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
This is a nonfinal in response to an RCE filed on 04/22/2026. Claims 1, 3 and 5-8 remain pending. Claims 1 and 6-8 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claim 9 has been added.
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, 3, and 5-9 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.
Claims 1, and 7-8 recite, in the last two lines, “transmit the second feedback information to the first operator; and transmit the first feedback information to the second operator.”. Applicant does not have support in the specification for transmitting the second feedback information to the first operator and transmitting the first feedback information to the second operator. Instead, Paragraph 0229 of Applicant’s specification recites “Based on the motion of the robot 400 executed based on the operation inputted by the novice A (i.e., the first operator), the feedback information generation part 655 generates second feedback information for transmitting the operation content performed by the first operator to the second operator via the second controller 60. Further, based on the motion of the remote operation target executed based on the operation inputted by the skilled person B (i.e., the second operator), the feedback information generation part 655 generates first feedback information for transmitting the operation content performed by the second operator to the first operator via the first controller 20. Accordingly, the motion of the robot or the like executed by the remote operation of one operator can be transmitted to another operator.” Applicant has support for transmitting the second feedback information to the second operator, and transmitting the first feedback information to the first operator. Thus, for examination purposes, Examiner will interpret the claim to read “transmit the second feedback information to the second operator; and transmit the first feedback information to the first operator”.
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, 3, and 5-9 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 and 7-8 recite, in the fourth paragraph, “wherein the first feedback information causes the first controller to reproduce a motion of the remotely operated robot, and the second feedback information causes the second controller to reproduce a motion of the remotely operated robot”. The term “the remotely operated robot” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if Applicant is referring to the remotely operated target recited earlier in the claim, or if this is a different object. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. (For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret the “remotely operated robot” to be the remotely operated target).
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 5-8 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” (Hereinafter referred to as Kasai and Panzirsch 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 remotely operated robot, and the second feedback information causes the second controller to reproduce a motion of the remotely operated robot, 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 first operator; and
transmit the first feedback information to the second 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 remotely operated robot (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 remotely operated robot (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 first 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; See 112a rejection above for claim interpretation); and
transmit the first 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 first feedback information is transmitted to the first operator; See 112a rejection above for claim interpretation).
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).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kasai teaches when synthesizing the content of remote operation performed by the first operator and the content of remote operation performed by the second operator, the processor generates the control information in which the operation of the second operator is prioritized as compared to the first operator (See at least Kasai Paragraphs 0064-0071 and Figures 4b-4c, the control information being generated with a weight synthesis of the second operator being greater than 0.5 is interpreted as prioritizing the second operator).
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 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 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 that the first feedback and second feedback information are a tactile sense. This limitation is taught by newly added reference Panzirsch, which teaches two operators that both control the same robot. The haptic intention from one operator is transmitted to the other operator so that each operator knows the intention of the other operator. Thus, claims 1 and 7-8 still remain rejected under 103.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected in further view of Hares, which teaches the haptic feedback, which is interpreted as the tactile sense, includes applying vibration.
Thus, for these reasons, the claims still stand rejected under 103.
Conclusion
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/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights