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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The addition of both dependent claim 10 and dependent claim 15 both into claim 1 would be allowable over the prior art of record.
Response to the Applicant’s arguments
The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein.
Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims.
Claims 1 and 17-18 are amended to recite and Zhang is silent but the 712 publication teaches “…
set an acceptability level to a mobile body for each of one or a plurality of
users based on at least an emotion of each user estimated from biological
infom1ation of the user. (see FIG. 4-5 where the robot can provide an emotional response to a user and then control the motion to the robot and the lighting relative to the user’s biological information; Next, the emotional artificial intelligence smart speaker has a remote device control module applied to a WiFi or Bluetooth communication module. 3 is a diagram illustrating a transition diagram of a UA state in an emotional AI smart speaker capable of communicating with a user according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Next, the emotional artificial intelligence smart speaker according to the present invention has an engine that recognizes the user's situation and emotion and generates an emotion expression. 4 is a diagram of voice and image recognition in an emotional artificial intelligence smart speaker capable of communicating with a user according to an embodiment of the present invention, and FIG. 5 is an emotional type capable of communicating with a user according to an embodiment of the present invention. It is a block diagram of the emotional expression generation engine of an emotional robot in an artificial intelligence smart speaker.
As shown in Figs. 4 and 5, a training image database is constructed using various commercial image image databases and a learning type image/image database tailored to the user in parallel, and emotion recognition and images through the learned database for images/images. The answer is obtained from the QA database for recognition and used for expression techniques.After classifying questions and commands in the voice query classifier for the voice recognized through the voice recognition system, it takes a corresponding action for the command, and takes a video/video for the question. The corresponding questions are answered through a pre-built QA database such as images, and the optimal solution is derived by linking with various commercial recognition systems (eg, Google, Naver, etc.). Various test evaluations are conducted to derive the optimal solution.
In the present invention, a simple yet mutually communicative emotional artificial intelligence smart speaker content is constructed. It includes content using smart functions through various apps based on the concept of a companion device that responds to emotion. Execute emotional functions based on user-centered service scenarios, dance or change colors in response to the user's mood or genre of music, and add new smart functions to any user through content execution through a smart app It provides an environment in which service contents can be created.
It also includes an artificial intelligence smart speaker mechanism. In other words, it has a customized mechanism that considers product design and product performance that will induce emotional closeness. In addition, it has an emotional artificial intelligence smart speaker service scenario for learning and playing. 6 shows an example.
7 illustrates an example of an application that can be used in an emotional artificial intelligence smart speaker capable of communicating with a user according to an embodiment of the present invention. Includes content that can express emotion in connection with lighting and motion. )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of ZHANG with the 712 publication with a reasonable expectation of success since the 712 publication teaches that the user’s mood can be determined and received and in response the device can change the parameters based on the user’s captured mood.
Zhang is silent but Bone teaches ‘… set an action parameter based on that is set on a basis of an action purpose of
the mobile body, wherein the action parameter is an emphasis ratio between a first
action guideline that emphasizes an action efficiency of the mobile body and a
second action guideline (see col. 2, line 1, to col. 3, line 50 where a neutral base line of an individual can be captured and provided as a reference and then a second baseline when there is high emotion can be captured and then compared to the reference to conclude that the user is same as the base line and neutral or has a high emotional level state and then conclude they are very emotional) (see col. 30, line 10 to col. 31, line 21 where the user is too angry and then the process is abandoned and then the robot can move away and not complete any enrollment process)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of ZHANG with the BONE publication with a reasonable expectation of success since the BONE publication teaches that the user’s mood can be determined to be very angry. In response to this very angry mood, the device can then abandon the process and start this at another time based on the measured emotional relative to the base line. If the base line is neutral then the device can perform the task with success. This provides an intuitive response.
HAYASHI teaches “…that emphasizes a distance of the mobile body from users
in a surrounding environment of the mobile bodv, and
calculate a movement route of the mobile body reflecting a positional
relationship with each of the one or plurality of users based on the acceptability
level in accordance with the emphasis ratio, and
control the mobile body to move along the calculated movement route,” (see paragraph 53-60 where the robot engages with an angry emotional level and the user can then be providing the robot with an angry emotional level of dislike and the robot can store the user’s angry emotional level and see paragraph 50-70 where the robot can then move to the liked spot based on the emotional level or if at a disliked location or there is bored then the robot can move to a different location)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of ZHANG with the HAYASHI publication with a reasonable expectation of success since the HAYASHI publication teaches the robot can be determined to be angry and the robot can move to a favorite location. If the individual is bored, then the robot can move to a second location that is a new location based on the mood of the user. A coordinate P2 is a point at which an emotion of aversion is high (hereafter called a “disliked point”). The disliked point may be a place where there is a loud noise, such as near a television, a place where there is likely to be a leak, like a bathroom or a washroom, an enclosed space or a dark place, a place where the robot 100 has been roughly treated by a user and that invokes an unpleasant memory, or the like.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 12, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of NPL, Zhang, Tao, et al., Service robot feature design effects on user perceptions and emotional responses, SPRINGER, Intel Serv Robotics (2010) 3:73–88, DOI 10.1007/s11370-010-0060-9 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11370-010-0060-9) 2010 (hereinafter ZHANG) and in view of Korean Patent Pub. No.: KR20200117712A filed in 2019 (hereinafter ‘the 712 publication”) and in view of United States Patent No.: US10943604B1 to Bone that is assigned to AMAZON and in view of United States Patent Pub. NO.: US20180333862A1 to Hayashi.
Claims 1 and 17-18 are amended to recite and Zhang is silent but the 712 publication teaches “…
set an acceptability level to a mobile body for each of one or a plurality of
users based on at least an emotion of each user estimated from biological
infom1ation of the user. (see FIG. 4-5 where the robot can provide an emotional response to a user and then control the motion to the robot and the lighting relative to the user’s biological information; Next, the emotional artificial intelligence smart speaker has a remote device control module applied to a WiFi or Bluetooth communication module. 3 is a diagram illustrating a transition diagram of a UA state in an emotional AI smart speaker capable of communicating with a user according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Next, the emotional artificial intelligence smart speaker according to the present invention has an engine that recognizes the user's situation and emotion and generates an emotion expression. 4 is a diagram of voice and image recognition in an emotional artificial intelligence smart speaker capable of communicating with a user according to an embodiment of the present invention, and FIG. 5 is an emotional type capable of communicating with a user according to an embodiment of the present invention. It is a block diagram of the emotional expression generation engine of an emotional robot in an artificial intelligence smart speaker.
As shown in Figs. 4 and 5, a training image database is constructed using various commercial image image databases and a learning type image/image database tailored to the user in parallel, and emotion recognition and images through the learned database for images/images. The answer is obtained from the QA database for recognition and used for expression techniques.After classifying questions and commands in the voice query classifier for the voice recognized through the voice recognition system, it takes a corresponding action for the command, and takes a video/video for the question. The corresponding questions are answered through a pre-built QA database such as images, and the optimal solution is derived by linking with various commercial recognition systems (eg, Google, Naver, etc.). Various test evaluations are conducted to derive the optimal solution.
In the present invention, a simple yet mutually communicative emotional artificial intelligence smart speaker content is constructed. It includes content using smart functions through various apps based on the concept of a companion device that responds to emotion. Execute emotional functions based on user-centered service scenarios, dance or change colors in response to the user's mood or genre of music, and add new smart functions to any user through content execution through a smart app It provides an environment in which service contents can be created.
It also includes an artificial intelligence smart speaker mechanism. In other words, it has a customized mechanism that considers product design and product performance that will induce emotional closeness. In addition, it has an emotional artificial intelligence smart speaker service scenario for learning and playing. 6 shows an example.
7 illustrates an example of an application that can be used in an emotional artificial intelligence smart speaker capable of communicating with a user according to an embodiment of the present invention. Includes content that can express emotion in connection with lighting and motion. )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of ZHANG with the 712 publication with a reasonable expectation of success since the 712 publication teaches that the user’s mood can be determined and received and in response the device can change the parameters based on the user’s captured mood.
Zhang is silent but Bone teaches ‘… set an action parameter based on that is set on a basis of an action purpose of
the mobile body, wherein the action parameter is an emphasis ratio between a first
action guideline that emphasizes an action efficiency of the mobile body and a
second action guideline (see col. 2, line 1, to col. 3, line 50 where a neutral base line of an individual can be captured and provided as a reference and then a second baseline when there is high emotion can be captured and then compared to the reference to conclude that the user is same as the base line and neutral or has a high emotional level state and then conclude they are very emotional) (see col. 30, line 10 to col. 31, line 21 where the user is too angry and then the process is abandoned and then the robot can move away and not complete any enrollment process)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of ZHANG with the BONE publication with a reasonable expectation of success since the BONE publication teaches that the user’s mood can be determined to be very angry. In response to this very angry mood, the device can then abandon the process and start this at another time based on the measured emotional relative to the base line. If the base line is neutral then the device can perform the task with success. This provides an intuitive response.
HAYASHI teaches “…that emphasizes a distance of the mobile body from users
in a surrounding environment of the mobile bodv, and
calculate a movement route of the mobile body reflecting a positional
relationship with each of the one or plurality of users based on the acceptability
level in accordance with the emphasis ratio, and
control the mobile body to move along the calculated movement route,” (see paragraph 53-60 where the robot engages with an angry emotional level and the user can then be providing the robot with an angry emotional level of dislike and the robot can store the user’s angry emotional level and see paragraph 50-70 where the robot can then move to the liked spot based on the emotional level or if at a disliked location or there is bored then the robot can move to a different location)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of ZHANG with the HAYASHI publication with a reasonable expectation of success since the HAYASHI publication teaches the robot can be determined to be angry and the robot can move to a favorite location. If the individual is bored, then the robot can move to a second location that is a new location based on the mood of the user. A coordinate P2 is a point at which an emotion of aversion is high (hereafter called a “disliked point”). The disliked point may be a place where there is a loud noise, such as near a television, a place where there is likely to be a leak, like a bathroom or a washroom, an enclosed space or a dark place, a place where the robot 100 has been roughly treated by a user and that invokes an unpleasant memory, or the like.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
1038
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
644
884
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, 17 and 18, Zhang discloses “ 1. An information processing apparatus comprising: …an action parameter that is set on a basis of an action purpose of the mobile body (see FIG. 4 where the robot can move from an original location to a simulated path to provide a gripping task to dispense a medicine pill and hospital task and to interact a patient and then turn and stop in front of the patient) (See page 6-7 where the patient was to be provided with a test to determine a reaction to see if the robot was human like based on the 1. Face, 2. Voice, 3. Interactivity and 4. Control. And 5. Dwell time)
y (this is identified as the robot moving in a public space to deliver a good at paragraph 33 of the specification ) This is identified as in paragraph 51 it can estimate the emotion of the user toward the robot. (see section 4 where the more human like the robot was acting the more the individual patients liked the robot in terms of 1. Conveying anthropomorphism and in table 1. Of 2. Physical appearance 2. The expressiveness of the robot and 3. The task handling and 4 subjective experiences and enjoyment with the robot)
Claim 2 and 3 are cancelled.
Zhang discloses “. 4 The information processing apparatus according to Claim 3, wherein the biological information includes at least one of heart rate information, pulse information, perspiration 25 information, respiration information, or exercise information. (see page 5 where each of the patients have a GSR skin monitor and a heart monitor strap to determine if they like or dislike the interaction with the robot and table 3 to show pleasure with certain robots that emulate a human and others that are poor).
Zhang discloses “..5. The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein 30 the biological information is acquired by at least any of a wearable device worn by the user, sensors mounted on the mobile body, or a sensor group provided in a space in which the user exists. (see page 5 where each of the patients have a GSR skin monitor and a heart monitor strap to determine if they like or dislike the interaction with the robot and table 3 to show pleasure with certain robots that emulate a human and others that are poor).
