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 .
Status of claims: claims 1-9 are pending below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’ remark – (pages 6-8) Pages 6-8 applicant summarized prior arts teaching, where page 8 applicant start arguing Gomez does not teach or suggest controlling a gesture driving operation in a tutorial of a face registration process that registers a face of a user in advance of a face authentication process executable by a moving object, and executing a streaming capture of the face of the user after the tutorial is ended.
Examiner response – Examiner respectfully disagree. Gomez (US 2023/0173683) teaches use of databases, first and second, where paragraph 0083-0084 detail the use of such database of human interaction through images of gesture, interaction, behavior..etc, where Gomez details where facial image data, are part of the face of user are matched for registering of the face. Matching incoming images to database images detail by Gomez in paragraph 0101, 0224-0026 with figure 4. This response applies to all independent claims 1, 8-9 and dependent claims 2-6. Please see Office Action below for further detail.
Applicant’ remark – (pages 9-10) Pages 8-9 applicant summarized prior arts teaching, where page 9 applicant argued Kawase does not teach or suggest a face registration process that registers a face of a user in advance of a face authentication process executable by the robot. Registration in Kawase occurs automatically during reception after face matching returns an unmatched result, not in advance of a face authentication process.
Examiner response – Examiner respectfully disagree. Gomez in paragraph 0101 and 0224-0026 with figure 4 teaches matching of gestures to database, where the matching uses image of facial express, this is view as registering. KAWASE et al teaches matching paired with registration, where 0005-0007 detail the prepare face photograph and register in advance with data including face feature amount. This response applies to all independent claims 1, 8-9 and dependent claims 2-6. Please see Office Action below for further detail.
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: “a driving section configured to” in claim 1, “an image capturing section configured to” in claim 1, “a gesture control section configured to” in claim 1, “ a guidance sound control section configured to” in claim 1, “a threshold value setting section configured to” in claim 6, “a gesture control section configured to” in claim 8, “a guidance sound control section configured to” in claim 8.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez (US 2023/0173683) in view of KAWASE et al (US 2019/0095750).
Claim 1, similarly claims 8 and 9:
Gomez (US 2023/0173683) teaches the following subject matter:
A moving object, comprising:
a face portion; a driving section configured to execute a gesture driving operation that rotates the face portion; an image capturing section configured to execute a streaming capture of a face of a user (0243-0247 detail driving signal for driving 2113 with information from still/continuous/moving image regarding behavior of changing direction of the face (head)/face portion);
a gesture control section configured to control gesture driving operation that expresses a movement of the face of the user by a gesture of the face portion at the time of the streaming capture wherein the gesture driving operation is controlled in a tutorial of face registration processing the face of the user in advance of a face authentication process executed after the tutorial is ended (0015 detail gesture perform with feature information regarding human behavior/facial expression information of the person/user; figure 24 and paragraph 0226; 0015-0016 detail different movements; 0024 detail movement of the animation into the movement of the robot that respects kinematic and dynamic constraints, and at the same time, to maintain matching of a unique principle of the animation applied to an expressive movement with a scheme); and
the streaming capture is executed after the tutorial is ended (0243-0247, specifically 0244 detail image that are continuous or moving/streaming capture basis of the learning result (tutorial)); and
a guidance sound control section configured to control output of a gesture guidance sound based on the gesture of the face portion along with the gesture driving operation(0015-0016, where 0016 detail animation data may include data of a movement of an eye, data of a movement of a mouth, and an audio signal, the conversion unit may create a phenotypic routine file by associating the data of the movement of the eye, the data of the movement of the mouth).
Gomez teaches all the subject matter above but not the following: that registers the face of the user in advance.
KAWASE et al (US 2019/0095750) teaches the following subject matter: that registers the face of the user in advance (0005 detail register personal information in advance that is identification information used for identifying the user, where 00153-0154 detail the interaction between robot and user).
Gomez and KAWASE et al are both in the field of image analysis, especially between robot and user interaction by means of image capture and processing such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Gomez and KAWASE et al regarding advance registration of personal information is laborious for a user would lower such obstacle as disclosed by KAWASE et al in 0005.
Regarding claim 8, Gomez addresses apparatus in figure. 3.
Regarding claim 9, Gomez addresses method in flowchart of figure 8 and 22.
Claim 2:
Gomez teaches:
The moving object according to claim 1, wherein the gesture control section if further configured to control the gesture driving operation to express a speed and a direction at which the user moves the face at the time of the streaming capture by the gesture of the face portion of the moving object (0084-0085 detail image capture unit 102 with movement of user in utterance, gestures, eye, mouth…etc, where movement entails speed and direction).
Claim 3:
Gomez teaches:
The moving object according to claim 2, wherein the guidance sound control section is further configured to is further configured to outputs a constant rhythm corresponding to the speed as the gesture guidance sound (0016 detail aspect 10 audio sound to movement of mouth and eyes (outputting sound corresponding to gesture/movement)).
Claim 4:
Gomez teach:
The moving object according to claim 1, wherein the guidance sound control section if further configured to controls an output of a face direction guidance sound that guides the movement of the face of the user in the streaming capture executed after tutorial is ended (0016 detail in aspect 17 where voice to direction of the person, face, body with greatest reward with behavior of turning the face of person).
Claim 5:
Gomez teach:
The moving object according to claim 4, further comprising:
a feature vector extraction section configured to extract a plurality of feature vectors from the face image of the user of a plurality of angles acquired in the streaming capture (figure 24 and 0225-0226 detail robot 2001 speaks to the user, “Where should I look?” In response to the utterance of the robot 2001, a human Hu performs a demonstration such as turning his or her face to a viewing direction); wherein
wherein the face images of the plurality of angles are acquired based on a change in a direction of the face of the user, and the change in the direction of the face of the user is based on guidance of the face direction guidance sound (paragraph 0015 detail audio sound with information on head posture of the person face direction information; paragraph 0157 also detail robot 1001 with operational instruction by means of audio signal coupled with imaging in 0159; figure 24 detail changing for direction of face as part of operation to detect face, voice and direction of body of human Hu);
a center vector calculation section that calculates a center vector that is a center of the plurality of feature vectors and registers the center vector in a face database (0017 detail column vector as basis function for images captures in paragraph 0015-0016 that would include face of user; 0274-0275 detail vector for IRL (in real life); 0079-0080 detail first and second database, where first database includes comparison image database and image feature quantity for image recognition, and 0102 detail feature quality extracted from image of person, where above detail which include face; 0110 detail first database 107 with facial expression data from daily conversation).
Claim 6:
Gomez teach:
The moving object according to claim 5, further comprising: a threshold value setting section configured to set a threshold value used in face authentication processing that evaluates similarity with the center vector registered in the face database (0078-0080 detail storage unit 106 with various threshold used for recognition in first database which include facial data as detail above for comparison image database).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. At the time of examination unable to find the claim language and teaching regarding “the threshold value setting section sets, as the threshold value, any one of a first threshold value which is a value determined at the time of designing, a second threshold value corresponding to a distance to the feature vector at a farthest position centered on the center vector, and a third threshold value which is a maximum value of the first threshold value and the second threshold value” in the area of robot and user interaction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deyle et al (US 2017/0225336) teaches Building-Integrated Mobile Robot - robot can identify unauthorized individuals within a restricted area, or can identify individuals perform an unauthorized action. Likewise, the robot can identify a building object or system indicative of a potential security risk, such as an unlocked door or open window. The robot can coordinate with a central system of the building, with building infrastructure and security systems, with other robots, and with individuals (0005).
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 TSUNG-YIN TSAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1671. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-7453. 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.
/TSUNG YIN TSAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights