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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3 and 6-9 remain pending. Claims 1 and 7-8 have been amended. Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 06/05/2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai et al (US 20210247763 A1) in view of Panzirsch et al “Haptic Intention Augmentation for Cooperative Teleoperation” and Rasmussen et al (US 20180239349 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Kasai, Panzirsch, and Rasmussen respectively)
Regarding Claims 1 and 7-8, Kasai teaches a remote operation control system (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0038, 0040, and Figure 1, the system shown in Figure 1 is interpreted as the remote operation control system), a remote operation control method (See at least Kasai Paragraph 0040 and Figure 6), a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing a program (See at least Kasai Paragraph 0109, the ROM and RAM are interpreted as a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program), in which an operator remotely operates a remote operation target that is an object of reality or a virtual object of a virtual world (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0040, and Figure 1, the operator remotely operates the robot, which is a remote operation target that is an object of reality), the remote operation control system comprising a processor (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0108-0109) configured to/the program causes a computer to:
acquire first operation information indicating an operation inputted by a first operator via a first controller that receives an operation on the remote operation target (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0040, 0049, 0108, and Figure 2, the control device acquires first operation information by the first operator via a first external controller), and second operation information indicating an operation inputted by a second operator via a second controller that receives an operation on the remote operation target (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0040, 0049, 0108, and Figure 2, the control device acquires second operation information by the second operator via a second external controller);
generate control information for causing the remote operation target to move based on the first operation information and the second operation information (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0059, 0080, 0086, and Figure 7, the control device generates control information for driving/moving the robot/remote operation target based on the first and second operation information), wherein the control information is based on a result of synthesizing a content of remote operation performed by the first operator and a content of remote operation performed by the second operator (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0058-0059, 0086, and Figure 7, the control information is generated based on synthesizing the remote operation from the first and second operator), wherein the operation performed by the first operator and the operation performed by the second operator are executed at the same time (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0083, 0086, and Figure 7, the operation performed by the first operator S211 and the operation performed by the second operator S215 are executed at the same time)…
Kasai fails to disclose based on the control information, generate first feedback information that feeds back a motion content of the remote operation target to the first controller and generate second feedback information that feeds back a motion content of the remote operation target to the second controller, wherein the first feedback information causes the first controller to reproduce a motion of the remote operation target, and the second feedback information causes the second controller to reproduce a motion of the remote operation target, wherein the first feedback information and the second feedback information relate to a tactile sense;
generate the second feedback information for transmitting the first operation information the second operator via the second controller;
generate the first feedback information for transmitting the second operation information to the first operator via the first controller;
transmit the second feedback information to the second operator; and
transmit the first feedback information to the first operator.
However, Panzirsch teaches based on the control information, generate first feedback information that feeds back a motion content of the remote operation target to the first controller (See at least Panzirsch Page 5335 Figure 1, Page 5336 Column 1 Paragraphs 2-3, and Page 5339 Column 2 Bottom Paragraph, the haptic intention augmentation of operator B is interpreted as first feedback information), and generate second feedback information that feeds back a motion content of the remote operation target to the second controller (See at least Panzirsch Page 5335 Figure 1, Page 5336 Column 1 Paragraphs 2-3, and Page 5339 Column 2 Bottom Paragraph, the haptic intention augmentation of operator A is interpreted as second feedback information), wherein the first feedback information causes the first controller to reproduce a motion of the remote operation target (See at least Panzirsch Page 5335 Abstract and Figure 1, Page 5336 Column 1 Paragraphs 2-3, and Page 5339 Column 2 Bottom Paragraph, the haptic intention augmentation of operator B/first feedback information reproduces the motion of the remotely controlled robot input by operator B), and the second feedback information causes the second controller to reproduce a motion of the remote operation target (See at least Panzirsch Page 5335 Abstract and Figure 1, Page 5336 Column 1 Paragraphs 2-3, and Page 5339 Column 2 Bottom Paragraph, the haptic intention augmentation of operator A/second feedback information reproduces the motion of the remotely controlled robot input by operator A), wherein the first feedback information and the second feedback information relate to a tactile sense (See at least Panzirsch Page 5335 Abstract and Figure 1, and Page 5336 Column 1 Paragraphs 2-3, the haptic intention/force feedback is interpreted a tactile sense);
generate the second feedback information for transmitting the first operation information to the second operator via the second controller (See at least Panzirsch Page 5335 Abstract and Figure 1, and Page 5336 Column 1 Paragraphs 2-3);
generate the first feedback information for transmitting the second operation information to the first operator via the first controller (See at least Panzirsch Page 5335 Abstract and Figure 1, and Page 5336 Column 1 Paragraphs 2-3);
transmit the second feedback information to the second operator (See at least Panzirsch Page 5335 Abstract and Figure 1, and Page 5336 Column 1 Paragraphs 2-3, the second feedback information is transmitted to the second operator); and
transmit the first feedback information to the first operator (See at least Panzirsch Page 5335 Abstract and Figure 1, and Page 5336 Column 1 Paragraphs 2-3, the first feedback information is transmitted to the first operator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Kasai with Panzirsch to transmit the first feedback information to the first operator and the second feedback information to the second operator. This modification, as taught by Panzirsch, would allow each operator to know the intention of the other operator when the operators are controlling the same robot, thus, improving the coordination between operators (See at least Panzirsch Page 5335 Abstract and Figure 1, Page 5335 Column 2 second paragraph-Page 5336 Column 1 Paragraph 3, and Page 5339 Column 2 Bottom Paragraph).