PNG
media_image3.png
382
952
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zhang discloses “...6. The information processing apparatus according to 5 claim 5, wherein the acceptability level is set based on the emotion of the user, an action of the user, and a task status of the user, and the action of the user is estimated based on 10 another sensor information acquired by at least any of the wearable device, the sensors mounted on the mobile body, or the sensor group. (see page 5-7 and 14 and table 3 where each of the patients have a GSR skin monitor and a heart monitor strap to determine if they like or dislike the interaction with the robot and table 3 to show pleasure with certain robots that emulate a human and others that are poor). (see table 3 where the face hat is human like and synthesized and includes a confirmation visual message was like the most and provides high arousal)
Claim 7-8 are cancelled.
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.
Claims 10-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view o f NPL, Zhang, Tao, et al., Service robot feature design effects on user perceptions and emotional responses, SPRINGER, Intel Serv Robotics (2010) 3:73–88, DOI 10.1007/s11370-010-0060-9 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11370-010-0060-9) 2010 (hereinafter ZHANG) and in view of the 712, Bone and Hayashi and in view of International Patent Pub. No.: WO 2012/039280A1 to Ichikawa and assigned to Waseda University (US20130184980A1)
Claim 9 is cancelled.
Waseda teaches “...10. The information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry is configured to[[ the action planner]] calculates the movement route passing through a position closer to the user whose acceptability level is higher and farther from the user 10 whose acceptability level is lower as the emphasis ratio of the second action guideline is higher. (see paragraph 20-24 and claims 23-24 where if the human has an affinity for robot and this provides a score and if not then a second score is provided and where the robot can avoid the human on the basis of the calculation)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ZHANG with the teachings of WASEDA with a reasonable expectation of success to measure an amount of affinity between a person and a robot to provide an indication if the robot should engage the person and interact. For example, a young person may have its back to the robot and ignore it. This provides an objective measure to the robot to not bother the person. While a second elderly person is going upstairs and carrying 200 pounds and can collapse. The robot can then determine if this older person needs help and wants the robot to help based on an observation of a high affinity. Then the robot can move in and help. See paragraph 11-30 and claims 1-24.
Waseda teaches “...11. The information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein circuitry is further configured to [[the the action planner]] calculates the movement route reflecting only a positional relationship with the user having the acceptability level higher than a certain degree in accordance with a number of users existing around the mobile body. 20(see paragraph 20-24 and claims 23-24 where if the human has an affinity for robot and this provides a score and if not then a second score is provided and where the robot can avoid the human on the basis of the calculation)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ZHANG with the teachings of WASEDA with a reasonable expectation of success to measure an amount of affinity between a person and a robot to provide an indication if the robot should engage the person and interact. For example, a young person may have its back to the robot and ignore it. This provides an objective measure to the robot to not bother the person. While a second elderly person is going upstairs and carrying 200 pounds and can collapse. The robot can then determine if this older person needs help and wants the robot to help based on an observation of a high affinity. Then the robot can move in and help. See paragraph 11-30 and claims 1-24.
Waseda teaches “...12. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the emphasis ratio changes in accordance with the number of users existing around the mobile body. (see paragraph 20-24 and claims 23-24 where if the human has an affinity for robot and this provides a score and if not then a second score is provided and where the robot can avoid the human on the basis of the calculation and in paragraph 14 some user will not turn around to see the robot and then robot can understand that person is low priority and does not want interaction while in paragraph 15-19 an older person has a heavy item and has collapsed and this is an urgent interaction request for interaction)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ZHANG with the teachings of WASEDA with a reasonable expectation of success to measure an amount of affinity between a person and a robot to provide an indication if the robot should engage the person and interact. For example, a young person may have its back to the robot and ignore it. This provides an objective measure to the robot to not bother the person. While a second elderly person is going upstairs and carrying 200 pounds and can collapse. The robot can then determine if this older person needs help and wants the robot to help based on an observation of a high affinity. Then the robot can move in and help. See paragraph 11-30 and claims 1-24.
