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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the remote video image includes video images of avatars of the plurality of remote users”. It is not clear if the video images of the avatars are the “video images representing a plurality of remote users” recited in claim 1 or additional video images. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the video images recited in claim 3 are the same video images recited in claim 1, in view of [0044].
In claim 6, “the local sound” should read “local sound” and “the sound acquired” should read “sound acquired” because no local sound or acquired sound is previously recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 recites the following steps which are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“a step of controlling the moving mechanism to move the robot”. See below the interpretation of the “movement control unit” of claim 1 that performs the function. The specification does not disclose the necessary hardware structure or software steps/algorithm to perform the claimed function.
“a step of acquiring a remote video image including video images representing a plurality of remote users located at sites different from the current location of the robot from an external network via the communication interface, and displaying the acquired remote video image on the display”. See below the interpretation of the “remote video image processing unit” of claim 1 that performs the function. The specification does not specify the necessary hardware structure to perform the claimed function.
“a step of transmitting a local video image, which is a video image captured by the camera, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to view the local video image”. See below the interpretation of the “local video image processing unit” of claim 1 that performs the function. The specification does not specify the necessary hardware structure to perform the claimed function.
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 moving mechanism for moving the robot” in claim 1. In paragraph [0029], the specification discloses “the moving mechanism 156 includes wheels 157 and a drive unit (not shown) for driving the wheels 157 to move the robot 100”. However, no corresponding structure is recited for the drive unit. Therefore, the specification does not recite sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed function. Wheels have been interpreted as part of the structure for performing the claimed function.
“a movement control unit that controls the moving mechanism to move the robot” in claim 1. In paragraph [0049], the specification discloses “The movement control unit 116 (FIG. 3) of the robot 100 monitors whether or not the movement condition is satisfied (S116), and when the movement condition is satisfied (S116: YES), operates the moving mechanism 156 to move the robot 100 (S118),” which simply restates the result of the movement control unit without reciting sufficient structure or acts to perform the functional language. The movement control unit 116 is a part of the control unit 110, which “is constituted by, e.g., a CPU and controls the operation of each unit of the robot 100 by executing a computer program retrieved from the storage unit 120” [0033]. While this indicates that the claimed control of the moving mechanism may be performed on a processor, this is not definitively stated; the control unit similarly lacks a defined structure. Therefore, although the specification discloses the claimed function linked to a software component, the specification does not disclose the necessary hardware structure or software steps/algorithm to perform the claimed function.
“a remote video image processing unit that acquires a remote video image including video images representing a plurality of remote users located at sites different from the current location of the robot from an external network via the communication interface and displays the acquired remote video image on the display” in claim 1. In paragraphs [0020] and [0042], the specification discloses the plurality of remote users located at sites Pr different from the location Ps of the robot and that the information space VS is constructed on an external network NET. In paragraph [0044], the specification discloses “The remote video image processing unit 112 (FIG. 3) of the robot 100 acquires the remote video image Ir, which is a video image representing a scene of the information space VS, via the communication interface 130, and displays the acquired remote video image Ir on the display 151 (S106). Since a plurality of remote users Ur are virtually located in the information space VS, the remote video image Ir includes a video image representing a plurality of remote users Ur (more specifically, video image of avatars Ura of the remote users Ur).” The claimed function is considered to be a function coextensive with a general purpose computer—receiving and displaying data; see MPEP 2181(II)(B). The remote video image processing unit 112 is a part of the control unit 110, which “is constituted by, e.g., a CPU and controls the operation of each unit of the robot 100 by executing a computer program retrieved from the storage unit 120” [0033]. While this indicates that the claimed control of the moving mechanism may be performed on a processor, this is not definitively stated; the control unit lacks a defined structure. Therefore, although the specification discloses the claimed function linked to a software component, the specification does not specify the necessary hardware structure to perform the claimed function.
“a local video image processing unit that transmits a local video image, which is a video image captured by the camera, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to view the local video image” in claim 1. In paragraph [0045], the specification discloses “The local video image processing unit 113 (FIG. 3) of the robot 100 captures a video image by using the camera 152 to generate a local video image Is (S108) and transmits the generated local video image Is to the information space VS via the communication interface 130 (S110), thereby projecting the local video image Is to the information space VS (S302). Thus, each remote user Ur can view the local video image Is projected to the information space VS via the HMD 200 (S206).” The claimed function is considered to be a function coextensive with a general purpose computer—transmitting data; see MPEP 2181(II)(B). The remote video image processing unit 112 is a part of the control unit 110, which “is constituted by, e.g., a CPU and controls the operation of each unit of the robot 100 by executing a computer program retrieved from the storage unit 120” [0033]. While this indicates that the claimed control of the moving mechanism may be performed on a processor, this is not definitively stated; the control unit lacks a defined structure. Therefore, although the specification discloses the claimed function linked to a software component, the specification does not specify the necessary hardware structure to perform the claimed function.
“an information space construction unit that constructs an information space shared by the plurality of remote users on the external network” in claim 2. In paragraph [0042], the specification discloses “the robot operation control unit 111 (FIG. 3) of the robot 100 connects to the external network NET via the communication interface 130 (S102), and the information space construction unit 118 constructs an information space VS on the external network NET (S104),” which simply restates the result of the information space construction unit without reciting sufficient structure or acts to perform the functional language. The information space construction unit 111 is a part of the control unit 110, which “is constituted by, e.g., a CPU and controls the operation of each unit of the robot 100 by executing a computer program retrieved from the storage unit 120” [0033]. While this indicates that the claimed control of the moving mechanism may be performed on a processor, this is not definitively stated; the control unit similarly lacks a defined structure. Therefore, although the specification discloses the claimed function linked to a software component, the specification does not disclose the necessary hardware structure or software steps/algorithm to perform the claimed function.
“a local sound processing unit that transmits the local sound, which is the sound acquired by the 360 degree microphone, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to hear the sound in a manner in which the direction of the source of the sound is recognizable” in claim 6. In paragraph [0046], the specification discloses “the local sound processing unit 115 (FIG. 3) of the robot 100 uses the microphone 153 to generate a sound of a local site Ps including the voice of each local user Us (hereinafter referred to as "local sound") and transmits the generated local sound to the information space VS via the communication interface 130. Thus, the local sound is reproduced by the speaker 254 of each HMD 200 in a manner in which the direction of the source of the sound is recognizable,” which simply restates the result of the local sound processing unit without reciting sufficient structure or acts to perform the functional language. While transmitting data is considered to be a function coextensive with a general purpose computer (see MPEP 2181(II)(B)), the entirety of the function, including “to cause the plurality of remote users to hear the sound in a manner in which the direction of the source of the sound is recognizable,” is not coextensive with a general purpose computer; rather, the function requires a programmed, special purpose computer. The local sound processing unit 115 is a part of the control unit 110, which “is constituted by, e.g., a CPU and controls the operation of each unit of the robot 100 by executing a computer program retrieved from the storage unit 120” [0033]. While this indicates that the claimed control of the moving mechanism may be performed on a processor, this is not definitively stated; the control unit similarly lacks a defined structure. Therefore, although the specification discloses the claimed function linked to a software component, the specification does not disclose the necessary hardware structure or software steps/algorithm to perform the claimed function.
“a remote sound processing unit that acquires remote sound, which is a sound emitted from the plurality of remote users, from the external network via the communication interface, and outputs the acquired remote sound from the directional speaker in a manner in which the direction of the remote users is recognizable” in claim 7. In paragraph [0046], the specification discloses “the remote sound processing unit 114 (FIG. 3) of the robot 100 acquires the sound of the remote site Pr including the voice of each remote user Ur (hereinafter referred to as "remote sound") generated by the microphone 253 of each HMD 200 via the communication interface 130 and reproduces the acquired remote sound by the speaker 154 in a manner in which the direction of the source of the sound (in the example of FIG. 1, the direction of the avatar Ura of each remote user Ur) is recognizable,” which simply restates the result of the remote sound processing unit without reciting sufficient structure or acts to perform the functional language. While receiving and outputting data is considered to be a function coextensive with a general purpose computer (see MPEP 2181(II)(B)), the entirety of the function, including “outputs the acquired remote sound from the directional speaker in a manner in which the direction of the remote users is recognizable,” is not coextensive with a general purpose computer; rather, the function requires a programmed, special purpose computer. The remote sound processing unit 111 is a part of the control unit 110, which “is constituted by, e.g., a CPU and controls the operation of each unit of the robot 100 by executing a computer program retrieved from the storage unit 120” [0033]. While this indicates that the claimed control of the moving mechanism may be performed on a processor, this is not definitively stated; the control unit similarly lacks a defined structure. Therefore, although the specification discloses the claimed function linked to a software component, the specification does not disclose the necessary hardware structure or software steps/algorithm to perform the claimed function.
