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 11/20/24, wherein:
Claims 1-13 are currently pending;
Claims 1, 3-11 have been emended.
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 driven unit” (claims 1, 11); “a verbal communication unit, an action representation unit” (claim 2); “a status indication device” (claims 4, 13); “a current breaking device” (claim 5); “an operation allocation device” (claim 9), “a drive mechanism” (claim 10); “a display device” (claim 12)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YAMAMOTO (US 2020/0130194) from Applicant’s IDS filed on 11/20/24.
As for claim 1, YAMAMOTO discloses an avatar capable of performing an action via remote control {see at least figure 1, mobile robot 100 and remote operator 300, pars. 0026, 0028} which includes a communication avatar having a body schema to communicate with a recipient (service user) through control of the body schema via the remote control, at least part of the body schema being driven {see at least figure 2, mobile robot 100 includes head part122, microphone 132, display 141; figure 3, acquisition 130, communication unit 190 and at least pars. 0031, 0033-0036, 0043, 0047, which discloses a head part 122; microphone 132, display panel 141; figure 5 discloses the communication avatar communicate with a recipient (service user)}; and
a remote machine avatar including a driven unit other than the body schema, the remote machine avatar being capable of performing a task through control of the driven unit via the remote control {see at least figure 2, pars. 0025, 0029-0032 discloses a cart part 110, the arm 123; figure 3, pars. 0028, 0038-0040 discloses a cart driving unit 145 and upper body driving unit 146; The arm 123 and the hand 124 are driven via a motor (not shown), grip various objects in a controlled posture}.
As for claim 2, YAMAMOTO discloses wherein the communication avatar includes a verbal communication unit to make verbal communication, and an action representation unit capable of being driven in imitation of at least part of a human or animal body {see at least figures 1, 5, 2 items 100, 132, 042 and at least pars. 0024, 0035}.
As for claim 3, YAMAMOTO discloses claimed invention as indicated above. YAMAMOTO further discloses wherein the communication avatar includes a first monitor enabled to display a first moving image showing an operator who performs the remote control {see at least figure 1 and 5, pars. 0033, 0035, 0041}, and a first camera provided in a rear of the first monitor and enabled to shoot in a direction toward a projection surface of the first monitor, from the rear {see at least figure 2, camera 131, par. 0033}, and the first moving image is a moving image obtained by shooting in a direction toward a projection surface of a second monitor by a second camera {see at least figures 1, 2, pars. 0033,0035-0036, 0041}, the second monitor being enabled to present, to the operator, a second moving image captured by the first camera, the second camera being provided in a rear of the second monitor {see at least figure 1, pars. 0028, 0033}.
As for claim 4, YAMAMOTO discloses a status indication device to indicate which one of the communication avatar and the remote machine avatar performs an action {see at least figure 6, pars. 0085-0086}.
As for claim 6, YAMAMOTO would be inherently include the avatar is foldable such as stick arm 123 as shown in figure 2 to be housed in a container, and becomes operable by expansion.
As for claim 7, YAMAMOTO discloses wherein at least one of color or clothing of the communication avatar is changeable by changing a moving image to be displayed on the communication avatar {see at least figure 4, at least pars. 0032, 0060, 0063}.
As for claim 8, YAMAMOTO disclose wherein at least one of words said by the avatar, a travel direction of the avatar, or a document provided by the avatar is projected onto an area near the avatar {see at least figure 5 which discloses at least words said by the avatar}.
As for claim 9, YAMAMOTO discloses an operation allocation device to allocate an operation of an operator who performs the remote control to a command value directed to either the communication avatar or the remote machine avatar {see at least figures 1, 5 and pars. 0006-0007}.
As for claim 10, YAMAMOTO discloses comprising a drive mechanism capable of changing a relative position of the communication avatar to the remote machine avatar {see at least figure 1, item 110, figure 2, item 145 and pars. 0029, 0038-0039}.
As for claim 11, YAMAMOTO discloses a remote machine operation system comprising: an operation interface to receive an operation of an operator {see at least figure 1, pars. 0025, 0028 discloses remote operator operates the remote terminal 300}; and an avatar capable of performing an action according to the operation received by the operation interface, at a location different from a location where the operator is present {see at least figures 1, 5 and pars. 0025-0026}, wherein the avatar includes a communication avatar having a body schema to communicate with a recipient through control of the body schema via remote control, at least part of the body schema being driven {see at least figure 2, mobile robot 100 includes head part122, microphone 132, display 141; figure 3, acquisition 130, communication unit 190 and at least pars. 0031, 0033-0036, 0043, 0047, which discloses a head part 122; microphone 132, display panel 141; figure 5 discloses the communication avatar communicate with a recipient (service user)}; and a remote machine avatar including a driven unit other than the body schema, the remote machine avatar being capable of performing a task through control of the driven unit via remote control {see at least figure 2, pars. 0025, 0029-0032 discloses a cart part 110, the arm 123; figure 3, pars. 0028, 0038-0040 discloses a cart driving unit 145 and upper body driving unit 146; The arm 123 and the hand 124 are driven via a motor (not shown), grip various objects in a controlled posture}.
As for claim 12, YAMAMOTO discloses a display device enabled to present, to the operator {see at least figure 1, 5}, a moving image in which a destination is superimposed on a moving image showing an area around the avatar {see at least figures 1, 5}, the destination being a location where the remote machine avatar is to reach, wherein the operation interface receives, from the operator, an operation to move a position of the destination, the display device moves the destination displayed on the display device according to the operation received by the operation interface, and when the operation interface receives an operation to fix the destination from the operator, the remote machine avatar starts to move to the destination {see at least figures 1, 5 and pars. 0025-0027, 0075-0078}.
As for claim 13, YAMAMOTO disclose, wherein the communication avatar includes an indication device capable of pointing to an external position that has been specified, the operation interface receives an operation to move a destination of the remote machine avatar, the indication device points to the destination received by the operation interface, and when the operation interface receives an operation to fix the destination from the operator, the remote machine avatar starts to move to the destination {see at least figures 1, 2 and 5, pars. 0029, 0039-0040, 0054, 0060}.
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAMOTO as applied to claims above and in view of TERADA ET AL (JP-2002-264070) from Applicant’s IDS file don 6/4/25. Herein after TERADA
As for claim 5, YAMAMOTO discloses claimed invention as indicated above. YAMAMOTO further discloses a laser scanner 133 to detecting whether an obstacle exists in each direction and passes a detection signal, which indicate the result of the detection to the controller 150 {see at least pars. 0030, 0043}. YAMAMTO does not explicitly discloses a current breaking device to interrupt a current of a drive system in the remote machine avatar when an obstruction is detected at a distance from the avatar, the distance being less than or equal to a threshold. However, such limitation is taught in at least in figures 1-3, claims 1-4 of TERADA reference. 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 TERADA into the system of YAMAMOTO with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the system with the enhanced capacity of executing a safety of the avatar when there is an object too close too the avatar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Durham et al (US 2019/0163199): A method controls a remote robotic avatar based on a description of a physical object. A message transmitter transmits a message to a remote robotic avatar instructing the remote robotic avatar to identify a physical object at a remote second location, where an appearance of the physical object is described in the message;
Fukabori et al (US 2023/0325880): an acquisition unit 12 that acquires position-related information relating to a position of a robot that is not fixed, a selecting unit 13 that selects, from a plurality of the advertisements, an advertisement to be displayed, on the basis of the position-related information, and a display control unit 14 that performs control to display the advertisement that is selected, at a terminal device used by a user operating the robot;
Tokuchi (US 11,059,719): A robot device includes a receiver and a sender. The receiver receives a character in a virtual space. The sender sends authorization to operate the robot device to an apparatus in return for the received character.
Yamamoto (US 2020/0133239): Communication robot and control program of communication robot.
Pinter et al (US 10,343,283): Telepresence robot system that can be accessed by a cellular phone.
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