DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of applicant’s amendment to the claims and Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed on 1/2/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 – 15 are currently pending in the case. At least the independent claims have been amended. The claims are discussed on the merits below.
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 Arguments
Applicant argues that Sabe et al. fails to disclose or suggest the last limitation of the independent claims. Applicant’s only support for this argument is that “in Sabe et al, the controller merely adjusts behavioral probabilities based on growth/learning parameters.”
This argument is not persuasive for the following reasons:
First, Applicant’s amendment has not overcome the 112(b) rejection and no arguments have been provided to offer clarity. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection is maintained.
Second, Applicant has grossly understated the content of Sabe. Sabe discloses a robot apparatus and control method in which actions are generated based on robot “growth”, emotion, and character. One particular feature in Sabe that is worth emphasis is the disclosure in [0162] of generating “basic actions” that are common to each growth stage such as standing, sitting down, and walking (i.e. action content that does not change according to growth) and the disclosure in [0163] of a growth-related conditional item associated with action patterns that bring the robot “into correspondence with each ‘growth stage’ respectively” (i.e. action content that does change according to growth). Examiner maintains that this reads on the broadly recited “action content” in the last limitation of the independent claims, as best understood.
Third, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 – 15 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.
With regard to claim 1, The claim recites:
“control … so that the robot executes a response action including both (i) a first action which is set so that action content of the robot changes in accordance with the pseudo-growth of the robot and (ii) a second action which is set so that the action content of the robot does not change according to the pseudo-growth of the robot….
As presently worded, the claim language is contradictory and thus indefinite. The claim only introduces a singular “action content of the robot” and then proceeds to describe the control such that the action content is both (i) changed in accordance with the pseudo-growth and (ii) not changed in accordance with the pseudo-growth. Thus, it is unclear what the result of the recited control is, what the resultant “action content” is and how, or even if, the action content is affected by the pseudo-growth. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
With regard to claim 2 – 13, the claims depend from claim 1 and inherit the deficiency described above. Therefore, claims 2 – 13 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 recited above.
With regard to claim 14 and 15, the claims recite substantially similar language to the language of claim 1 above and are rejected under the same logic explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2006/0041332 Sabe et al.
With regard to claim 1. Sabe discloses:
A robot comprising:
a coupler coupling a first part to a second part (see fig. 1);
a driver driving the coupler (See fig. 1; See actuators 251-25n; [0074]).
a sound outputter that outputs a sound (fig. 2 item 24; [0073]); and
at least one processor (see [0072]),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
upon detection of a predetermined trigger (see fig. 33; [0324] “On the basis of the command signal S1 supplied from the command receiving section 240, the external information signal S2 supplied from the external sensor 241 and the internal information signal S3 supplied from the internal sensor 245, the controller 242 generates control signals S5A through S5N for driving the actuators 233A through 233N and sends out the control signals to the actuators 233A through 233N, thereby making the pet robot 210 act.”) in a period in which a growth state of a pseudo-growth of the robot satisfies a predetermined growth reference (at least [0121], see also [0126]: “tweety period”, “baby period”, “child period”, “young period”, and “adult period”), control at least one of the driver or the sound outputter so that the robot executes a response action including both (i) a first action which is set so that action content of the robot changes in accordance with the pseudo-growth of the robot (see fig. 9 and 15; see [0163]: growth-related conditional item provided with action pattern files (“action content”) for “bringing it into correspondence with each ‘growth stage’ respectively”) and (ii) a second action which is set so that the action content of the robot does not change according to the pseudo-growth (see fig. 9 and 15; [0162]: basic actions (“action content”) common to each “growth stage”, e.g. standing, sitting down, and walking) of the robot and so that the action content varies due to a difference in an individuality of the robot (see figs 9 and 10, see [151] and [0212] describing learning effecting behavior).