Waseda teaches “...13. The information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the emphasis ratio predetermined is set in a specific area.” (see paragraph 16 where an elderly person in the street carrying a very heavy load is a prime candidate for high affinity for interaction and see paragraph 20-24 and claims 23-24 where if the human has an affinity for robot and this provides a score and if not then a second score is provided and where the robot can avoid the human on the basis of the calculation and in paragraph 14 some user will not turn around to see the robot and then robot can understand that person is low priority and does not want interaction while in paragraph 15-19 an older person has a heavy item and has collapsed and this is an urgent interaction request for interaction)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ZHANG with the teachings of WASEDA with a reasonable expectation of success to measure an amount of affinity between a person and a robot to provide an indication if the robot should engage the person and interact. For example, a young person may have its back to the robot and ignore it. This provides an objective measure to the robot to not bother the person. While a second elderly person is going upstairs and carrying 200 pounds and can collapse. The robot can then determine if this older person needs help and wants the robot to help based on an observation of a high affinity. Then the robot can move in and help. See paragraph 11-30 and claims 1-24.
Waseda teaches “...14. The information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the emphasis ratio of the second action guideline is set higher in a case where a specific name related to the action purpose is known to the user during movement 5 of the mobile body. (see paragraph 16 where an elderly person in the street carrying a very heavy load is a prime candidate for high affinity for interaction and see paragraph 20-24 and claims 23-24 where if the human has an affinity for robot and this provides a score and if not then a second score is provided and where the robot can avoid the human on the basis of the calculation and in paragraph 14 some user will not turn around to see the robot and then robot can understand that person is low priority and does not want interaction while in paragraph 15-19 an older person has a heavy item and has collapsed and this is an urgent interaction request for interaction)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ZHANG with the teachings of WASEDA with a reasonable expectation of success to measure an amount of affinity between a person and a robot to provide an indication if the robot should engage the person and interact. For example, a young person may have its back to the robot and ignore it. This provides an objective measure to the robot to not bother the person. While a second elderly person is going upstairs and carrying 200 pounds and can collapse. The robot can then determine if this older person needs help and wants the robot to help based on an observation of a high affinity. Then the robot can move in and help. See paragraph 11-30 and claims 1-24.
Waseda teaches “...15. The information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the emphasis ratio of the second action guideline 10 is set higher in a case where the action purpose includes an interaction with the user. (see paragraph 16 where an elderly person in the street carrying a very heavy load is a prime candidate for high affinity for interaction and see paragraph 20-24 and claims 23-24 where if the human has an affinity for robot and this provides a score and if not then a second score is provided and where the robot can avoid the human on the basis of the calculation and in paragraph 14 some user will not turn around to see the robot and then robot can understand that person is low priority and does not want interaction while in paragraph 15-19 an older person has a heavy item and has collapsed and this is an urgent interaction request for interaction)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ZHANG with the teachings of WASEDA with a reasonable expectation of success to measure an amount of affinity between a person and a robot to provide an indication if the robot should engage the person and interact. For example, a young person may have its back to the robot and ignore it. This provides an objective measure to the robot to not bother the person. While a second elderly person is going upstairs and carrying 200 pounds and can collapse. The robot can then determine if this older person needs help and wants the robot to help based on an observation of a high affinity. Then the robot can move in and help. See paragraph 11-30 and claims 1-24.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ZHANG with the teachings of WASEDA with a reasonable expectation of success to measure an amount of affinity between a person and a robot to provide an indication if the robot should engage the person and interact. For example, a young person may have its back to the robot and ignore it. This provides an objective measure to the robot to not bother the person. While a second elderly person is going upstairs and carrying 200 pounds and can collapse. The robot can then determine if this older person needs help and wants the robot to help based on an observation of a high affinity. Then the robot can move in and help. See paragraph 11-30 and claims 1-24.
Waseda teaches “...16. The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein 15 the mobile body includes a robot that autonomously moves from a first point to a second point. (see paragraph 22)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of ZHANG with the teachings of WASEDA with a reasonable expectation of success to measure an amount of affinity between a person and a robot to provide an indication if the robot should engage the person and interact. For example, a young person may have its back to the robot and ignore it. This provides an objective measure to the robot to not bother the person. While a second elderly person is going upstairs and carrying 200 pounds and can collapse. The robot can then determine if this older person needs help and wants the robot to help based on an observation of a high affinity. Then the robot can move in and help. See paragraph 11-30 and claims 1-24.
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 JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights