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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 1/22/26, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending;
Claims 1-20 have been amended.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATSUMI (US 2021/0132685) in view of KANDA ET AL (US 2006/0293787). Herein after ATSUMI and KANDA
As for claim 1, ATSUMI discloses a robot comprising: a memory in which an action, that the robot is caused to execute as a response to a predetermined first external stimulus; {see at least figures 1, 2 and 8 (storage unit 120), at least abstract, pars. 0034-0038, 0042, 0052-0054}, and at least one processor wherein: the at least one processor changes, in correspondence with at least 2) an elapsed time from a pseudo-birth of the robot {at least pars. 0054-0055, 0059-0060 e.g. par. 0059 discloses “The days-of-growth data 123 has an initial value of 1 and is incremented by one every lapse of a single day. The days-of-growth data 123 indicates the number of simulated days of growth (days from the simulated birth) of the robot 200”}; and 3) a state of the robot {see at least figure 10, pars. 0048, 0059-0060, 0067-0070, 0089. For example, par. 0089 discloses “each robot 200 uniquely shows a change in emotion in response to an external stimulation because of the learning of the emotion change data 124 for changing the emotion data 121 in accordance with the external stimulation”}.
Noted: Since the claim recited “at least one of a (1) performance count…., (2) an elapsed time ….., (3) a state of the robot, (4) a frequency at which the action…..defined by the user, therefore only one of the criteria (1, or 2, or 3, or 4) is required to read by the reference.
ATSUMI discloses a memory that stores action of the robot execute is registered as indicated above. However, ATSUMI does not explicitly disclose the action in a memory is defined by the user and is registered via wireless communication using a terminal device. However, this known limitation is taught in KANDA reference at least in figures 1, 2, 4-6, pars. 0078, 0081-0083. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective of filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of KANDA into the system of ATSUMI for the benefit of in flexibility, safety, and efficiency when registering robot action via wireless communication using a terminal device.
As for claim 2, ATSUMI/KANDA discloses wherein the at least one processor controls such that, in a case in which a predetermined second external stimulus is detected at a time of correctly executing the action, as the response, as defined by the user {see ATSUMI at least par. 0053, 0055, 0060, 0065}.
As for claim 3, ATSUMI/KANDA discloses wherein the at least one processor change the frequency at which the action is not to be executed as defined by the user such that an amount of decrease of the frequency is greater in a case in which the predetermined second external stimulus is a positive external stimulus than in a chase which the predetermined second external stimulus is a negative external stimulus {see ATSUMI at least figure 9, par. 0053, 0055, 0060, 0065, 0087}.
As for claim 4, ATSUMI/KANDA discloses wherein the at least one processor controls such that the frequency at which the action, as the response, is not to be executed as defined by the user decreases as an elapsed time from a pseudo-birth of the robot increases {see ATSUMI at least pars. 0055, 0059-0060, 0084, 0087 and figures 9- 10}.
As for claim 5, ATSUMI/KANDA discloses wherein the at least one processor controls such that the frequency at which the action, as the response, is not to be executed as defined by the user decrease as a performance count indicating a number of time the robot has been caused to execute the response to the predetermined first external stimulus in the past {see ATSUMI at least figure 10, pars. 0071-0080, 0085}.
As for claim 6, ATSUMI/KANDA discloses wherein the state of the robot is at least one of from a pseudo-emotion of the robot expressed by a value of an emotion parameter, a pseudo-personality of the robot expressed by a value of a personality parameter, a battery level of the robot, a current location of the robot, and a current time of the robot {see ATSUMI at least par. 0007, 0042-0044, 0048-0054 which discloses the emotion of the robot expressed by a value of an emotion parameter}.
As for claim 7, ATSUMI/KANDA discloses wherein the action includes a plurality of elements, and the at least one processor, in a case in which the action, as the response, is not executed as defined by the user, changes at least one of the plurality of elements from a content defined by the user, and executes the response {see at least figures 9, 10, pars. 0083-0086}.
As for claims 8-20, the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejection above. They are therefore rejected for the same reason sets forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s)1, 8, 15 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground rejection based on the new amended language.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that ATSUMI does not teach “control is perform such that a frequency at which the action, as the response, is not to be executed as defined by the user is changed based on at least one of a performance counting indicating a number of times that the roboto has been caused to execute the response to the predetermined first external stimulus in the past, an elapsed time from a psedo birth of the robot, and a state of the robot”. However, this is not persuasive.
As indicated above, the claim 1, 15 recited at “a processor/a control function for changing, in correspondence with at least one of 1) performance count indicating a number of times that the robot has been caused to execute the response to the predetermined first external stimulus in the past, 2) an elapsed time from a pseudo birth of the robot, 3) a state of the robot, 4) a frequency at which the action as response not to be executed as defined by the user”. Since the claim recite “at least one”, the claims are not required all of these criteria (1, 2, 3, 4) to be taught in the reference. ATSUMI teaches at least feature (2) and (3) as shown in the rejection above, therefore the reference of ATSUMI read over the claim limitations as required.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRA NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656