DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: Amended Claims and Remarks, filed on May 29, 2026. Claims 1-5 and 7 are pending in the case; Claims 1 and 7 are independent claims; Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 are amended; Claim 6 is canceled. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
2. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on March 4, 2026, Claims 1-7 were rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite since the independent claims recited limitations that appeared to invoke § 112(f), and the written description did not appear to disclose a particular structure that was required to perform those limitations (see Non-Final Rejection, pgs. 3-8). However, Amended Claims filed on May 29, 2026, have rendered the § 112(b) rejection moot, and the corresponding claim limitations are no longer interpreted under § 112(f).
3. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed on May 29, 2026 (hereinafter Remarks), in view of Amended Claims filed therewith, with respect to § 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hanrahan merely displays a message to the user upon the initiation or establishment of the connection, but that amended independent claims require transmission of response notification to the callup notification so that the robot can present (while the computer executes connection processing) a message indicating a status of the connection processing (see Remarks, pg. 6). However, the examiner maintains that such functionality would have been obvious (and commonly used) at the time the instant application was filed, as further discussed in the updated § 103 rejection, below. Examiner further notes that the only description of this functionality in the instant Specification is found in Para. 0060 (corresponding to ¶ 0066 of US 2025/0028327 A1), which states “the robot 20 can present the user (in front of the robot 20) with a message in accordance with the response notification received from the computer 10,” which does not appear to be different from a situation where a person is attempting to establish a voice call or video conference (i.e., “dialing…”, “connecting…,” “busy,” etc.).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanrahan et al. (hereinafter Hanrahan), US 2011/0190930 A1, published on August 4, 2011, as further evidenced by Van Os et al. (hereinafter Van Os), US 10,284,812 B1, issued on May 7, 2019.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Hanrahan teaches a communication system, comprising:
a robot that is not fixed (see Fig. 1 (element 12, including element 34), ¶¶ 0021, 0024, 0035); and
a computer that is capable of communication with the robot (see Fig. 1 (element 16), ¶¶ 0021, 0023),
wherein the robot includes
a camera (see Fig. 1 (element 38), ¶¶ 0021, 0024),
a driving unit comprising actuators and that is capable of remote operation by the computer (see Fig. 1 (element 34), ¶ 0035; see also ¶ 0005),
a first input unit comprising a first device configured for input of an instruction to the robot (see Fig. 2 and 3 (elements 40, 42), ¶¶ 0024, 0026), and
a callup unit comprising a processor configured for, when communication connection is not established with the computer, transmitting a callup notification directed to the computer in accordance with the instruction that has been input to the first input unit (see Fig. 13, ¶ 0064, showing that the robot interface allows a user at the robot site to initiate a teleconferencing sessions), and
the computer includes
a second input unit comprising a second device configured for input of an instruction to the robot (see Fig. 1 (element 32), ¶¶ 0023-24, 0035; see also ¶¶ 0047-48), and
a display unit comprising a display device configured for displaying an image captured by the camera … (see Fig. 1 (element 24), ¶ 0047).
It is noted that Hanrahan does not appear to explicitly teach a display unit [of the computer that], in a case of receiving the callup notification from the robot, display[s] that the notification has been received, but a skilled artisan would understand that some form of notification would be provided to an operator on a remote computer when the user at the robot site initiates a teleconferencing session, as is well known and customary in the art (i.e., ringing a telephone, displaying a notification that accepts/rejects the connections, etc., allowing the receiving user to decide when/if to join the teleconference). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the display at the remote control station to provide teleconference request notification when the request is initiated by a user at the robot site in order to allow the operator of the remote control station to decide when/if to join the teleconference, similar to allowing the user at the robot site to allow/deny such request (see Fig. 14).
In addition, Hanrahan does not appear to explicitly illustrate wherein subsequent to the display unit displaying that the callup notification has been received, the computer transmits a response notification to the callup notification to the robot in accordance with input to the second input unit, and thereafter, while the computer executes connection processing for communication, the robot presents a user with a message indicating a status of the connection processing in accordance with the response notification received from the computer, but a skilled artisan would understand that some form of feedback would be provided to the user at the robot to indicate the status of the requested connection/communication, similar to providing a connection status to a person initializing a video call (i.e., showing “dialing…” before a connection is established, “connecting” or “establishing a connection” once the recipient answers, or “busy” or “unable to connect” if the recipient does not answer the call), as was well known in the art at the time the instant application was filed, or as evidenced by Van Os.
Van Os is directed towards a multi-participant live communication user interface (see Van Os, col. 1, lines 18-20). Van Os suggests that a user interface can be shown when a user initiates a live communication session and before any other users join the session, where the user interface displays place holders for expected participants and a status indicator for each expected participant, such as showing that an expected participant is waiting to connect (see Van Os, col. 59, lines 8-29, col. 98, lines 7-21). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the display at the robot interface to provide a status for teleconference request, as illustrated in Van Os, in order to provide the user at the robot with a confirmation of a successful connection request and the outcome of such request.
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Hanrahan discloses the communication system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein, in a case in which the display unit displays that the callup notification has been received, the computer establishes a communication connection for a call with the robot in accordance with input to the second input unit (see ¶ 0064 and discussion/rationale in Claim 1 rejection regarding receiving a teleconference notification from the user at the robot site).
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Hanrahan discloses the communication system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the robot further includes a storage device configured for storing information representing at least one computer that is capable of communication with the robot, and the callup unit transmits the callup notification to a computer corresponding to information selected, out of the information representing at least one computer, in accordance with input to the first input unit (see Fig. 13, 0064).
With respect to dependent Claim 5, Hanrahan discloses the communication system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the first input unit is a speech input unit comprising a speed input device configured for accepting input of speech, the robot further includes a speech recognition unit comprising a speech recognition device configured for recognizing speech, which has been input to the first input unit, and performing conversion thereof into text, and in a case in which speech including a particular text is input to the first input unit, the callup unit transmits the callup notification to a computer that is set in advance, out of the at least one computer (see ¶ 0037). Although Hanrahan does not appear to describe in detail the operations of the suggested voice recognition system, a skilled artisan would understand that various commands could be inputted via speech and that such input can be processed in various ways, which would likely include a speech-to-text conversion, as was well-known in the art at the time the instant application was filed. In addition, a skilled artisan would understand that speech inputs can correspond to shortcuts resulting in execution of a particular action when a particular input is provided. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the voice recognition system into the user interface of Hanrahan in order to make the system useable by more users, such as visually impaired people, people that are unable to use the touch screen or provide gestures, etc.).
With respect to independent Claim 7, this claim is directed to a robot of a mobile type or of a mounted type, such robot comprising the same components/features as the robot in Claim 1, and is thus, in view of the following, rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 1, above. It is noted that Claim 1 explicitly requires a robot that is “not fixed” (i.e., mobile type), but Hanrahan clearly discloses that the robot described therein can be either mobile or mounted (see Fig. 12, ¶ 0062, in addition to discussion of Claim 1, above).
5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanrahan, as evidenced by Van Os, in view of Schoenberg, US 9,015,609 B2, issued on April 21, 2015.
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Hanrahan discloses the communication system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and while Hanrahan teaches that the robot is connected to a network, such as Internet (see Figs. 1 and 4 (element 18), ¶ 0022), Hanrahan does not appear to explicitly illustrate wherein the robot connects to the Internet in accordance with input to the first input unit, and searches for information relating to computers capable of communication connection with the robot, and the callup unit transmits the callup notification to a computer corresponding to information selected, out of the information that is searched for, in accordance with input to the first input unit. However, a skilled artisan would understand that the robot’s user interface could allow the user to initiate a contact with any desired contact in order to expand the robot’s usability/utility, and it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant application was filed, to rely on the Internet to search for such contact information, as illustrated by the prior art of Schoenberg.
Schoenberg is directed towards connecting service providers with other service providers (see Schoenberg , col. 1, lines 18-19). Schoenberg suggests a graphical user interface for a provider search (see Schoenberg, Fig. 3, col. 5, lines 17-36). Schoenberg further suggests providing results for the search and allowing the user to connect with a desired provider through the user interface (see Schoenberg, Fig. 6 (element 614), col. 6, lines 5-55; see also Figs. 9A-B, col. 8, lines 36-52). A skilled artisan would understand that the provider search described in Schoenberg could be modified for various users but operated in a similar manner; furthermore, a skilled artisan would understand that the user interface displayed in Schoenberg could be displayed on the user interface of the robot in Hanrahan and operated in a similar manner. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the user interface of Hanrahan with the searching interface and ability to connect with a resulting contact as suggested by Schoenberg, in order to enable the user of the robot to communicate with more parties (in a hospital setting, such ability would allow the patient to seek a second opinion, obtain a translation, etc., and would allow for less equipment in the patient’s room).
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
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 extension fee 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 DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights