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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (corresponding to claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 05 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Groups I and II are linked inventions that should be examined together, meaning that claims 8-14 should also be examined at this time.” This is not found persuasive because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement. As such, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Accordingly, Group I has been elected and is subject to examination, while Groups II, III, and IV have been withdrawn from consideration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plurality of sensors configured to capture environmental data, including at least one video camera and at least one audio microphone,” the “power supply,” the “guidance control system,” and the “plurality of actuators,” as claimed in claim 1, the “wherein the plurality of eyes comprises at least one camera and one infrared sensor” as claimed in claim 2, the “wherein the nose comprises at least one olfactory sensor configured to detect specific scents and odors,” as claimed in claim 3, the “navigation module configured to use GPS signals,” as claimed in claim 5, and the “speaker configured to produce barking sounds and other vocalizations,” as claimed in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “the eyes [being] equipped with cameras and other sensors to capture visual data,” the “nose includ[ing] sensors to detect smells,” the “ears equipped with microphones and other sensors,” the “body … includ[ing] space for the internal systems such as the power supply, control unit, and sensors,” the “legs [having] joints and actuators to replicate the movement and agility of a real dog,” and the “tail [being] equipped with actuators to mimic the movements of a real dog’s tail,” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: at least Figures 2 and 3 fail to show the elements which the Specification describes them as having. For example, the specification states, on Page 6, that “Figure 2 is a perspective view of a robotic dog working as a service dog to lead a visually impaired person to walk across a busy street, according to an embodiment of this invention. The robotic dog (10) is designed to assist visually impaired individuals by navigating complex environments and ensuring their safety. The robotic dog (10) is equipped with advanced sensors and AI capabilities to detect obstacles, recognize traffic signals, and determine the safest path. The head (12) includes eyes (14) that function as cameras to capture real-time visual data, while the ears (20) and nose (18) are equipped with auditory and olfactory sensors to gather additional environmental information. The neck (22) provides flexibility, allowing the head to move and adjust its view as needed.” The examiner notes that Figure 2 contains no reference numbers, and Figure 3 suffers from similar deficiencies. Furthermore, the examiner notes that at least Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 appear to have been created using Generative AI. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to “Large Language Models in Action: Design, Build, and Deploy Intelligent LLM Applications” by Liam Sturgis is ineffective because no copy of the publication has been furnished, and the examiner is unable to find the publication.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, Applicant claims: “wherein the guidance and control system comprises a navigation module configured to use GPS signals for determining the location and path of the robot.” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “wherein the guidance and control system further comprises a navigation module configured to use Global Positioning System (GPS) signals for determining a location and path of the dog-like robot.” Appropriate correction is required. It is further noted that this recommendation includes adding “dog-like” in front of robot for proper antecedent basis; however, this terminology creates a separate issue under 35 USC 112(b) as discussed further below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant claims: “wherein the plurality of eyes comprises at least one camera and one infrared sensor.” Applicant’s specification only provides for, on at least Page 8, “[t]he head (12) includes advanced visual and infrared cameras (14) that allow the robotic dog to survey the area for signs of mines.” The examiner notes, however, that there are a plurality of other kinds of “infrared sensor,” including infrared time-of-flight sensors, infrared detectors, or infrared Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensors. The examiner notes that Applicant could overcome this rejection by amending the claim to recite, e.g., “wherein the plurality of eyes comprises at least one visual camera and one infrared camera,” or the like.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant claims: “wherein the mouth further comprises teeth and a tongue, arranged to mimic the look and biting capabilities of a dog.” The examiner notes, however, that Applicant’s specification does not provide any support for the mimicking of “the biting capabilities of a dog.” Specifically, while the examiner notes that Applicant’s specification does describe on at least Pages 5, and 18, that “[t]he mouth and teeth are designed to mimic the appearance and functions of a real dog’s mouth, allowing the robot to grip and interact with objects.” The examiner notes that the “biting capabilities” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as presented, would encompass subject matter far beyond the disclosed “grip[ping] and interact[ing] with objects,” such as, for example, peak bite force or sustained bite force. Further still, the specification does not provide any disclosure of what kind of dog is being mimicked. The “biting capabilities” of a Chihuahua, for example, would be far different from those of a Pitbull.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant claims: “a speaker configured to produce barking sounds and other vocalizations.” The examiner notes, however, that there is no mention of a speaker at all in Applicant’s specification. The examiner notes that Applicant’s specification, on at least page 5, recites: “The mouth and teeth are designed to mimic the appearance and functions of a real dog’s mouth, allowing the robot to grip and interact with objects. The mouth may also have movable parts to simulate barking or other expressions (emphasis added).” The examiner notes, however, that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not recognize a “movable part” as being a “speaker,” nor is it clear whether the “other expressions” include “vocalizations” as claimed, as “movable parts to simulate … other expressions” indicate physical expressions, such as bared teeth, rather than a “vocalization.”