Even though Kasai teaches synthesizing the content of remote operation performed by the first operator and the content of remote operation performed by the second operator, modified Kasai fails to disclose wherein when synthesizing the content of remote operation performed by the first operator and the content of remote operation performed by the second operator, in response to determining that an operation direction of the first operator and an operation direction of the second operator are different, the processor generates the control information to cause the remote operation target to move in the operation direction of the second operator.
However, Rasmussen teaches in response to determining that an operation direction of the first operator and an operation direction of the second operator are different, the processor generates the control information to cause the remote operation target to move in the operation direction of the second operator (See at least Rasmussen Paragraphs 0018, 0137-0142, and Figure 8, when the function control of the remote operation target, which includes the steering/operation direction, by the first operator conflicts with the second operator, the control request from the operator with the highest priority is granted and the control request from the other operator is denied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kasai with Rasmussen to generate the control information to cause the remote operation target to move in the operation direction of the second operator in response to determining that an operation direction of the first operator and an operation direction of the second operator are different. This modification, as taught by Rasmussen, would resolve conflicts between the two operators when both operators control the remote operation target (See at least Rasmussen Paragraphs 0141-0142), thus, improving the control of the remote operation target.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kasai teaches the processor is configured to:
generate third feedback information for transmitting a feeling or a sense obtained on a remote operation target side to the first operator via the first controller based on a detection result by a sensor mounted on the remote operation target (See at least Kasai Paragraph 0104 and Figure 9, a sense obtained on a remote operation target side by a sensor mounted on the remote operation target/robot is sent to the first operator via the first controller by using the control device, which is interpreted to include the feedback information generation part), and
generate fourth feedback information for transmitting a feeling or a sense obtained on the remote operation target side to the second operator via the second controller based on a detection result by the sensor mounted on the remote operation target (See at least Kasai Paragraph 0104 and Figure 9, a sense obtained on a remote operation target side by a sensor mounted on the remote operation target/robot is sent to the second operator via the second controller by using the control device, which is interpreted to include the feedback information generation part).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai in view of Panzirsch and Rasmussen, and in further view of Kimoto (US 20190318660 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Kimoto)
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kasai fails to disclose the processor configured to:
generate a comparison image that is an image data to be displayed on a first display part for the first operator or a second display part for the second operator and shows a comparison result between the operation inputted by the first operator and the operation inputted by the second operator.
However, Kimoto teaches generate a comparison image that is an image data to be displayed on a first display part for the first operator or a second display part for the second operator and shows a comparison result between the operation inputted by the first operator and the operation inputted by the second operator (See at least Kimoto Paragraphs 0029, 0076 and 0095-0103, the second display part for the second operator displays a comparison result between the operation inputted by the first operator and the operation inputted by the second operator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kasai with Kimoto to display a comparison result between the operation inputted by the first operator and the operation inputted by the second operator on the second display part. This modification, as taught by Kimoto, would allow the second operator to efficiently learn appropriate robot operation through the comparison, while staying at a place different from a place where the first operator is (See at least Kimoto Paragraphs 0058 and 0103), which is highly advantageous for efficient learning of appropriate robot operation (See at least Kimoto Paragraph 0097).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai in view of Panzirsch and Rasmussen, and in further view of Hares (US 20230329818 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Hares)
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kasai fails to disclose the tactile sense comprises at least one of applying vibration, applying air pressure, restraining a hand movement, enabling feeling temperature, or enabling feeling firmness or softness.
However, Hares teaches the tactile sense comprises applying vibration (See at least Hares Paragraph 0081, the haptic feedback is in the form of vibrations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kasai with Hares to have the tactile sense comprise applying vibration. Applying vibration as the tactile sense/haptic feedback, as taught by Hares, is routine and well-understood in the art and allows for the operator of the robot to feel the forces generated on the robot in the form of vibrations (See at least Hares Paragraph 0081), thus, improving the awareness of the operator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7-8 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.
Applicant has amended the claims to include wherein when synthesizing the content of remote operation performed by the first operator and the content of remote operation performed by the second operator, in response to determining that an operation direction of the first operator and an operation direction of the second operator are different, the processor generates the control information to cause the remote operation target to move in the operation direction of the second operator. Kasai teaches synthesizing the content of remote operation performed by the first operator and the content of remote operation performed by the second operator and newly added reference Rasmussen teaches in response to determining that an operation direction of the first operator and an operation direction of the second operator are different, the processor generates the control information to cause the remote operation target to move in the operation direction of the second operator. Rasmussen teaches two different operators that control the steering/operation direction of a remote operation target. When the two operators have conflicting control requests, the control request of the operator with the highest priority is granted and the control request for the other operator is denied.
Thus, for these reasons, the claims still stand rejected under 103.
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 ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights