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 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:
an autonomous driving device unit in claim 1
a server unit in claim 1
a travel body unit in claim 2
an image capturing unit in claim 2
a thermographic sensor unit in claim 2
a user-specific information analysis unit in claim 2
a surrounding senor unit in claim 2
a content feedback request unit in claim 2
a display unit in claim 2
a search means setting unit in claim 5
an Internet content information providing unit in claim 5
an intranet content information providing unit in claim 5
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 § 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)(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) 1-3 and 5 with an earliest effective filing date of 10/22/21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hendricks et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0041976 published on 2/14/13).
With respect to claim 1, the Hendricks reference teaches a system for providing user-customized information using an autonomous driving device, the system comprising:
an autonomous driving device unit configured to recognize at least one user (a user is recognized by the robot [paragraph 23]), analyze specific information of the recognized user (body language, facial cues, speech patterns, and speech tone are used to determine a user’s interest level [paragraph 23]), recognize and analyze surrounding information of the user (the robot can capture and evaluate the environmental conditions [paragraphs 17, 20, 21, and 33]), define situation information necessary for the user on the basis of the specific information and the surrounding information (user analytics, user feedback, environmental conditions, timing, location, etc. are used to determine a user’s interest level [paragraph 33]), receive customized content information according to the situation information (information about the user and the user’s environment is used to create customized content experiences [paragraph 17]) fed back through Internet and intranet searching (the robot connects through the internet or intranet [paragraph 30]), and provide the customized content information (customized content is displayed [paragraphs 20 and 36]); and
a server unit connected to the autonomous driving device unit through an Internet and an intranet and configured to extract the customized content information according to a search request from the autonomous driving device unit and feed back the customized content information to the autonomous driving device unit (the robot is connected to the internet and intranet [paragraph 30] to connect with various content sources to request for display to the user [paragraphs 1 & 35-36] which is customized for the user [paragraphs 20 and 36]).
With respect to claim 2, the Hendricks reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Additionally, the Hendricks reference teaches that the autonomous driving device unit comprises:
a travel body unit including at least one of an autonomous driving robot (the robot includes drive wheels for movement [paragraph 26] capable of autonomous navigation [paragraph 21]) and an autonomous driving drone;
an image capturing unit configured to capture an image of the user (the robot includes a camera and is capable of recognizing users through facial recognition [paragraphs 20 & 23]);
a thermographic sensor unit configured to measure a body temperature of the user using a thermal image (thermal images of the user are utilized [paragraph 31]);
a user-specific information analysis unit configured to recognize the user on the basis of image data acquired through the image capturing unit and thermographic data acquired through the thermographic sensor unit (the user is recognized using the image and thermal sensors [paragraphs 20, 23, and 31]) and analyze the specific information including the recognized user's sex, age group, language group, and abnormality or normality in the body temperature (various attributes of the user are analyzed [paragraphs 23, 31, and 34]);
a surrounding sensor unit configured to generate the surrounding information by measuring a temperature, a humidity, and an air pollution level of surroundings of the user (various environmental conditions are observed and analyzed by the robot [paragraphs 20 and 33]);
a content feedback request unit configured to extract the situation information which is predefined in connection with the specific information and the surrounding information (user analytics, user feedback, environmental conditions, timing, location, etc. are used to determine a user’s interest level [paragraph 33]), request the customized content information from the server unit on the basis of the extracted situation information (information about the user and the user’s environment is used to create customized content experiences [paragraph 17]), and receive the customized content information (customized content is displayed [paragraphs 20 and 36]); and
a display unit configured to graphically process the customized content information fed back from the server unit through the content feedback request unit and display the graphically-processed customized content information (customized content is displayed [paragraphs 20 and 36]).
With respect to claim 3, the Hendricks reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as described above. In addition, the Hendricks reference teaches that the display unit provides the customized content information through a touchscreen which supports a user interface, receives a search request for additional information for the customized content information through the user interface (the robot includes a touchscreen for the user to request and view content [paragraph 31]), transmits the search request for the additional information to the server unit, receives feedback information resulting from the search request for the additional information from the server unit (information about the user and the user’s environment is used to create customized content experiences [paragraph 17]), and displays the feedback information (customized content is displayed [paragraphs 20 and 36]).
With respect to claim 5, the Hendricks reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as described above. In addition, the Hendricks reference teaches a search means setting unit configured to receive a search request for the situation information from the autonomous driving device unit and set at least one of the Internet and the intranet as a means of searching for the situation information; an Internet content information providing unit configured to search the Internet for content related to the situation information, collect the content, and provide the collected data as the customized content information when the Internet is set as the search means by the search means setting unit; and an intranet content information providing unit configured to extract data which is prestored in connection with the situation information from the intranet and provide the data as the customized content information when the intranet is set as the search means by the search means setting unit (the robot can connect to the internet or an intranet to perform the request for content [paragraph 30]).
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.
Claim(s) 4 with an earliest effective filing date of 10/22/21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendricks et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0041976 published on 2/14/13) in view of Peterson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0300676 published on 10/18/18).
With respect to claim 4, the Hendricks reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as described above. It does not explicitly recite that the display unit generates and displays graphic code for the customized content information and the additional information, and when the graphic code is scanned through a user communication terminal, the server unit is connected to the user communication terminal and provides the customized content information and the additional information to the user communication terminal. The Peterson and Hendricks references teach that the display unit generates and displays graphic code for the customized content information and the additional information, and when the graphic code is scanned through a user communication terminal, the server unit is connected to the user communication terminal and provides the customized content information and the additional information to the user communication terminal (the robot and the user’s device can generate a QR code to identify the user [Peterson paragraph 45] to provide them customized content [Hendricks paragraph 17]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hendricks with the multiple logon methods of Peterson. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by providing alternative logon methods in case one method was not functioning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS E MACKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00 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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/KRIS E MACKES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153