“a robot arm control unit that receives operation instructions from the plurality of remote users from the external network via the communication interface and operates the robot arm in response to the received operation instructions” in claim 8. In paragraph [0062], the specification discloses “the robot arm control unit 117 that receives operation instructions from a plurality of remote users Ur via the communication interface 130 from the external network NET and operates the robot arm 155 in response to the received operation instructions,” which simply restates the result of the robot arm control unit without reciting sufficient structure or acts to perform the functional language. While receiving data is considered to be a function coextensive with a general purpose computer (see MPEP 2181(II)(B)), the entirety of the function, including “operates the robot arm in response to the received operation instructions,” is not coextensive with a general purpose computer; rather, the function requires a programmed, special purpose computer. The robot arm control unit 117 is a part of the control unit 110, which “is constituted by, e.g., a CPU and controls the operation of each unit of the robot 100 by executing a computer program retrieved from the storage unit 120” [0033]. While this indicates that the claimed control of the moving mechanism may be performed on a processor, this is not definitively stated; the control unit similarly lacks a defined structure. Therefore, although the specification discloses the claimed function linked to a software component, the specification does not disclose the necessary hardware structure or software steps/algorithm to perform the claimed function.
“a process of controlling the moving mechanism to move the robot” in claim 10. See above the interpretation of the “movement control unit” of claim 1 that performs the function. The specification does not disclose the necessary hardware structure or software steps/algorithm to perform the claimed function.
“a process of acquiring a remote video image including video images representing a plurality of remote users located at sites different from the current location of the robot from an external network via the communication interface, and displaying the acquired remote video image on the display” in claim 10. See above the interpretation of the “remote video image processing unit” of claim 1 that performs the function. The specification does not specify the necessary hardware structure to perform the claimed function.
“a process of transmitting a local video image, which is a video image captured by the camera, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to view the local video image” in claim 10. See above the interpretation of the “local video image processing unit” of claim 1 that performs the function. The specification does not specify the necessary hardware structure to perform the claimed function.
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 § 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 1-10 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 1, the claim limitation “a moving mechanism for moving the robot” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As described above in the Claim Interpretation section, the specification discloses the moving mechanism comprises wheels and a drive unit [0029], but the specification does not specify the structure of the drive unit, which is necessary for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the claim lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 and 2181.
Claims 2-8 are rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “a movement control unit that controls the moving mechanism to move the robot” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the function and does not identify specific hardware and steps or an algorithm sufficient to perform the function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 and 2181.
Claims 2-8 are rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “a remote video image processing unit that acquires a remote video image including video images representing a plurality of remote users located at sites different from the current location of the robot from an external network via the communication interface and displays the acquired remote video image on the display” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not specify the necessary hardware structure to perform the claimed function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 and 2181. This rejection may be overcome by definitively stating in the specification that the control unit 110 comprises a processor instead of giving an example of a CPU as recited in [0033].
Claims 2-8 are rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “a local video image processing unit that transmits a local video image, which is a video image captured by the camera, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to view the local video image” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not specify the necessary hardware structure to perform the claimed function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 and 2181. This rejection may be overcome by definitively stating in the specification that the control unit 110 comprises a processor instead of giving an example of a CPU as recited in [0033].
Claims 2-8 are rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitation “an information space construction unit that constructs an information space shared by the plurality of remote users on the external network” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the function and does not identify specific hardware and steps or an algorithm sufficient to perform the function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 and 2181.
Claim 3 is rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, the claim limitation “a local sound processing unit that transmits the local sound, which is the sound acquired by the 360 degree microphone, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to hear the sound in a manner in which the direction of the source of the sound is recognizable” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the function and does not identify specific hardware and steps or an algorithm sufficient to perform the function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 and 2181.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation “a remote sound processing unit that acquires remote sound, which is a sound emitted from the plurality of remote users, from the external network via the communication interface, and outputs the acquired remote sound from the directional speaker in a manner in which the direction of the remote users is recognizable” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the function and does not identify specific steps or an algorithm sufficient to perform the function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 and 2181.
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitation “a robot arm control unit that receives operation instructions from the plurality of remote users from the external network via the communication interface and operates the robot arm in response to the received operation instructions” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the function and does not identify specific steps or an algorithm sufficient to perform the function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 and 2181.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claim limitations “a step of controlling the moving mechanism to move the robot” and “a process of controlling the moving mechanism to move the robot”, respectively, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the function and does not identify specific steps or an algorithm sufficient to perform the function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 and 2181.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claim limitations “a step of acquiring a remote video image including video images representing a plurality of remote users located at sites different from the current location of the robot from an external network via the communication interface, and displaying the acquired remote video image on the display” and “a process of acquiring a remote video image including video images representing a plurality of remote users located at sites different from the current location of the robot from an external network via the communication interface, and displaying the acquired remote video image on the display”, respectively, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not specify the necessary hardware structure to perform the claimed function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 and 2181. This rejection may be overcome by definitively stating in the specification that the control unit 110 comprises a processor instead of giving an example of a CPU as recited in [0033].
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claim limitations “a step of transmitting a local video image, which is a video image captured by the camera, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to view the local video image” and “a process of transmitting a local video image, which is a video image captured by the camera, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to view the local video image”, respectively, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not specify the necessary hardware structure to perform the claimed function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 and 2181. This rejection may be overcome by definitively stating in the specification that the control unit 110 comprises a processor instead of giving an example of a CPU as recited in [0033].
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 1-10 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 claim 1, the claim limitation “a moving mechanism for moving the robot” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As described above in the Claim Interpretation section, the specification discloses the moving mechanism comprises wheels and a drive unit [0029], but the specification does not specify the structure of the drive unit, which is necessary for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-8 are rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “a movement control unit that controls the moving mechanism to move the robot” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While a control unit is disclosed to perform the claimed function, no structure corresponding to the control unit nor “controls the moving mechanism to move the robot” is recited. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-8 are rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “a remote video image processing unit that acquires a remote video image including video images representing a plurality of remote users located at sites different from the current location of the robot from an external network via the communication interface and displays the acquired remote video image on the display” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While a control unit is disclosed to perform the claimed function, no structure corresponding to the control unit is recited. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. This rejection may be overcome by definitively stating in the specification that the control unit 110 comprises a processor instead of giving an example of a CPU as recited in [0033].
Claims 2-8 are rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “a local video image processing unit that transmits a local video image, which is a video image captured by the camera, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to view the local video image” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While a control unit is disclosed to perform the claimed function, no structure corresponding to the control unit is recited. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. This rejection may be overcome by definitively stating in the specification that the control unit 110 comprises a processor instead of giving an example of a CPU as recited in [0033].
Claims 2-8 are rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitation “an information space construction unit that constructs an information space shared by the plurality of remote users on the external network” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While an information space construction unit is disclosed to perform the claimed function, no structure corresponding to the information space construction unit is recited. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 3 is rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, the claim limitation “a local sound processing unit that transmits the local sound, which is the sound acquired by the 360 degree microphone, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to hear the sound in a manner in which the direction of the source of the sound is recognizable” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While a local sound processing unit is disclosed to perform the claimed function, no structure corresponding to the local sound processing unit is recited. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation “a remote sound processing unit that acquires remote sound, which is a sound emitted from the plurality of remote users, from the external network via the communication interface, and outputs the acquired remote sound from the directional speaker in a manner in which the direction of the remote users is recognizable” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While a remote sound processing unit is disclosed to perform the claimed function, no structure corresponding to the remote sound processing unit is recited. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitation “a robot arm control unit that receives operation instructions from the plurality of remote users from the external network via the communication interface and operates the robot arm in response to the received operation instructions” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While a robot arm control unit is disclosed to perform the claimed function, no structure corresponding to the robot arm control unit is recited. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claim limitations “a step of controlling the moving mechanism to move the robot” and “a process of controlling the moving mechanism to move the robot”, respectively, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While a control unit is disclosed to perform the claimed function, no structure corresponding to the control unit nor “controls the moving mechanism to move the robot” is recited. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claim limitations “a step of acquiring a remote video image including video images representing a plurality of remote users located at sites different from the current location of the robot from an external network via the communication interface, and displaying the acquired remote video image on the display” and “a process of acquiring a remote video image including video images representing a plurality of remote users located at sites different from the current location of the robot from an external network via the communication interface, and displaying the acquired remote video image on the display”, respectively, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While a control unit is disclosed to perform the claimed function, no structure corresponding to the control unit is recited. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. This rejection may be overcome by definitively stating in the specification that the control unit 110 comprises a processor instead of giving an example of a CPU as recited in [0033].
