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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-184841, filed on 11/12/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/08/204 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first, second, and third acquisition parts, generation part, and output part in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected for being the abstract idea of a mental process. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 14 and 15 recites acquiring a current image captured by an image capturing device in an entrance of a building; acquiring associative information concerning an association with the current image;
acquiring a past image whose associative information agrees with or is similar to that of the current image;
extracting a difference between the current image and the past image, and generating, on the basis of the extracted difference, a task request to request a task of assisting a user included in the current image; and
outputting the generated task request.". This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because this is a mental process that is carried out by a generic computer (see MPEP 2016.04 "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. "Nor do courts distinguish between claims that recited mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed process steps are drawn to generic processes capable of being carried out in the human mind and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the presently claimed method steps are nothing significantly more than pre and post solution activity of data gathering and display and output of data (see MPEP 2106.05 Insignificant Extra Solution Activity). Below is provided additional reasoning for each of the respective dependent claims.
Claim 2 does recite techniques of detecting if a user requires something and notifying a person to carry that something to the user but does not recite anything more than a mental process done on a generic computer.
Claim 3 does recite techniques of a notifying a user to go home when it gets dark outside but does not recite anything more than a mental process done on a generic computer.
Claim 4 does recite techniques of determining whether to turn on an appliance or order food when someone arrives home but does not recite anything more than a mental process done on a generic computer.
Claim 5 does recite techniques of determining that outside information relates to weather but does not recite anything more than a mental process done on a generic computer.
Claim 6 does recite techniques of generating a task in advance based on a set of rules but does not recite anything more than a mental process done on a generic computer.
Claim 7 does recite techniques of having an assistant accept a task request but does not recite anything more than a mental process done on a generic computer.
Claim 8 does recite techniques of executing a time limit for the task to be done but does not recite anything more than a mental process done on a generic computer.
Claim 9 does recite techniques of executing a time limit for the task to be done but does not recite anything more than a mental process done on a generic computer.
Claim 10 does recite techniques of executing a time limit for the task to be done and expectations for when the task should be done but does not recite anything more than a mental process done on a generic computer.
Claim 11 does recite techniques of task being completed by an assistant but does not recite anything more than a mental process done on a generic computer.
Claim 12 does recite techniques of comparing present and past images to determine if a task was available in both images but does not recite anything more than a mental process done on a generic computer.
Claim 13 does recite techniques of comparing present and past images to determine a difference through thresholding but does not recite anything more than a mental process done on a generic computer.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ayano (JP 2020064496A).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, Ayano discloses by a processor of the information processing apparatus, acquiring a current image captured by an image capturing device in an entrance of a building ([0047] Note that the information about the appearance of the person outside is, for example, by installing a camera outdoors, and the output unit 323 analyzes the image obtained by this camera to obtain the information about the appearance of the person outside. It should be noted that the acquisition of information about the appearance of a person outside is not limited to the image obtained by a dedicated camera, but the image obtained from a camera installed for weather observation or crime prevention is analyzed to be outside.);
acquiring associative information concerning an association with the current image ([0047] Note that the information about the appearance of the person outside is, for example, by installing a camera outdoors, and the output unit 323 analyzes the image obtained by this camera to obtain the information about the appearance of the person outside. It should be noted that the acquisition of information about the appearance of a person outside is not limited to the image obtained by a dedicated camera, but the image obtained from a camera installed for weather observation or crime prevention is analyzed to be outside.);
acquiring a past image whose associative information agrees with or is similar to that of the current image ([0047] in the case of past weather (including maximum temperature, minimum temperature, precipitation probability, etc.) that is similar to the weather when the user goes out (including maximum temperature, minimum temperature, precipitation probability, etc.), The display device 220 may display information about the appearance of the person.);
extracting a difference between the current image and the past image, and generating, on the basis of the extracted difference, a task request to request a task of assisting a user included in the current image ("[0047] Note that the information about the appearance of the person outside is, for example, by installing a camera outdoors, and the output unit 323 analyzes the image obtained by this camera to obtain the information about the appearance of the person outside. It should be noted that the acquisition of information about the appearance of a person outside is not limited to the image obtained by a dedicated camera, but the image obtained from a camera installed for weather observation or crime prevention is analyzed to be outside.
