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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the claimed
“a portable device comprising circuitry, including a touchscreen display to provide a simulated interface to simulate at least a subset of the plurality of interfaces of the robotic device, wherein the touchscreen displays a representation of the robotic device and maps to the respective touch sensitive portions of the displayed representation of the robotic device to detect user contact at the mapped touched sensitive portions displayed on the touchscreen display;”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s), emphasis added.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a portable device comprising circuitry including a touchscreen display to provide a simulated interface to simulate at least a subset of the plurality of interfaces of the robotic device, wherein the touchscreen displays a representation of the robotic device and maps to the respective touch sensitive portions of the displayed representation of the robotic device to detect user contact at the mapped touched sensitive portions displayed on the touchscreen display;…”.
Applicant’s specification recites,
[0060] It will of course be appreciated that a portable device is not a robotic device. In other words, the ways in which a portable device can interact with the user may be very different to the ways in which a physical robotic device can interact with the user. Some aspects of interaction map very conveniently between the two, for example both arrangements may have one or more microphones and one or more cameras to capture user reactions to actions carried out by the real or virtual robotic device. Similarly, portions of the portable device’s touchscreen display may be mapped to touch sensitive portions of the robotic device to detect user contact at those portions. In other respects, it is clear for example that a portable device such as a smartphone does not have motorised articulated joints, but movements of the robotic device’s limbs, head, tail or the like may be mapped to displayed movements presented to the user via the touchscreen display. Motion and/or orientation detection at the robotic device may be mapped to motion and/or orientation detection of the portable device.
As such according to applicant’s specification the “touch screen display” is not performing the action of mapping as called for in the claims. Instead, the “touch screen display” is mapped to touch sensitive portions.
In addition, the specification recites, “mapped to displayed movements presented to the user via the touchscreen display” contrary to the claim limitation, “wherein the touchscreen displays a representation of the robotic device”. There is no support for “wherein the touchscreen displays a representation of the robotic device”.
Additionally the limitation, “wherein the touchscreen displays a representation of the robotic device and maps to the respective touch sensitive portions of the displayed representation of the robotic device” has no support because the limitation is indicating that it is the touchscreen display that is performing the action of mapping. This is contrary to the specification which indicates that, “portions of the portable device’s touchscreen display may be mapped to touch sensitive portions of the robotic device.” As such the limitation, “wherein the touchscreen displays a representation of the robotic device and maps to the respective touch sensitive portions of the displayed representation of the robotic device” is new matter.
As such the limitation, “the touchscreen ……………………maps to the respective touch sensitive portions” is new matter as recited in the claims.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending on the rejected base claim of for having similar deficiencies as the rejected base claim.
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.
Claim 1-17 is 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.
Claim 1 recites, “a portable device comprising circuitry including a touchscreen display to provide a simulated interface to simulate at least a subset of the plurality of interfaces of the robotic device, wherein the touchscreen displays a representation of the robotic device and maps to the respective touch sensitive portions of the displayed representation of the robotic device to detect user contact at the mapped touched sensitive portions displayed on the touchscreen display;…”. There is no antecedent basis for the recited, “……..the respective touch sensitive portions…”
Claim 1 further recites, “a second operation mode in which the behaviour processing circuitry is configured to generate variations of the action parameter data in response to user interaction with the simulated interface of the portable device and detect touch at corresponding regions of touchscreen display mapped to the touch sensitive portions and display movements of the movable limbs of the representation of the robotic device:”
There is not antecedent basis on the limitation, “regions of touchscreen display”, emphasis added. That is, previous portions of the claim already recite a, “touchscreen”. As such applicant is requested to be consistent with the claim limitations.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending on the rejected base claim of for having similar deficiencies as the rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Citation of Pertinent art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bollini (WO 2022/164793) teaches (see sections 0027, 0041; figs. 2C, 3D, 3E, 3f) of:
a robotic device including movable limbs having articulated joints and a plurality of touch sensors on portions of the robotic device to form touch sensitive portions that detect physical user interaction with the robotic device;
a portable device comprising circuitry, including a touchscreen display to provide a simulated interface to simulate at least a subset of a plurality of interfaces of the robotic device,
wherein displayed movements of the robotic device are presented on the touchscreen display,
wherein portions of the touchscreen display are mapped to the touch sensitive portions of the robotic device to detect a user contact at the mapped touch sensitive portions.
wherein the robotic device is configured to detect touch at regions of the touchscreen display mapped to the touch sensitive portions; and
wherein the robotic device is configured to display movements of the movable limbs of the representation of the robotic device;
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657