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 1-7 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.
Regarding claims 1-7 generally, Applicant repeatedly claims “dog-like” as it pertains to a robot. The examiner asserts, however, that the “dog-like” portion of these limitations render the claims that use them indefinite due to this use of relative, subjective, terminology. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claims are since a robot that looks nothing like a dog but makes a noise like a dog might still be considered “dog-like”, whereas a robot that looks something like a dog but makes a noise like a hyena may be considered “hyena-like” but not necessarily “dog-like”. It really depends on who or what is doing the evaluation and what criteria are being utilized to define the boundary between might be reasonably considered “dog-like” versus “non-dog-like” within the field of robotics. The examiner recommends amending the claims to more definitely claim Applicant’s invention without the use of such subjective, relative, indefinite language.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant claims “wherein the plurality of eyes comprises at least one camera and one infrared sensor.” The examiner asserts, however, that the limitation of “one infrared sensor” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what kind of sensor Applicant intended to claim. The examiner notes that the claim construction implies that the “infrared sensor” is not a “camera,” but it is also unclear whether the “infrared sensor” is a mere infrared detector, an infrared time-of-flight sensor, an infrared Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensor, or some other kind of infrared sensor. For the sake of examination, and in line with Applicant’s specification, the examiner is interpreting the “infrared sensor” as being an “infrared camera.”
Regarding claim 3, Applicant claims: “wherein the nose comprises at least one olfactory sensor configured to detect specific scents and odors for detecting drugs, explosives, or other hazardous materials.” The examiner asserts, however, that “hazardous” is relative terminology, rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, the examiner notes that it is unclear who or what the material is hazardous to. “Hazardous materials” to a human being could be any number of materials, including, for example, gasoline, carbon monoxide, ammonia, etc., however a “hazardous material” to a robot, could be something as simple as water.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant claims: “wherein the mouth further comprises teeth and a tongue, arranged to mimic the look and biting capabilities of a dog.” The examiner notes that this limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “mimic the look and biting capabilities of a dog” really are. First, to “mimic” is relative, as “mimicry” is necessarily a relative term, because it relates to how one thing emulates another. To “mimic” in the present case, could be something as small as being able to open and close a mouth, or it could be a perfect, seamless emulation of a dog’s look and biting capabilities. Further, the “look and biting capabilities” render the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what kind of dog is being referenced. To mimic a Chihuahua is vastly different from mimicking a Pitbull, for example.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant claims “further comprising a speaker configured to produce barking sounds and other vocalizations.” The examiner asserts that the limitation “other vocalizations” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the “other vocalizations” are limited to a dog’s vocalizations, or the vocalizations of any animal. Specifically, the examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as presented encompasses any vocalization of any animal, rendering the claim indefinite.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20120316677 A1), hereafter Sato, in view of Li (US 20230072465 A1), hereafter Li, and further in view of Stevens (US 20210001077 A1), hereafter Stevens.
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a dog-like robot comprising:
a) A body (0031, robot dog 1, see also Figs. 1-3) comprising:
(i) a head (0031, the robot dog 1 includes a head portion 2, see also Figs. 1-3);
(ii) a plurality of eyes (0054, The robot dog 1 includes image acquisition units 61L and 61R that acquire left and right images at the positions of the left and right eyes on the head portion 2. See also Figs. 1-3);
(iii) a plurality of ears (0054, The robot dog 1 also includes microphones 62L and 62R that acquire left and right sound (i.e., stereo sound) at the positions of the left and right ears 13 on the head portion 2. See also Figs. 1-3);
(iv) a nose (0033, the left and right nostrils 12L and 12R of the nose 11 on the front surface 10 of the head portion 2 of the robot dog 1 are sampling holes and the detection unit 100 is housed behind the nose 11. See also Figs. 1-3);