With regard to claim 2, Sabe disclose:
a memory storing a first table in which action content of the first action is defined in association with each degree of growth, and a second table in which action content of the second action is defined in association with each individuality, wherein the at least one processor is configured to control at least one of the driver or the sound outputter based on the first table and the second table (see fig. 8, 12).
With regard to claim 3, Sabe discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to control at least one of the driver or the sound outputter so that the robot executes a response action including only the first action from among the first action and the second action upon detection of the predetermined trigger in a period in which the growth state of the pseudo-growth of the robot does not satisfy the predetermined growth reference (See fig. 6, 9; see also [0119] – [0123]).
With regard to claim 4, Sabe discloses:
wherein the predetermined growth reference is satisfied upon a number of days of growth, as the growth state, reaching a predetermined number of days (see [0236]).
With regard to claim 5, Sabe discloses:
wherein the predetermined number of days is less than a number of days required for the pseudo-growth to complete (see [0236]).
With regard to claim 6, Sabe discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to control at least one of the driver or the sound outputter so that the robot executes, as the first action, an action selected from among a personality action which is set so that the action content varies due to a difference in a pseudo-personality of the robot, and a basic action which is set so that the action content does not vary due to the difference in the pseudo-personality of the robot (see fig. 33; [0324] “On the basis of the command signal S1 supplied from the command receiving section 240, the external information signal S2 supplied from the external sensor 241 and the internal information signal S3 supplied from the internal sensor 245, the controller 242 generates control signals S5A through S5N for driving the actuators 233A through 233N and sends out the control signals to the actuators 233A through 233N, thereby making the pet robot 210 act.”; [0162], [0163], see also [0340-341]).
With regard to claim 7, Sabe discloses:
wherein a selection probability of the personality action being selected and a selection probability of the basic action being selected are set so as to change in accordance with the pseudo-growth of the robot (see fig. 12, 8).
With regard to claim 8, Sabe discloses:
further comprising:
a sensor that detects an external stimulus, wherein the at least one processor is configured to update, in accordance with the external stimulus detected by the sensor, a parameter for determining the pseudo-personality (see [0073], [0120]).
With regard to claim 9, Sabe disclose:
further comprising: a sensor that detects an external stimulus, wherein the at least one processor is configured to detect, as the trigger, the external stimulus detected by the sensor (see fig. 33; [0324] “On the basis of the command signal S1 supplied from the command receiving section 240, the external information signal S2 supplied from the external sensor 241 and the internal information signal S3 supplied from the internal sensor 245, the controller 242 generates control signals S5A through S5N for driving the actuators 233A through 233N and sends out the control signals to the actuators 233A through 233N, thereby making the pet robot 210 act.”; See also [0073], [0120]).
With regard to claim 10, Sabe discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to control at least one of the driver or the sound outputter so that the robot executes an action corresponding to a type of the external stimulus detected by the sensor see fig. 33; [0324] “On the basis of the command signal S1 supplied from the command receiving section 240, the external information signal S2 supplied from the external sensor 241 and the internal information signal S3 supplied from the internal sensor 245, the controller 242 generates control signals S5A through S5N for driving the actuators 233A through 233N and sends out the control signals to the actuators 233A through 233N, thereby making the pet robot 210 act.”; see also [0162], [0163], [0151], [0212], figs. 9 and 10).
With regard to claim 11, Sabe discloses:
the at least one processor is configured to detect, as the trigger, passing information notified per passage of a predetermined reference time (see [0236]).
With regard to claim 12, Sabe discloses:
Wherein the first part is a head, and the second part is a torso (see fig. 1).
With regard to claim 13, Sabe discloses:
wherein the head and the torso are covered by an exterior including at least one of a decorative part resembling an eye or fur (see fig. 1).
With regard to claim 14 and 15, the claims are substantially the same as claim 1 above and are rejected under similar logic to claim 1 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM R MOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5:30.
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, James Trammell can be reached at (571) 272-6712. 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.
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights