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
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. No claims have been newly added nor canceled. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant amended claim 1 to recite: “identify, at least one candidate space regarding a sound source, based on the shape of the object and the location of the object, as a space having a predetermined height among regions where the object is located.” The examiner notes that there are two issues with this newly amended limitation. First, the newly added comma after “identify” is unnecessary, and should be removed, though the newly added comma after “sound source” is appropriate and should not be removed. Second, the examiner believes that Applicant should not have removed the portion of the limitation which recited “section of the object,” and believes the removal of “section of the” could cause potential indefiniteness issues, since only the shape of the section of the object has been determined, rather than the “shape of the object” as a whole, as is presently claimed. As such, the examiner recommends amending the above limitation to recite: “identify [[,]] at least one candidate space regarding a sound source, based on the shape of the section of the object and the location of the object….”
Claims 8 and 15 should be amended similarly, with the re-inclusion of “section of the.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 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 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20190134812 A1), hereafter Kim, in view of Zakharov (US 20200330003 A1), hereafter Zakharov, and further in view of Chang (US 6469732 B1), hereafter Chang.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a robot comprising:
A housing comprising an upper section and a lower section (0073, electronic device may include a first housing 102 and a second housing 103);
A plurality of microphones (0073, electronic device 101 may include a plurality of microphones);
A lower section driver configured to control mobility of the robot (0075, Fig. 1C, second housing 103 may include a plurality of motors 162, 163, and 165, electronic device 101 may rotate the motor 162 to conduct the motion of the second housing 103, electronic device may rotate the motor 166 to conduct the rotation of wheels 108 and 109);
An upper section driver configured to control an orientation of the upper section relative to the lower section (0075, Fig. 1C, first housing may rotate with the rotation of motor 161, the first housing 102 may rotate in left and right directions or up and down directions, when three motors are included in the first housing, the electronic device 101 may rotate the first housing 102 in three directions of roll, pitch, and yaw);
A distance sensor (0073, distance sensor may be positioned inside or on the second housing 103); and
A processor (0062-0063, electronic device 101 may include a processor 120, the processor 120 may drive software to control at least one different element of the electronic device 101) configured to:
Control the distance sensor to obtain distance information to an object around the robot (0073, distance sensor may identify a barrier by using time of flight, 0142, electronic device may 101 may keep the distance from the user 1910 to be less than a threshold value, using the data from the distance sensor),
Determine a shape of a section of the object (0095, electronic device 101 may analyze shapes of objects or relative positions among objects on images),
Determine a type of the object based on the shape of the section of the object (0103, electronic device 101 may classify images based on shapes of various objects),
Determine a location of the object based on the distance information (0085, electronic device 101 may identify the distance, using an image analysis result or based on the data from at least the sensor 176),
Identify at least one candidate space regarding a sound source based on the shape of the object and the location of the object (0085, the electronic device 101 may recognize the shape of a user, that is, a human from a photographed image and may identify a position of the user based on at least one of a position and a size of at least a recognized object, 0118, electronic device 101 may identify at step 903 respective positions of multiple users including a user who produced a voice, the electronic device may set respective positions of multiple users by using directions and distances with reference to the electronic device 101),
Identify a location of the sound source from among the at least one candidate space based on a user's voice signal received through the plurality of microphones (0085, the electronic device 101 may identify a position of a user who produces speech and/or detect a direction where a user's speech is produced, the electronic device 101 may include a plurality of microphones 150 and may identify a direction where a speech is produced, based on a difference in time point at which at least a plurality of microphones receive speech sounds),
Control the lower section driver to control a direction of the robot based on the object around the robot and the location of the object (0085, the electronic device 101 may control its facing direction so as to direct the camera toward where speech is produced), and
Control the upper section driver to control the orientation and an angle of the upper section towards the location of the sound source based on the type of the object (0120, Fig. 10C, the electronic device 101 may identify that an object on the acquired image does not meet a designated condition, electronic device 101 may rotate the first housing 102 in the left/right direction 1020 or in the up/down direction 1021 and may execute continuous shooting for images during rotation).
Kim fails to disclose, however, wherein the shape of a section of the object is determined based on the distance information.
Zakharov, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the shape of a section of the object is determined based on the distance information (0028, processor derives at least one of a position, shape, pose, size of the object from the coordinate points of the measured distances and orientations).
Kim and Zakharov are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g. localization systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the distance based object shape determination of Zakharov in order to provide further means of determining the objects located in the robot’s environment. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is able to properly identify objects in its immediate vicinity.
The combination of Kim and Zakharov fails to teach, however, wherein the candidate space is identified as a space having a predetermined height among regions where the object is located.
Chang, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the candidate space is identified as a space having a predetermined height among regions where the object is located (Col. 7, Lines 7-17, when a sound source is found between minimum person height 1002 and minimum height 1005, the position calculated by the position computation module 103 for the sound source is adjusted upward to the level of minimum person height 1002, similarly, when a sound source is found between ceiling 1003 and maximum person height 1001, the position calculated by position computation module 103 is adjusted downwards to the maximum person height 1001).
Kim, Zakharov, and Chang are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., localization systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the predetermined height of the candidate space of Chang in order to provide a means of narrowing the potential sound source locations. The motivation to combine is to allow the sound source to be determined at a height that is realistic for a speaker.
Claims 8 and 15 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kim, Zakharov, and Chang teaches the robot as claimed in claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the user's voice signal is based on a sound signal received through the plurality of microphones (0085, the electronic device 101 may identify a position of a user who produces speech and/or detect a direction where a user's speech is produced, the electronic device 101 may include a plurality of microphones 150 and may identify a direction where a speech is produced, based on a difference in time point at which at least a plurality of microphones receive speech sounds).
Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim, Zakharov, and Chang teaches the robot as claimed in claim 1, and Kim teaches it further comprising:
A camera (0075, first housing may include at least one camera module),
Wherein the processor is configured to:
Based on the identifying of the location of the sound source based on the user's voice signal, control the lower section driver so that the robot faces a first candidate space from among the at least one candidate space (0085, the electronic device may control its facing direction so as to direct the camera 180 towards where speech is produced),
Obtain an image by performing photographing through the camera in a state where the robot faces the first candidate space (0085, the electronic device 101 may control its facing direction so as to direct the camera 180 towards where speech is produced, the electronic device 101 may acquire an image photographed by the camera),
Based on identifying that the user does not exist in the first candidate space based on the obtained image, identify a second candidate space from among the at least one candidate space based on the user's voice signal (0118, the electronic device 101 may be arranged at a position that cannot allow immediately photographing a user who produced the speech, the electronic device 101 may first move toward the spot from which the speech was produced and may photograph the user who produced a voice and other neighboring users during movement), and
Control the lower section driver so that the robot faces the second candidate space (0118, the electronic device 101 may be arranged at a position that cannot allow immediately photographing a user who produced the speech, the electronic device 101 may first move toward the spot from which the speech was produced and may photograph the user who produced a voice and other neighboring users during movement).
Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim, Zakharov, and Chang teaches the robot as claimed in claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
Identify a direction in which the user's voice signal is received by the plurality of microphones based on at least one of a number of the plurality of microphones and an arrangement direction of the plurality of microphones (0085, the electronic device 101 may identify a position of a user who produces speech and/or detect a direction where a user's speech is produced, the electronic device 101 may include a plurality of microphones 150 and may identify a direction where a speech is produced, based on a difference in time point at which at least a plurality of microphones receive speech sounds), and wherein the identifying of the location from the sound source is further based on the direction in which the user's voice signal is received (0077, the electronic device 101 may determine relative directions of a voice generation position using the time points at which the voice is received by the microphones 151, 152, 153, and 154).
Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim, Zakharov, and Chang teaches the robot as claimed in claim 1, and Kim teaches it further comprising:
A camera (0075, first housing may include at least one camera module),
Wherein the processor is configured to:
Obtain an image by performing photographing through the camera after the robot faces a direction in which the sound source is located (0085, the electronic device 101 may control its facing direction so as to direct the camera 180 towards where speech is produced, the electronic device 101 may acquire an image photographed by the camera and may identify a position of a user),
Identify a predetermined body part of the user included in the image (0120, the electronic device 101 may identify that an object, e.g., a user's face, does not meet a designated condition), and
Control the upper section driver to rotate the upper section so that the upper section of the robot faces the predetermined body part (0120, the electronic device may rotate the first housing 102 in the left/right direction 1020 or in the up/down direction 1021 and may execute continuous shooting 1036 for images during rotation, the electronic device 101 may identify that an object on an image acquired as a result of photographing meets a designated condition and may store the image in which an object meets a designated condition), and
Wherein the predetermined body part includes the user's face or mouth (0120, the electronic device 101 may identify that an object, e.g., a user's face, does not meet a designated condition).
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim, Zakharov, and Chang teaches the robot as claimed in claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the processor is configured to, based on identifying that a distance between the robot and the sound source exceeds a predetermined value, control the lower section driver so that the robot moves to a point that is a predetermined distance away from the location of the sound source (0142, the electronic device 101 may keep the distance from the user 1910 to be less than a threshold value, using the data from the distance sensor).
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kim, Zakharov, and Chang teaches the robot as claimed in claim 1, and Zakharov further teaches wherein, to determine the shape of the section of the object based on the distance information, the processor is configured to compare a shape formed based on the distance information with a predetermined shape (0021, distances and orientations are measured and used to classify an object by comparing points of reference data with the measured data, 0149, reference data includes examples of object shapes).
Kim and Zakharov are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g. localization systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Kim to have included the object shape determination of Zakharov in order to provide further means of determining the objects located in the robot’s environment. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is able to properly identify objects in its immediate vicinity.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim in view of Zakharov and Chang.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kim, Zakharov, and Chang teaches the robot as claimed in claim 16, and Zakharov further teaches wherein the predetermined shape comprises a shape of a body part (0150, object is a human body, model consists of a head, a torso, arms, legs, etc.).
The combination of Kim, Zakharov, and Chang, however, to explicitly disclose and/or teach that the body part is a foot. The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Kim to have made the body part specifically a foot, as doing so would have been obvious to try, as there is both a design need (to identify a person) and a finite number of known solutions that would be reasonably to try (there are only so many appendages that one could look at), see at least MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zakharov and Chang as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Liu (US 20210349178 A1), hereafter Liu.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kim, Zakharov, and Chang teaches the robot as claimed in claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the processor is configured to, based on identifying that the location of the sound source moves based on the distance information, control the lower section driver so that the robot faces a direction in which the moved sound source is located based on the moved direction (0142, the electronic device 101 may change the task executable range, depending on the positional change of the user 1910, the electronic device 101 may move, following the user 1910, so as to position within a task executable range).
The combination of Kim, Zakharov, and Chang fails to teach, however, wherein the sound source is determined to move based on the location of the sound source.
Liu, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the sound source is determined to move based on the location of the sound source (0022, sound source tracked according to position information of the target object, 0041, voice signals picked up, analyzed, and sound source is positioned, microphone array aligned to the sound pick-up angle to the azimuth of the sound source).
Kim, Zakharov, Chang, and Liu are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g. sound source location estimation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have further modified Kim to include the tracking as taught by Liu in order to provide further means of continuously determining the location of the sound source. The motivation to combine is to allow the robot to better track the sound source through the environment.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
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 BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/B.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658