[0064] Further, in this process, as described above, the past appearance in which the degree of similarity with the appearance of the user when the user is going out (appearance at the time of going out) is larger than a predetermined threshold value (hereinafter referred to as “past appearance”).
[0071] In this identification, for example, after comparing the elements constituting the out-of-home information with each other to obtain the similar value for each element, the total value of the similar values is obtained. Then, this total value is divided by the number of elements to obtain an average value of similar values. Then, when this average value exceeds a predetermined threshold value, it is determined that the degree of similarity between the current out-of-home information and the past out-of-home information is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value."); and
outputting the generated task request ([0043] Further, for example, in the output unit 323, the style recognized by the style recognition unit 321 is a style without an umbrella, while the weather (maximum temperature / minimum temperature) acquired by the outside information acquisition unit 322. Even when the weather (including the temperature / precipitation probability) (weather forecast) is the weather indicating that it will rain (including the maximum temperature / minimum temperature / precipitation probability), the appearance of the user is the weather (maximum temperature / minimum temperature). It outputs the information that it is not suitable for temperature and precipitation probability). At this time as well, information about the missing item, such as information indicating that it is better to bring an umbrella, may be output.).
Regarding claim 5, Ayano discloses wherein the associative information includes weather information ([0047] in the case of past weather (including maximum temperature, minimum temperature, precipitation probability, etc.) that is similar to the weather when the user goes out (including maximum temperature, minimum temperature, precipitation probability, etc.), The display device 220 may display information about the appearance of the person.).
Regarding claim 6, Ayano discloses wherein in the generation of the task request, the task request is generated using a task decision rule that associates in advance a difference item with a task item ([0043] Further, for example, in the output unit 323, the style recognized by the style recognition unit 321 is a style without an umbrella, while the weather (maximum temperature / minimum temperature) acquired by the outside information acquisition unit 322. Even when the weather (including the temperature / precipitation probability) (weather forecast) is the weather indicating that it will rain (including the maximum temperature / minimum temperature / precipitation probability), the appearance of the user is the weather (maximum temperature / minimum temperature). It outputs the information that it is not suitable for temperature and precipitation probability). At this time as well, information about the missing item, such as information indicating that it is better to bring an umbrella, may be output.).
Regarding claim 12, Ayano discloses wherein the past image further has an association with information indicating presence or absence of a task request ("[0022] The past information output unit 327, which is an example of past information output means, outputs information about the past appearance of the user when he or she goes out. In addition, the past information output unit 327 is a past appearance when the user goes out and the similarity to the outside-of-home information acquired by the outside-of-home information acquisition unit 322 is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold value. The information about the past appearance associated with the outside information is output. The information about the past appearance output by the past information output unit 327 is transmitted to the home device 200 and displayed on the display device 220 provided in the home device 200.
[0042] Even if the weather (including the probability of precipitation, etc.) is the weather indicating that the temperature is high (including the highest temperature, the lowest temperature, the probability of precipitation, etc.), the appearance of the user indicates the weather (highest temperature, the lowest temperature, the probability of precipitation, etc.). It outputs information that it is not suitable for (including). At this time, similarly to the above, information indicating that the jacket is not necessary may be output (information regarding unnecessary items may be output).
