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 .
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al., US Patent Publication 2013/0066468 in view of Fernando et al., US Patent Publication 2020/0078955.
Regarding independent claim 1, Choi et al. teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to
control a communication image including an image of a performer or an image of an avatar (paragraph 0018 explains the transmission of the image or body image of a teacher user to student users) to be displayed on a display installed in a separated space, the display having a vertical direction as a longitudinal direction (paragraphs 0031-0032 explain how the facial expression of the teacher is reproduced by the output unit 15 that is given in paragraph 0039 to include LCD display monitor 151 that has a vertical direction as a longitudinal direction as depicted in figure 2), and
control movement of at least one robot hand configured to provide an experience to an experiencing person who has visually recognized the image in the separated space (paragraphs 0018 and 0022 and 0056-0057 explain how a teacher at a remote location can control movement of the robot and the robot hand to perform the desired gestures to create an experience for the students).
Choi et al. is silent regarding the tactile experience to a user and specifically a hand control unit that controls movement of a robot hand that provides an experience by a tactile sense to an experiencing person and wherein the circuitry controls the movement of the at least one robot hand providing the experience by the tactile sense in accordance with at least one movement of the performer.
Fernando et al. teaches a hand control unit that controls movement of a robot hand that provides an experience by a tactile sense to an experiencing person (paragraphs 0054-0056 explain how tactile information is conveyed between the operator and robot) and wherein the circuitry controls the movement of the at least one robot hand providing the experience by the tactile sense in accordance with at least one movement of the performer (paragraph 0018 explains how the robot is controlled to match the pose of the user such that the movement is controlled based on the movement of the performer or user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include the tactile experience taught by Fernando et al. into the system of Choi et al. The rationale would be to appropriately convey information corresponding to each sense of the user (paragraph 0053 of Fernando et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Choi et al. teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication image includes the image of the avatar tracing at least one of an expression or a gesture of the performer based on at least one captured image of the performer (paragraph 0032 explains that the image of output unit 15 reproduces the facial expression or body motion of the user and paragraph 0033 explains that this may be displayed using an animation character or avatar).
Regarding claim 3, Choi et al. teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein a size of the display is a size in which a full-size upper body of the performer is reflected (paragraph 0039 explains the robot of figure 2 where the LCD display monitor 151 is a size to display the full-size upper body of the teacher so that students may observe body motions as given in paragraphs 0033).
Regarding claim 4, Choi et al. teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control voice output of the performer to the experiencing person (paragraph 0031 explains how the voice is controlled and output to the student user and paragraph 0032 further explains that the actual voice of the teacher is transmitted).
Regarding claim 5, Choi et al. teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry controls the voice output of the performer so that voice of the performer is localized at a mouth of the performer or the avatar included in the communication image and is heard by the experiencing person (paragraph 0031 explains how the voice is output from the output unit 15 that is localized at the display of the facial expression of the performer or avatar as given further in paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 6, Fernando et al. teaches further the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry controls the communication image based on information regarding pressure by the tactile sense from the experiencing person to the at least one robot hand (paragraphs 0054-0056 explain how tactile information and pressure are conveyed between the operator and robot and used in the control).
Regarding claim 7, Choi et al. teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control presentation to the performer of at least one of a captured image or a voice of the experiencing person to the performer (paragraph 0039 explains that the teacher can observe learners through the mounted webcam that is given to include a microphone in paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 8, Fernando et al. teaches further the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry controls the presentation to the performer to present information regarding pressure by the tactile sense from the experiencing person to the at least one robot hand (paragraphs 0054-0056 explain how tactile information and pressure are conveyed between the operator and robot and used in the control).
Regarding claim 9, Fernando et al. teaches further the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the circuitry controls the presentation to present the performer with the information regarding the pressure by the tactile sense via at least one robot hand provided on a side of the performer (paragraphs 0054-0056 explain how tactile information and pressure are conveyed between the operator and robot and used in the control).
Regarding claim 10, Choi et al. teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry controls the presentation to the performer to further present information regarding the movement of the at least one robot hand to the performer (paragraphs 0018 and 0022 and 0056-0057 explain how a user at a remote location can control movement of the robot and the robot hand to perform the desired gestures where the performer must have information about the movement to accurately control).
Regarding claim 11, Choi et al. teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the circuitry controls the presentation to the performer to further present information regarding a positional relationship between the at least one robot hand and at least one hand of the experiencing person (paragraphs 0018 and 0022 and 0056-0057 explain how a user at a remote location can control movement of the robot and the robot hand to perform the desired gestures where the performer must have information about the movement to accurately control and paragraph 0042 explains how the robot is actuated in the active area where learners are in another area such that the teacher has positional relationship information between them).
Regarding claim 12, Choi et al. teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each robot hand has a shape imitating a human hand (figure 2 shows a robot hand with a shape of an arm and hand of a human to be moved as given in paragraph 0057 to imitate a human hand).
Regarding claim 13, Choi et al. teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the at least one robot hand includes a first robot hand imitating a right hand and a second robot hand imitating a left hand (figure 2 depicts a right robot hand and a left robot hand and paragraph 0057 explains how the hands are used to imitate a human and movements associated with typical human dances or gestures that tend to use both hands).
Regarding claim 14, Choi et al. teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein each robot hand has a shape imitating an arm shape connected to a hand shape beyond at least one of a shoulder shape or an elbow shape (figure 2 shows a robot hand with a shape of an arm and hand of a human to be moved as given in paragraph 0057 to imitate a person).
Regarding claim 15, Choi et al. teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the at least one robot hand is provided at a position corresponding to at least one arm of the performer or the avatar included in the communication image (figure 2 shows a robot hand with a shape of an arm and hand of a human to be moved as given in paragraph 0057 to imitate the teacher and reproduce the body motion of the teacher as given in paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 16, Choi et al. teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 15,
wherein the at least one robot hand is provided to be operable following contact by the experiencing person (paragraph 0042 shows the situation of figure 3 where the telepresence robot 1 is only actuated in the active area 100 where it has contact with learners or experiencing persons), and
wherein the circuitry controls the image of the performer or the image of the avatar included in the communication image in accordance with the movement of the at least one robot hand (paragraphs 0024-0027 explain how the entire robot is controlled based on the movement of the user that controls the movement of the robot hand to all be controlled together).
Regarding claim 17, Choi et al. teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the circuitry controls the at least one robot hand such that the at least one robot hand appears in front of the experiencing person in a case where the arm of the performer is deviated from an angle of view of the communication image (paragraph 0024 explains that the motion control unit 14 actuates the motion of the robot based on actuation motions included in the database regardless of angle of view of the image as given also in paragraphs 0036-0037 where control is described using a GUI).
Regarding claim 18, Choi et al. teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 15, wherein in a case where the at least one robot hand appears in front of the experiencing person, the circuitry controls the communication image such that the arm of the avatar corresponding to the at least one robot hand deviates from an angle of view of the communication image (paragraph 0024 explains that the motion control unit 14 actuates the motion of the robot based on actuation motions included in the database regardless of angle of view of the image as given also in paragraphs 0036-0037 where control is described using a GUI and paragraph 0033 explains the use of an avatar as the display of the teacher).
Regarding independent claim 19, Choi et al. teaches an information processing method, executed by a computer (as given in paragraphs 0020 and 0043), the method comprising:
controlling a communication image (paragraph 0018 explains the transmission of the image or body image of a teacher user to student users) displayed on a display installed at a separated place and having a vertical direction as a longitudinal direction (paragraphs 0031-0032 explain how the facial expression of the teacher is reproduced by the output unit 15 that is given in paragraph 0039 to include LCD display monitor 151 that has a vertical direction as a longitudinal direction as depicted in figure 2); and
controlling movement of at least one robot hand configured to provide an experience to an experiencing person who has visually recognized the image (paragraphs 0018 and 0022 and 0056-0057 explain how a teacher at a remote location can control movement of the robot and the robot hand to perform the desired gestures to create an experience for the students).
Choi et al. is silent regarding the tactile experience to a user and specifically controlling movement of a robot hand that provides an experience by a tactile sense to an experiencing person and wherein the movement of the at least one robot hand providing the experience by the tactile sense is controlled in accordance with at least one movement of the performer.
Fernando et al. teaches controlling movement of a robot hand that provides an experience by a tactile sense to an experiencing person (paragraphs 0054-0056 explain how tactile information is conveyed between the operator and robot) and wherein the movement of the at least one robot hand providing the experience by the tactile sense is controlled in accordance with at least one movement of the performer (paragraph 0018 explains how the robot is controlled to match the pose of the user such that the movement is controlled based on the movement of the performer or user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include the tactile experience taught by Fernando et al. into the system of Choi et al. The rationale would be to appropriately convey information corresponding to each sense of the user (paragraph 0053 of Fernando et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that the claims are allowable as the prior art does not teach the claimed features. The examiner disagrees. The rejection above explains the mapping of the prior art. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the movement of the at least one robot hand providing the experience by the tactile sense is controlled in accordance with at least one movement of the performer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevant prior art has been made of record in the attached notice of references cited.
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 PARUL H GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5260. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 10 AM to 7 PM.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/PARUL H GUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627