(vi) a body structure to house or connect robot components (0031, the robot dog 1 includes … a neck portion 3, a trunk portion 4, … a rump portion 6… the robot dog includes an internal bus 9 that passes through the head portion 2, the neck portion 3, the trunk portion 4, and the rump portion 6 to reach the tail portion 7 and distributes data and power, so that the various functions incorporated in the robot dog 1 are capable of communicating with one another, see also Figs. 1-3);
(vii) a plurality of legs with paws (0031, the robot dog 1 includes … a leg portion 5, See also Figs. 1-3); and
(viii) a tail (0031, the robot dog 1 includes … a tail portion 7, See also Figs. 1-3);
b) A plurality of sensors configured to capture environmental data, including at least one video camera and at least one audio microphone (0054, The robot dog 1 includes image acquisition units 61L and 61R that acquire left and right images at the positions of the left and right eyes on the head portion 2… The robot dog 1 also includes microphones 62L and 62R that acquire left and right sound (i.e., stereo sound) at the positions of the left and right ears 13 on the head portion 2.);
c) A power supply (0031, A battery 8 is housed in the trunk portion 4 so that the robot dog 1 is capable of moving freely on its own.);
d) A guidance and control system comprising a processing system, wherein the guidance and control system is configured to process the environmental data captured by the sensors and generate control signals (0033, The robot dog 1 also includes an event monitoring unit 30 that determines an occurrence of an event and the occurrence direction of the event relative to the robot dog 1 based on at least one of changes in the chemical substances detected at the respective sampling points and changes in the concentration of the detected chemical substances. 0054, The robot dog 1 is capable of moving the head portion 2 up, down, to the left, and to the right relative to the trunk portion 4 by way of an actuator 15 provided in the neck portion 3. Accordingly, by orienting the head portion 2 in the event occurrence direction, it is possible to obtain images and sound in the event occurrence direction.); and
e) A plurality of actuators responsive to the control signals generated by the guidance and control system, wherein the actuators are configured to manipulate at least the head and legs to perform autonomous walking and task execution (0054, The robot dog 1 is capable of moving the head portion 2 up, down, to the left, and to the right relative to the trunk portion 4 by way of an actuator 15 provided in the neck portion 3. Accordingly, by orienting the head portion 2 in the event occurrence direction, it is possible to obtain images and sound in the event occurrence direction. 0064, If the central control unit 55 determines in step 704 that it is necessary to move or transport the robot dog 1 in response to the event, in step 705 the robot dog 1 moves or travels in the event occurrence direction using the moving unit 500.).
The examiner notes that while Sato appears to disclose a mouth in at least Fig. 2, in order to promote compact prosecution, the examiner is relying on Li in teaching "a mouth".
Li, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach a dog-like robot having a mouth (0015, the head includes an upper pieces and a lower piece. The upper piece is hinged with the lower piece through a head rotary shaft, the front end of the upper piece is provided with canine teeth, and the front end of the lower piece is provided with a dog tongue.).
Sato and Li are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic dog systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the mouth of Li in order to provide a more realistic dog-like robot. The motivation to combine is to allow the robot to better emulate a dog.
The combination of Sato and Li fails to teach, however, wherein the processing system is a trained artificial intelligence (AI) model.
Stevens, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach a dog-like robot, wherein the processing system is a trained artificial intelligence (AI) model (0045, In examples, one or more artificial intelligence event models can be used for mapping (e.g., via a classification model; via a neural network model; etc.) input data (e.g., sensor input data; input data of different types; etc.) to one or more events (and/or event types; etc.). In a specific example, one or more event models and/or any other suitable models can be trained upon a user's inputs (e.g., to be able to recognize a user's voice, etc.) for user recognition, such as where scene determination based on events associated with the corresponding user's inputs can be personalized for that user (e.g., tailored to the corresponding user's preferences, needs, etc.).).
Sato, Li, and Stevens are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic dog systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the artificial intelligence model of Stevens in order to provide better means of processing environmental data. The motivation to combine is to allow the robot’s responses to environmental data to be more personalized for the user.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sato, Li, and Stevens teaches the dog-like robot of claim 1, and Sato further teaches wherein the plurality of eyes comprises at least one camera and one infrared sensor (0054, The robot dog 1 includes image acquisition units 61L and 61R that acquire left and right images at the positions of the left and right eyes on the head portion 2. The image acquisition units 61L and 61R are capable of obtaining not only three-dimensional images in the range of visible light but are also capable of obtaining three-dimensional images in the range of infrared light and are therefore able to see in the dark. See also Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sato, Li, and Stevens teaches the dog-like robot of claim 1, and Sato further teaches wherein the nose comprises at least one olfactory sensor configured to detect specific scents and odors for detecting drugs, explosives, or other hazardous materials (0033, This robot dog 1 includes a detection unit 100 that detects chemical substances included in a fluid at a plurality of sampling points. In the present embodiment, the detection unit 100 includes an IMS sensor and is sometimes referred to hereinafter as the "IMS unit". The robot dog 1 also includes an event monitoring unit 30 that determines an occurrence of an event and the occurrence direction of the event relative to the robot dog 1 based on at least one of changes in the chemical substances detected at the respective sampling points and changes in the concentration of the detected chemical substances. More specifically, the left and right nostrils 12L and 12R of the nose 11 on the front surface 10 of the head portion 2 of the robot dog 1 are sampling holes and the detection unit 100 is housed behind the nose 11. The detection unit 100 may output information on the chemical substances themselves or may output information that changes (varies) according to the presence of chemical substances, that is, "chemical substance-related information". 0076, The specifying of chemical substances is realized by the function for adjusting the angles of the two independent nasal cavities 12R and 12L, the function for adjusting the suction speed, the internally provided detection unit 100 with humidity controller, and the data processing unit 55, and the like. One characteristic of the olfactory robot dog 1 is that the dog is configured to give priority to process relating to explosive substances that are extremely dangerous and/or poisons, poisonous gas, and harmful substances, so that it is possible, if necessary, to react to an emergency by stopping all analysis and carrying out the prioritized processing.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sato, Li, and Stevens teaches the dog-like robot of claim 1, and Li further teaches wherein the mouth further comprises teeth and a tongue, arranged to mimic the look and biting capabilities of a dog (0055, As shown in FIGS. 23 to 24, in the present disclosure, the head 21 includes an upper piece 211 and a lower piece 212. The upper piece 211 is hinged with the lower piece 212 through a head rotary shaft 213. The front end of the upper piece 211 is provided with canine teeth 214, and the front end of the lower piece 212 is provided with a dog tongue 215… The canine teeth 214 and tongue 215 at the front of the mouth can hold and stabilize additional accessories, such as decorative props, extended sensor modules, and the like).
Sato, Li, and Stevens are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic dog systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the teeth and tongue of Li in order to provide a more realistic dog-like robot. The motivation to combine is to allow the robot to better emulate a dog.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sato, Li, and Stevens teaches the dog-like robot of claim 1, and Sato further teaches wherein the guidance and control system comprises a navigation module configured to use GPS signals for determining the location and path of the robot (0055, In addition, the robot dog 1 includes a GPS unit 63 and is capable of including a global position of the robot dog 1 in the event appended information.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sato, Li, and Stevens teaches the dog-like robot of claim 1, and Sato further teaches wherein the power supply comprises a battery (0031, A battery 8 is housed in the trunk portion 4 so that the robot dog 1 is capable of moving freely on its own.).
Sato fails to teach, however, wherein the power supply comprises a battery and a wireless charging system allowing the robot to charge the battery autonomously.
Stevens, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the power supply comprises a battery and a wireless charging system allowing the robot to charge the battery autonomously (0106, Embodiments of the system 200 can include one or more dog device attachments 206 (e.g., a base, emulating the appearance of a blanket and/or dog bed; attachments physically and/or wirelessly connectable to any suitable regions of the dog device 205; etc.). Dog device attachments 206 can charge the dog device 205 (e.g., wired charging; wireless charging such as inductive wireless charging with a battery coil positioned at the stomach region and/or other suitable region of a dog device 205; etc.), communicate with the dog device 205 (e.g., for performing system updates; for receiving and/or transmitting data; etc.), and/or performing any suitable functionality associated with embodiments of the method 100.).
Sato, Li, and Stevens are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic dog systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation, to have included the wireless charging system of Stevens in order to provide a means of charging the power system of the robot. The motivation to combine is to reduce the need for wired charging, in order to better emulate a dog.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sato, Li, and Stevens teaches the dog-like robot of claim 1, and Sato teaches it further comprising a speaker configured to produce barking sounds and other vocalizations (0052, The robot dog 1 further includes an alarm issuing unit 59 that outputs a warning relating to the occurrence cause of an event as information (alarm information) that can be recognized at least one of visually and audibly. Examiner’s note: the examiner is interpreting the “alarm issuing unit” as being analogous to the speaker as claimed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wong (US 20120022688 A1) teaches a robotic life form having a plurality of legs, a head having a mouth, ears, eyes, and nose, a tail, a plurality of actuators, and a plurality of sensors for responding to an environment around the robotic life form.
Otsuka (US 20190314983 A1) teaches a robotic toy dog having a logic processing system for learning actions, and a decision processing system for determining which action to take given environmental information.
Miyazaki (US 20220096944 A1) a robotic toy animal having attachable and detachable parts.
Katayama (US 20200333800 A1) teaches a robotic toy dog having a plurality of sensors, wherein sensor data is processed by a control system of the robotic dog toy, the control system determines the action for the robotic dog toy to take responsive to the sensor data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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 at (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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3658