a point of time when a movement of the body part of the user according to the signal indicating the voluntary movement of the user occurs” – with the claim further stating “the action unit being attached to a body part of the user and moving the body part of the user”. Therefore, as the claim reads, the action unit attached to the user’s body moves the user’s body part based on a signal indicative of a voluntary movement of a user, without suggesting any sort of delay between the signal indicative of voluntary movement, and the actuation of the action unit moving the user’s body. Therefore, the “second point of time being a point of time when a movement of the body part of the user according to the signal indicating the voluntary movement of the user occurs” is undefined, as a movement “according to the signal indicating the voluntary movement” cannot occur as the body part of the user is being moved by the “action unit being attached to the body part of the user”. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will consider such limitation(s) to be met as long as the prior art teaches a means of detecting voluntary movement from a user, and using such a signal to subsequently drive an action unit to therefore move a user’s body part.
Furthermore, claims 1, 19 and 20 all recite the limitation of “…on a basis of a signal indicating a voluntary movement of a user”, however the claims do not contain any sufficient structure and/or component seemingly capable of detecting a signal (such as sensor, etc.). Therefore, it is unclear how the information processing apparatus is retrieving and/or utilizing a signal indicative of a voluntary movement.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation of “wherein the reference signal is a signal indicating necessity or unnecessity of a predetermined movement that the user performs by moving the body part”. The term “”necessity or unnecessity” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “necessity or unnecessity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that various predetermined movements being a “necessity or unnecessity” may vary among users and the individual tasks the user is performing, therefore it is unclear what is meant by these terms.
Similarly, claim 9 recites the limitation of “in a situation where the predetermined movement is necessary”, however the term “necessary” is also a relative term that varies among different users and/or the individual tasks the user is performing. Therefore, claim 9 is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Similarly, claim 10 recites the limitation of “in a situation where the predetermined movement is unnecessary”, however the term “unnecessary” is also a relative term that varies among different users and/or the individual tasks the user is performing. Therefore, claim 10 is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sumimoto (JP 2008247118 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sumimoto discloses an information processing apparatus (driving support apparatus comprising an operation support control unit 1 that specifies a target operation based on detected brain activity, controlling the driving operation of the user based on the specific target operation, Figures 1-2 and Abstract), comprising a control unit (steering control unit 9 and brake control unit 8, Figure 2 and Page 4, paragraphs 2-3) that controls an action unit at a third point of time on a basis of a signal indicating a voluntary movement of a user at a first point of time (an actuator 4 is under the control of the steering control unit 9 that drives the movement of steering wheel 2, brake actuator 6 under control of brake control unit 8 and controls the movement of brake pedal 5, Page 4, paragraphs 2-3 and Figure 1), the action unit being attached to a body part of the user and moving the body part of the user (steering wheel 2 and brake pedal 5 are attached to the user via contact, steering wheel 2 moves the user’s hands and brake pedal 5 moves the user’s foot, Figure 1 and Page 4), the third point of time being included in a period from the first point of time to a second point of time, the second point of time being a point of time when a movement of the body part of the user according to the signal indicating the voluntary movement of the user occurs (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above regarding the lack of clarity in the various “points of time”, therefore, for the purpose of examination, the Examiner has taken this limitation to be met as long as the prior art teaches a means of detecting voluntary movement from a user, and using such a signal to subsequently drive an action unit to therefore move a user’s body part. Therefore, as Sumimoto’s device teaches the driving support control 1 comprising a brain command detection processing unit 10 to determine a targeted steering and braking operation, which is then used to drive the motion of the steering wheel 2 and the brake pedal 5, see all of Page 4, the Examiner considers this limitation to be met by the prior art).
Regarding claim 2, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the control unit detects a movement signal for making the voluntary movement of the user from the signal indicating the voluntary movement of the user and sets the third point of time to control the action unit, using a detection timing of the movement signal as a basis (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above related to claim 1 and its dependent claims regarding the use of the various “points of time”; Sumimoto’s device teaches a steering angle sensor 21 that detects the steering angle in which the hands are moved, and a stepping amount sensor 22 that detects the depression amount of the brake pedal 5, therefore teaches a movement signal, Page 5 paragraph 6, and an operation response delay time Td, Page 6, second paragraph, Sumimoto’s device is fully capable of detecting a movement signal, and using the detection timing of the movement signal as a basis).
Regarding claim 3, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the control unit controls, in a case where the movement signal has been detected, the action unit to accelerate or decelerate the movement of the body part of the user, using as the second point of time as a basis (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above related to claim 1 and its dependent claims regarding the use of the various “points of time”; Sumimoto’s device uses a brake target operation amount calculation processing unit 14 and steering target operation amount calculation processing unit 15 to respectively calculate the operation target (steering / braking, and thus their speeds), from the data, therefore fully capable of having the action unit accelerate or decelerate the movement of the body part of the user, using it as a second point of time, Page 4 paragraph 8 and Figure 5)).
Regarding claim 4, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the control unit controls the action unit on a basis of a reference signal for the movement of the body part of the user (the brain command processing unit 11 reads the brain command pattern data 13, and determines if the predetermined pattern (reference signal) matches a predetermined value, if it matches than the brake target operation and steering operation are calculated and executed to therefore move the brake pedal and steering wheel accordingly, Page 4 paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 5, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the reference signal is a signal indicating a timing of the movement of the body part of the user, and the control unit sets, on a basis of the timing of the movement of the body part of the user, at least one of the third point of time to control the action unit or a fourth point of time to terminate control on the action unit (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above related to claim 1 and its dependent claims regarding the use of the various “points of time”; see Page 6 paragraphs 5-6 of Sumimoto describing the determination of whether or not the operation delay time exceeds a reference value, in order to adjust the actuator start conditions, such that the actuator drive start timing is calculated based on the detected brain command signal, so that the actuators start to be driven at an appropriate timing before the driver starts the operations of the brake or steering).
Regarding claim 6, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the control unit sets at least one of the third point of time or the fourth point of time in accordance with a driving force to drive the action unit (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above related to claim 1 and its dependent claims regarding the use of the various “points of time”; see Page 6 paragraphs 5-6 of Sumimoto describing the determination of whether or not the operation delay time exceeds a reference value, in order to adjust the actuator start conditions, to include driving force, such that the actuator drive start timing is calculated based on the detected brain command signal, so that the actuators start to be driven at an appropriate timing before the driver starts the operations of the brake or steering).
Regarding claim 7, Sumimoto further teaches the action unit is capable of driving to promote or suppress the movement of the body part of the user, and the control unit sets the third point of time to be later as the driving force of the action unit increases in a case of promoting the movement of the body part of the user and sets the fourth point of time to be earlier as the driving force of the action unit increases in a case of suppressing the movement of the body part of the user (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above related to claim 1 and its dependent claims regarding the use of the various “points of time”; see Page 6 paragraphs 5-6 of Sumimoto describing the determination of whether or not the operation delay time exceeds a reference value, in order to adjust the actuator start conditions, such that the actuator drive start timing is calculated based on the detected brain command signal, so that the actuators start to be driven at an appropriate timing before the driver starts the operations of the brake or steering, therefore fully capable of promoting and/or suppressing movement of the brake pedal and/or steering wheel, and thus the movement of the user’s hands and feet).
Regarding claim 8, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the reference signal is a signal indicating necessity or unnecessity of a predetermined movement that the user performs by moving the body part of the user, and the control unit compares necessity or unnecessity of the predetermined movement indicated by the reference signal with presence or absence of the movement signal for making the predetermined movement and controls the action unit on a basis of the comparison result (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above for this particular limitation; see Page 4 paragraph 8 of Sumimoto describing the brain command pattern processing unit 11 comparing a predetermined brain pattern with a predetermined value, such that if there is a matching pattern the brake target operation and steering target operation is calculated and executed).
Regarding claim 9, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the control unit controls the action unit to cause the body part of the user to perform the predetermined movement in a case where the movement signal for making the predetermined movement has not been detected in a situation where the predetermined movement is necessary (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above for this limitation; Therefore, as Sumimoto’s device teaches the driving support control 1 comprising a brain command detection processing unit 10 to determine a targeted steering and braking operation, which is then used to drive the motion of the steering wheel 2 and the brake pedal 5, therefore fully capable of performing the movements in a situation when the movement is “necessary”, see all of Page 4).
Regarding claim 10, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the control unit controls the action unit to prevent the body part of the user from performing the predetermined movement in a case where the movement signal for making the predetermined movement has been detected in a situation where the predetermined movement is unnecessary (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above for this limitation; Therefore, as Sumimoto’s device teaches the driving support control 1 comprising a brain command detection processing unit 10 to determine a targeted steering and braking operation, which is then used to drive the motion of the steering wheel 2 and the brake pedal 5, therefore fully capable of performing the movements in a situation when the movement is “unnecessary”, see all of Page 4).
Regarding claim 11, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the reference signal is a signal indicating a result of sensing information for the user to determine whether or not to move the body part of the user the sensing being performed through a predetermined sensor (the brain network interface 7 is worn on the user’s head, and is a device configured to detect brain activity data, such as a change in blood flow due to intracerebral activity, a magnetic field change due to nerve electricity, and the like, Page 4, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 12, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the movement of the body part of the user is a movement for performing an input operation for a predetermined application, and the reference signal is a signal indicating a timing of the input operation (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above related to claim 1 and its dependent claims regarding the use of the various “points of time”, therefore this claim is unable to be examined because of lack of clarity from the claim it is dependent upon).
Regarding claim 13, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the reference signal is a movement signal detected from a signal indicating a voluntary movement of another user different from the user (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above related to claim 1 and its dependent claims regarding the use of the various “points of time”, therefore this claim is unable to be examined because of lack of clarity from the claim it is dependent upon).
Regarding claim 14, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the signal indicating the voluntary movement of the user is at least one of an electromyography signal of the user, an electroencephalography signal of the user, or a spinal cord signal of the user (the brain network interface 7 is worn on the user’s head, and is a device configured to detect brain activity data, such as a change in blood flow due to intracerebral activity, a magnetic field change due to nerve electricity, and the like, Page 4, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 15, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the action unit is a first magnetic field action unit that receives a force depending on a magnetic field, and the control unit controls the first magnetic field action unit by electrically changing a magnetic field between the first magnetic field action unit and a second magnetic field action unit provided separate from the first magnetic field action unit (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above related to claim 1 and its dependent claims regarding the use of the various “points of time”, therefore this claim is unable to be examined because of lack of clarity from the claim it is dependent upon; however see Page 4 of Sumimoto describing the use of magnetic field distributions to drive the brake and steering wheel control units).
Regarding claim 16, Sumimoto further teaches wherein at least one of the first magnetic field action unit or the second magnetic field action unit includes an electromagnet, and the control unit controls the electromagnet to generate a magnetic force between the first magnetic field action unit and the second magnetic field action unit, the magnetic force being attraction or repulsion (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above related to claim 1 and its dependent claims regarding the use of the various “points of time”, therefore this claim is unable to be examined because of lack of clarity from the claim it is dependent upon; however see Page 4 of Sumimoto describing the use of magnetic field distributions to drive the brake and steering wheel control units).
Regarding claim 17, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the movement of the body part of the user is a contact movement in which the user touches a movement target with the body part of the user, and the second magnetic field action unit is provided in the movement target (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above related to claim 1 and its dependent claims regarding the use of the various “points of time”, therefore this claim is unable to be examined because of lack of clarity from the claim it is dependent upon; however see Page 4 of Sumimoto describing the use of magnetic field distributions to drive the brake and steering wheel control units).
Regarding claim 18, Sumimoto further teaches wherein the body part of the user is a finger of the user, the contact movement is a contact operation with the finger of the user, and the movement target is an input apparatus that receives the contact operation (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above related to claim 1 and its dependent claims regarding the use of the various “points of time”, therefore this claim is unable to be examined because of lack of clarity from the claim it is dependent upon; however see Figure 1 showing the user’s hand contacting the steering wheel, therefore the body part includes a finger of the user).
Regarding claim 19, Sumimoto discloses an information processing method (driving support apparatus comprising an operation support control unit 1 that specifies a target operation based on detected brain activity, controlling the driving operation of the user based on the specific target operation, Figures 1-2 and Abstract) comprising by a computer system (see system as shown in Figure 2), controlling an action unit at a third point of time on a basis of a signal indicating a voluntary movement of a user at a first point of time (an actuator 4 is under the control of the steering control unit 9 that drives the movement of steering wheel 2, brake actuator 6 under control of brake control unit 8 and controls the movement of brake pedal 5, Page 4, paragraphs 2-3 and Figure 1), the action unit being attached to a body part of the user and moving the body part of the user (steering wheel 2 and brake pedal 5 are attached to the user via contact, steering wheel 2 moves the user’s hands and brake pedal 5 moves the user’s foot, Figure 1 and Page 4), the third point of time being included in a period from the first point of time to a second point of time, the second point of time being a point of time when a movement of the body part of the user according to the signal indicating the voluntary movement of the user occurs (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above regarding the lack of clarity in the various “points of time”, therefore, for the purpose of examination, the Examiner has taken this limitation to be met as long as the prior art teaches a means of detecting voluntary movement from a user, and using such a signal to subsequently drive an action unit to therefore move a user’s body part. Therefore, as Sumimoto’s device teaches the driving support control 1 comprising a brain command detection processing unit 10 to determine a targeted steering and braking operation, which is then used to drive the motion of the steering wheel 2 and the brake pedal 5, see all of Page 4, the Examiner considers this limitation to be met by the prior art).
Regarding claim 20, Sumimoto discloses a computer-readable recording medium recording a program (brain command processing unit 11 reads the brain command pattern data 13 from the first storage unit 12, Page 4 paragraph 8) to execute a step of controlling an action unit at a third point of time on a basis of a signal indicating a voluntary movement of a user at a first point of time (an actuator 4 is under the control of the steering control unit 9 that drives the movement of steering wheel 2, brake actuator 6 under control of brake control unit 8 and controls the movement of brake pedal 5, Page 4, paragraphs 2-3 and Figure 1), the action unit being attached to a body part of the user and moving the body part of the user (steering wheel 2 and brake pedal 5 are attached to the user via contact, steering wheel 2 moves the user’s hands and brake pedal 5 moves the user’s foot, Figure 1 and Page 4), the third point of time being included in a period from the first point of time to a second point of time, the second point of time being a point of time when a movement of the body part of the user according to the signal indicating the voluntary movement of the user occurs (the Examiner notes the 112b rejection presented above regarding the lack of clarity in the various “points of time”, therefore, for the purpose of examination, the Examiner has taken this limitation to be met as long as the prior art teaches a means of detecting voluntary movement from a user, and using such a signal to subsequently drive an action unit to therefore move a user’s body part. Therefore, as Sumimoto’s device teaches the driving support control 1 comprising a brain command detection processing unit 10 to determine a targeted steering and braking operation, which is then used to drive the motion of the steering wheel 2 and the brake pedal 5, see all of Page 4, the Examiner considers this limitation to be met by the prior art).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Alcaide et al. (US 2020/0097076 A1) and Einarsson et al. (US 2016/0302686 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B LEDERER whose telephone number is 571-272-7274. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached on (571)-270-7410. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SARAH B LEDERER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785