[0054] In this way, by storing (storing) the user's suitable shooting result, when the user goes out, the user can refer to his / her past appearance at the time of going out. Specifically, in the present embodiment, by operating the display device 220 (touch panel), the shooting result stored in the storage unit 325 is read out so that the user can refer to his / her past appearance."),
and in the extraction of a difference, a past image having no task request is specified on the basis of the information indicating presence or absence of a task request ([0061] In this case, the display device 220 has the same past appearance (same appearance) as the appearance of the user when the user is going out (hereinafter, “appearance appearance”) or a past appearance similar to the appearance when going out. (Similar appearance) is displayed. Further, the display device 220 also displays information such as the user's impression when the user goes out in the same appearance or in a similar appearance, the destination, the date and time, the weather (including the maximum temperature, the minimum temperature, the probability of precipitation, etc.). (if the user does not have an expression in his/her past appearance, but has one in the present appearance, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine that a user did not have a task of wearing extra/less clothing due to the weather in the past, meaning the user in the present appearance did wore too many/not enough clothing.)),
and a difference between the specified past image and the current image is extracted ([0064] Then, an average value of the similarities (a value obtained by dividing the total value of the similarities by the number of elements) is acquired, and when the average value is larger than a predetermined threshold value, the appearance appearance and the past appearance appearance It is determined that the degree of similarity is larger than a predetermined threshold value and both are the same or similar.).
Regarding claim 13, Ayano discloses wherein in the extraction of a difference, in a case that a plurality of past images has the associative information agreeing with or being similar to that of the current image, it is determined whether each of the past images differs from the current image ([0064] Then, an average value of the similarities (a value obtained by dividing the total value of the similarities by the number of elements) is acquired, and when the average value is larger than a predetermined threshold value, the appearance appearance and the past appearance appearance It is determined that the degree of similarity is larger than a predetermined threshold value and both are the same or similar.),
and a difference is determined to exist when the number of past images determined to differ is greater than that of past images determined not to differ ("[0037] More specifically, for example, when the user's appearance is not suitable for air conditioning, the output unit 323 outputs information such as “the appearance is light clothing”. More specifically, when the user's appearance is short-sleeved and the preset temperature of air conditioning is smaller than a threshold value in advance, information such as ""appearance is light"" is output.
[0064] Then, an average value of the similarities (a value obtained by dividing the total value of the similarities by the number of elements) is acquired, and when the average value is larger than a predetermined threshold value, the appearance appearance and the past appearance appearance It is determined that the degree of similarity is larger than a predetermined threshold value and both are the same or similar.").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayano (JP 2020064496A) and further in view of Ebrahimi (US 12138778 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Ayano discloses wherein the difference concerns a due thing to be accompanied by the user ([0043] At this time as well, information about the missing item, such as information indicating that it is better to bring an umbrella, may be output.).
Ayano does not disclose but in a similar field of endeavor of control system for robot assistance devices, Ebrahimi teaches and the task is a task of carrying to the user the due thing to be accompanied by the user (col 6, lines 58-67: The control system may consider the size of the user's order and command multiple robotic servers to deliver the user's food order. In some embodiments a user may place an order for an item(s) from a retail establishment. The control system may monitor the location of the user in real time using GPS technology and when the user arrives within a predetermined distance or time from the retail establishment, the control system may instruct a robot delivery device to obtain the item(s) ordered and navigate to the user's vehicle, or to a predetermined delivery location.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ayano’s disclosure of clothes recommendation due to a change in weather, with Ebrahimi’s teaching of a robot bringing an object to a human in order to establish a network of robotic devices to be implemented within an environment to collaboratively execute tasks (col 1, lines 42-44).
Regarding claim 11, Ayano does not disclose but in a similar field of endeavor of control system for robot assistance devices, Ebrahimi teaches wherein the task is performed by an assistant other than the user (col 13, lines 65-67: instruct a robot delivery device to obtain the item(s) ordered and navigate to the user's vehicle, or to a predetermined delivery location.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ayano’s disclosure of clothes recommendation due to a change in weather, with Ebrahimi’s teaching of a robot bringing an object to a human in order to establish a network of robotic devices to be implemented within an environment to collaboratively execute tasks (col 1, lines 42-44).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayano (JP 2020064496A), in view of Miho (JP2018125677A) and further in view of Gomita (US 20230096626 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ayano does not disclose but in a similar field of endeavor of determining whether a monitoring object user is in the house, Miho teaches and the task is a task of notifying the user of a message about return home ([0033] "Notification on presence / absence" is information indicating whether to notify the child 3 whether or not to return home.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ayano’s disclosure of clothes recommendation due to a change in weather, with Miho’s teaching of building surveillance, in order to for a parent to confirm whether or not the child has returned home ([0004]). Ayano and Miho do not disclose wherein the difference concerns a change in outdoor brightness.
In a similar field of endeavor of image monitoring, Gomita teaches wherein the difference concerns a change in outdoor brightness ([0033] In the operation of “Visual SLAM” or the like, the brightness of the imaging environment can greatly change depending on various conditions such as a place, time, and the weather.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ayano and Miho’s disclosure of building surveillance, with Gomita’s teaching of outdoor change in brightness, in order to of improve the accuracy of the self-localization without being affected by the content of a captured camera image by maintaining the camera image at an appropriate luminance level (0033).
Claim(s) 4, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayano (JP 2020064496A), and further in view of Miho (JP2018125677A).
Regarding claim 4, Ayano does not disclose but in a similar field of endeavor of determining whether a monitoring object user is in the house, Miho teaches wherein the difference concerns a combination of users when returning home ([0033] "Notification on presence / absence" is information indicating whether to notify the child 3 whether or not to return home.), and
the task is a task of ordering a foodstuff or controlling an appliance ([0013] Further, the smart switch 10 is connected to the information home appliance in the home 1 by the home LAN. For example, the smart switch 10 has a control function of controlling the illumination 1 a of the room. Here, the smart switch 10 is installed on a flow line on which a family member moves in his home, especially on a flow line from the time the child returns home to when going to the living room.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ayano’s disclosure of clothes recommendation due to a change in weather, with Miho’s teaching of building surveillance, in order to for a parent to confirm whether or not the child has returned home ([0004]).
Regarding claim 7, Ayano does not disclose but in a similar field of endeavor of determining whether a monitoring object user is in the house, Miho teaches wherein in the output of the task request, an acceptance request that prompts an assistant who assists a first user to accept the task is output ([0043] Then, when accepting a touch operation to light the illumination 1 a in the monitoring time zone, the operation determination unit 28 outputs a return home notification indicating that the child 3 has returned home to the notification unit 29.),
and the task request is output when approval information indicating that the assistant has approved the acceptance request is obtained ([0043] Then, when accepting a touch operation to light the illumination 1 a in the monitoring time zone, the operation determination unit 28 outputs a return home notification indicating that the child 3 has returned home to the notification unit 29. On the other hand, if the touch operation for lighting the illumination 1 a is not received during the monitoring time zone, the operation determination unit 28 outputs an uncoming home notice indicating that the child 3 return home can not be confirmed to the notification unit 29.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ayano’s disclosure of clothes recommendation due to a change in weather, with Miho’s teaching of building surveillance, in order to for a parent to confirm whether or not the child has returned home ([0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Ayano does not disclose but in a similar field of endeavor of determining whether a monitoring object user is in the house, Miho teaches herein in the output of the task request, an execution time limit for the task is set on the basis of the difference item and user information indicative of the user ([0044] Then, the operation determination unit 28 extracts the monitoring time "15: 00-15: 30" from the monitoring time DB 22. Then, when detecting the touch operation on the smart switch 10 within the monitoring time "15: 00-15: 30", the operation determining unit 28 determines that the child 3 has returned home. On the other hand, when the touch operation to the smart switch 10 is not detected within the monitoring time "15: 00-15: 30", the operation determination unit 28 determines that the child 3 is not home.),
and the execution time limit is added to the acceptance request ([0044] Then, the operation determination unit 28 extracts the monitoring time "15: 00-15: 30" from the monitoring time DB 22. Then, when detecting the touch operation on the smart switch 10 within the monitoring time "15: 00-15: 30", the operation determining unit 28 determines that the child 3 has returned home. On the other hand, when the touch operation to the smart switch 10 is not detected within the monitoring time "15: 00-15: 30", the operation determination unit 28 determines that the child 3 is not home.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ayano’s disclosure of clothes recommendation due to a change in weather, with Miho’s teaching of building surveillance, in order to for a parent to confirm whether or not the child has returned home ([0004]).
Regarding claim 9, Ayano does not disclose but in a similar field of endeavor of determining whether a monitoring object user is in the house, Miho teaches wherein the execution time limit is set at a time that is a necessary time period for the task being predetermined according to the assistant and the user earlier than a completion time of the task being predetermined according to the user information and the difference item ("[0007] Wherein the controller device transmits operation monitoring information based on whether or not the receiving unit has accepted the operation at a preset monitoring time when the first wireless communication link connected to the terminal device is disconnected.
[0031] In the example of FIG. 6, ""Monday"" indicates that only when the brightness is ""750 lux"" between ""15:00 and 15:30"", it indicates that it is a monitoring target, ""Tuesday"" indicates ""16 : 00 to 16: 20 "", and when the brightness is"" 750 lux "", it indicates that it is a monitoring object. The ""manual mode"" does not automatically become a monitoring target, but indicates that the monitoring is executed only when the monitoring start is instructed manually by the parent 2.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ayano’s disclosure of clothes recommendation due to a change in weather, with Miho’s teaching of building surveillance, in order to for a parent to confirm whether or not the child has returned home ([0004]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayano (JP 2020064496A), in view of Miho (JP2018125677A) and further in view of Ebrahimi (US 12138778 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Ayano discloses wherein the difference item concerns a due thing to be accompanied by the user ([0038] In this case, the output unit 323 further outputs information about the missing items that the user lacks when going out, such as outputting information that it is better to bring a jacket.).
Ayano does not disclose but Miho teaches the completion time is a time determined on the basis of a use start time of the due thing to be accompanied by the user ([0044] Then, when detecting the touch operation on the smart switch 10 within the monitoring time "15: 00-15: 30", the operation determining unit 28 determines that the child 3 has returned home. (the child coming home and the lights being activated between 15:00-15:30 is the equivalent of the completion time of the task being done)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ayano’s disclosure of clothes recommendation due to a change in weather, with Miho’s teaching of building surveillance, in order to for a parent to confirm whether or not the child has returned home ([0004]). Ayano and Miho do not disclose and the necessary time period is a time required to carry to the user the due thing to be accompanied by the user.
In a similar field of endeavor of control system for robot assistance devices, Ebrahimi teaches and the necessary time period is a time required to carry to the user the due thing to be accompanied by the user (col 6, lines 47-67: For example, a user may place an online order for pickup at a fast food restaurant using an application of a communication device. The control system may monitor the location of the user in real time using GPS technology and when the user arrives within a predetermined distance or time from the restaurant, the control system may instruct a robotic server to pick up the food order from the kitchen and navigate to the user's vehicle or a predetermined delivery location. The control system may consider the availability and the location within the environment of different robotic servers prior to deciding which robotic server to transmit the instruction to. The control system may consider the size of the user's order and command multiple robotic servers to deliver the user's food order. In some embodiments a user may place an order for an item(s) from a retail establishment. The control system may monitor the location of the user in real time using GPS technology and when the user arrives within a predetermined distance or time from the retail establishment, the control system may instruct a robot delivery device to obtain the item(s) ordered and navigate to the user's vehicle, or to a predetermined delivery location.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ayano and Miho’s disclosure of building surveillance, with Ebrahimi’s teaching of a robot bringing an object to a human in order to establish a network of robotic devices to be implemented within an environment to collaboratively execute tasks (col 1, lines 42-44).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200329652 A1 – claim 1: [0043] In an example, image processing is able to compare images captured during periods without rain, such as the above described rain-free view captured by a camera 300, with images captured during periods of rain, such as the present view captured by the camera during rainfall 400.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED A NASHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1885. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 0800 - 1700.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
/AHMED A NASHER/Examiner, Art Unit 2675 /ANDREW M MOYER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2675