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claim limitations “a step of transmitting a local video image, which is a video image captured by the camera, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to view the local video image” and “a process of transmitting a local video image, which is a video image captured by the camera, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to view the local video image”, respectively, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While a control unit is disclosed to perform the claimed function, no structure corresponding to the control unit is recited. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. This rejection may be overcome by definitively stating in the specification that the control unit 110 comprises a processor instead of giving an example of a CPU as recited in [0033].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims contain the limitation of "a computer program", which can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
This rejection may be overcome by amending claim 10 to recite “A non-temporary recording medium on which a computer program is stored” instead of “A computer program”. The “non-temporary recording medium” is disclosed in paragraph [0017] of the Specification. A “non-temporary recording medium” is considered equivalent to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” in this context.
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 1-3, 5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copley and Balasubramanian (US 20220141259 A1; hereafter “Copley”) in view of Sutherland and Wick (US 20210154850 A1; hereafter “Sutherland”).
Regarding claim 1, Copley discloses
A robot, comprising: a display (See “a host device 104 may be in motion… if mounted on a mobile platform or robot” [0054]. See display 106 in host device 104 in Fig. 1 and [0042]. See also [0086].);
a camera (See “The host device 104 is shown as including a video and audio capture device 105, which can include one or more cameras” [0042]. See also 360-degree camera 205 in Fig. 2 and [0049].);
a communication interface (See “The client device(s) 108 and the host device(s) 104 can communicate with one another via the data network 110 to which the client device(s) 108 and the host device(s) 104 are connected wirelessly and/or via one or more wired connections” [0041]. See “Communication capabilities (e.g., provided by a transceiver) of the smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer can be used to provide visual and audio data of the host site 101 and host-side user(s) 102 to communication server(s) 114 and/or client devices 108, and to receive visual and audio data from the communication server(s) 114 and/or client devices 108” [0042]. See also [0040], [0055], and Figs. 1, 4, and 8. See user input interface 814 and network interface 818 in [0085-0086].);
a control unit (See “Host devices, such as the host device 104 in FIG. 1, capture a near real-time video and audio feed from a host site 101 (which is a real-world location), making these feeds available to virtual participants, and also may provide an audio speaker and microphone and optionally a display, thereby enabling communications from virtual participants to the real-world host site 101” [0042]. See also computing device 800, used to implement host device 104 [0083], which has control inputs “to control an avatar in a VR environment” [0085].), wherein the control unit includes:
a remote video image processing unit that acquires a remote video image including video images representing a plurality of remote users located at sites different from the current location of the robot from an external network via the communication interface and displays the acquired remote video image on the display (See “The host device 104… including a display screen 106, which can be used to display one or more video feeds [remote video image/video images] of one or more other participants, as well as one or more avatars [video images] of one or more other participants of a video conference… Communication capabilities (e.g., provided by a transceiver) of the [coupled] smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer can be used… to receive [acquire] visual and audio data from the communication server(s) 114 and/or client devices 108” [0042]. Remote users: “Clients devices 108, such as the client devices 108a and 108b in FIG. 1, are used by remote participants to access the audio-visual feed from one or more host devices 104 [at the current location of the robot] and from other client devices of other client-side users” at different sites/locations [0043]. External data network 110 connects the client devices 108 to host device(s) 104 directly or indirectly through communications servers 114; see Fig. 1 and [0041]. The stored software [0083] that performs the claimed function may be labeled a remote video image processing unit. See also Figs. 4A and 9; [0039], [0045-0048], and [0112].); and
a local video image processing unit that transmits a local video image, which is a video image captured by the camera, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to view the local video image (See “Host devices, such as the host device 104 in FIG. 1, capture a near real-time video and audio feed [local video image/video image] from a host site 101 (which is a real-world location), making these feeds available to virtual participants [remote users], …thereby enabling communications from virtual participants to the real-world host site 101. …a host device 104 can include a 360-degree camera (e.g., 204) that is communicatively coupled to a smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer, or the like. In such an embodiment, the 360-degree camera can be used to capture wide-FOV visual data of a host site 101… Communication capabilities (e.g., provided by a transceiver) of the smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer can be used to provide visual and audio data of the host site 101 and host-side user(s) 102 to communication server(s) 114 and/or client devices 108” [0042]. External data network 110 connects the client devices 108 to host device(s) 104 directly or indirectly through communications servers 114; see Fig. 1 and [0041]. The stored software [0083] that performs the claimed function may be labeled a local video image processing unit. See also Figs. 4A, 9, and 10; [0041], [0043-0050], and [0112].).
However, Copley does not explicitly teach “a moving mechanism for moving the robot; and a control unit, wherein the control unit includes: a movement control unit that controls the moving mechanism to move the robot.”
Sutherland, in the same field of endeavor (telepresence robots), teaches
a moving mechanism for moving the robot (See base sub-assembly 18 in Figs. 1, 4, 5, and 6. Base sub-assembly comprises three omni-wheels 20 driven by brushless DC motors 62 to “achieve the desired ability under programmed motion control to effect varying speeds in varying directions” [0080]. See also [0101-0103] for more mechanical details.); and
a control unit (See “The main circuit card 64 containing the embedded micro-controller” [0104]. See also [0068] and [0106-0107].), wherein the control unit includes:
a movement control unit that controls the moving mechanism to move the robot (See “one of the key processors on the main circuit card [64] is a FPGA which simultaneously monitors the hall-effect sensors in each brushless motor 62 and varies the pulses to each of three coil phases in each of the motors to precisely, and simultaneously, control the speed of each motor to effect the desired overall motion of the virtual presence robot. If each motor has its own embedded controller, then similar speed control signals are passed to individual motor controllers daisy chained via I2C” [0106]. See also [0080-0081].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teleconferencing system of Copley with the telepresence robot of Sutherland. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to enable the user to freely explore remote surroundings” (Sutherland, [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Copley/Sutherland discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Copley additionally discloses
wherein the control unit further includes an information space construction unit that constructs an information space shared by the plurality of remote users on the external network (See “The overall effect of the shared 3D model [information space] is to create a shared 3D context among both remote and local users. The aforementioned model generation system can be implemented by… one or more host devices 104, 304” [0058]. The remote users 112 receive audio-visual feeds of the host site and other remote users based on the virtual locations of their client devices 108 in the generated 3D model [0058]. External data network 110 connects the client devices 108 to host device(s) 104 directly or indirectly through communications servers 114; see Fig. 1 and [0041]. The stored software [0083] that performs the claimed function may be labeled an information space construction unit. See also [0042], [0045-0048], [0050], [0057], [0061-0062], [0083], and Figs. 4 and 9-11.), and
wherein the local video image processing unit projects the local video image to the information space to cause the plurality of remote users virtually located in the information space to view the local video image (See “visual data [local video image] collected from one or more host devices 104… can be used to generate a partial or complete three-dimensional (3D) model of a host site (e.g., 301), registering the location of some or all of the host devices in space” [0057]. As above, the 3D model is generated by the host device 104 [0058] comprising the local video image processing unit [0083]. Virtually located: see “the client devices 108 (e.g., 108a and 108b) which display [to the remote users] the visual feed generated by the host device 104 can be considered to have a “virtual location” in the host site space (e.g., 101, 301) that corresponds to the host device 104” [0058]. See also [0042], [0045-0048], [0050], [0058], [0061-0062], [0083], and Figs. 4 and 9-11.).
Regarding claim 3, Copley/Sutherland discloses the limitations of claim 2 as addressed above, and Copley additionally discloses
wherein the remote video image includes video images of avatars of the plurality of remote users (See “The host device 104… including a display screen 106, which can be used to display one or more video feeds [remote video image/video images] of one or more other participants, as well as one or more avatars [video images] of one or more other participants of a video conference” [0042]. See also [0039], [0045], [0047].).
Regarding claim 5, Copley/Sutherland discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Copley additionally discloses
wherein the camera is a 360 degree camera (See “The host device 104 is shown as including a video and audio capture device 105, which can include… a wide-FOV capture device, such as a 360-degree camera” [0042]. See also Fig. 2, [0044], and [0049].).
See also [0065] and [0068-0070] of Sutherland.
Regarding claim 9, Copley discloses
A robot control method for controlling a robot having a display, a camera, a communication interface, and a moving mechanism (Display: see “a host device 104 may be in motion… if mounted on a mobile platform or robot” [0054]. See display 106 in host device 104 in Fig. 1 and [0042]. Camera: see “The host device 104 is shown as including a video and audio capture device 105, which can include one or more cameras” [0042]. See also 360-degree camera 205 in Fig. 2 and [0049]. Communication interface: see “The client device(s) 108 and the host device(s) 104 can communicate with one another via the data network 110 to which the client device(s) 108 and the host device(s) 104 are connected wirelessly and/or via one or more wired connections” [0041]. See “Communication capabilities (e.g., provided by a transceiver) of the smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer can be used to provide visual and audio data of the host site 101 and host-side user(s) 102 to communication server(s) 114 and/or client devices 108, and to receive visual and audio data from the communication server(s) 114 and/or client devices 108” [0042]. See also [0040], [0055], [0085-0086], and Figs. 1, 4, and 8.), comprising:
a step of acquiring a remote video image including video images representing a plurality of remote users located at sites different from the current location of the robot from an external network via the communication interface, and displaying the acquired remote video image on the display (See “The host device 104… including a display screen 106, which can be used to display one or more video feeds [remote video image/video images] of one or more other participants, as well as one or more avatars [video images] of one or more other participants of a video conference… Communication capabilities (e.g., provided by a transceiver) of the [coupled] smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer can be used… to receive [acquire] visual and audio data from the communication server(s) 114 and/or client devices 108” [0042]. Remote users: “Clients devices 108, such as the client devices 108a and 108b in FIG. 1, are used by remote participants to access the audio-visual feed from one or more host devices 104 [at the current location of the robot] and from other client devices of other client-side users” at different sites/locations [0043]. External data network 110 connects the client devices 108 to host device(s) 104 directly or indirectly through communications servers 114; see Fig. 1 and [0041]. See also Figs. 4A and 9; [0039], [0045-0048], and [0112].); and
a step of transmitting a local video image, which is a video image captured by the camera, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to view the local video image (See “Host devices, such as the host device 104 in FIG. 1, capture a near real-time video and audio feed [local video image/video image] from a host site 101 (which is a real-world location), making these feeds available [transmitting] to virtual participants [remote users], …thereby enabling communications from virtual participants to the real-world host site 101. …a host device 104 can include a 360-degree camera (e.g., 204) that is communicatively coupled to a smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer, or the like. In such an embodiment, the 360-degree camera can be used to capture wide-FOV visual data of a host site 101… Communication capabilities (e.g., provided by a transceiver) of the smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer can be used to provide visual and audio data of the host site 101 and host-side user(s) 102 to communication server(s) 114 and/or client devices 108” [0042]. External data network 110 connects the client devices 108 to host device(s) 104 directly or indirectly through communications servers 114; see Fig. 1 and [0041]. See also Figs. 4A, 9, and 10; [0041], [0043-0050], and [0112].).
However, Copley does not explicitly teach “a step of controlling the moving mechanism to move the robot.”
Sutherland, in the same field of endeavor (telepresence robots), teaches
a step of controlling the moving mechanism to move the robot (See “one of the key processors on the main circuit card [64] is a FPGA which simultaneously monitors the hall-effect sensors in each brushless motor 62 and varies the pulses to each of three coil phases in each of the motors to precisely, and simultaneously, control the speed of each motor to effect the desired overall motion of the virtual presence robot. If each motor has its own embedded controller, then similar speed control signals are passed to individual motor controllers daisy chained via I2C” [0106]. The motors 62 and omni-wheels 20 are comprised in the moving mechanism. See also [0080-0081], [0101-0103], and Figs. 1, 4, 5, and 6.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control of a teleconferencing system of Copley with the control of a telepresence robot of Sutherland. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to enable the user to freely explore remote surroundings” (Sutherland, [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, these claim limitations are significantly similar to those of claim 9; and, thus, are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copley in view of Sutherland, and further in view of Kimber et al. (US 20180316856 A1; hereafter “Kimber”).
Regarding claim 4, Copley/Sutherland discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Sutherland additionally discloses “A panorama 360 degree view of the immediate surroundings of the base of the virtual presence robot is shown in a wide window 98” transmitted to a client display in Fig. 10 [0117].
However, Copley/Sutherland do not explicitly teach “wherein the [robot’s] display is a 360 degree display.”
Kimber, in the same field of endeavor (teleconferencing systems), teaches
wherein the display is a 360 degree display (“FIGS. 3(a) to 3(f) illustrate example spherical and cylindrical displays” [0026], which show 360-degree video [0015]. Such a display can be used “for portable telepresence devices” [0016], where the controller of the display is in a vehicle [0039]. See also [0017-0019].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the telepresence robot of Copley/Sutherland with a 360-degree display of Kimber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to display a remote participant [in such a way that] indicates where they are looking without requiring moving mechanisms, and… to present stabilized display for portable telepresence devices” (Kimber, [0016]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copley in view of Sutherland, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20110292193 A1; hereafter “Wang ‘193”).
Regarding claim 6, Copley/Sutherland disclose the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Sutherland additionally discloses
the robot further comprising: a… microphone (See “equipping the virtual presence robot head unit with an array of cameras and microphones capturing a full 360 degree, 3D, high resolution view and multi-directional sound” [0124]. See also [0042] and [0049] of Copley.).
Copley additionally discloses
wherein the control unit further includes a local sound processing unit that transmits the local sound, which is the sound acquired by the… microphone, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to hear the sound in a manner in which the direction of the source of the sound is recognizable (External data network 110 connects the client devices 108 to host device(s) 104 directly or indirectly through communications servers 114 via a network interface 818; see Figs. 1 and 8 and [0041]. See “One or more microphones… can be used to obtain audio data from the host site 101 [local sound]… Communication capabilities (e.g., provided by a transceiver) of the smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer can be used to provide [transmit] visual and audio data of the host site 101 and host-side user(s) 102 to communication server(s) 114 and/or client devices 108” [0042]. See “One or more additional microphones can also be included to provide improved audio capture and/or stereoscopic or spatial audio” [0049]. The computing device 800 used to implement the client devices [0083] used by remote users comprises “the audio output device 824 provides for stereo sound, and more specifically, at least two-channel (e.g., left and right) audio, and potentially more than two-channel audio” “in order to enable a user to experience spatialized sound,” which allows a person to recognize a direction (left, right, etc.) of the source of the sound [0086]. The stored software [0083] that performs the claimed function may be labeled a local sound processing unit. See also [0064] and Figs. 4A, 9, and 10.).
However, Copley/Sutherland do not explicitly teach “the robot further comprising: a 360 degree microphone” and “the local sound, which is the sound acquired by the 360 degree microphone.”
Wang ‘193, in the same field of endeavor (telepresence robots), teaches
the robot further comprising: a 360 degree microphone (“Each robot face 14 includes a camera(s) 40, a monitor 42, a microphone(s) 44” [0013]. See “The microphones 44 may include both a directional (cardioid) microphone and an omni-directional microphone” [0014]. An omni-directional microphone is a 360 degree microphone.).
Copley/Sutherland disclose multi-directional audio at a host site is captured by microphone(s), transmitted over a network, and provided to remote users as stereoscopic or spatialized sound (see above citations, particularly [0049] and [0086] of Copley). Wang ‘193 teaches the microphones on the robot comprise an omni-directional/360-degree microphone. In combination, Copley/Sutherland and Wang ‘193 teach transmitting “the local sound, which is the sound acquired by the 360 degree microphone, to the external network via the communication interface to cause the plurality of remote users to hear the sound in a manner in which the direction of the source of the sound is recognizable.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the telepresence robot of Copley/Sutherland to have an omni-directional microphone of Wang ‘193. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of recording omni-directional audio “when a more rapid discussion around the table [or robot] is occurring” (Wang ‘193, [0014]).
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copley in view of Sutherland, and further in view of Valli and Siltanen (WO 2018005235 A1; hereafter “Valli”).
Regarding claim 7, Copley/Sutherland disclose the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Sutherland additionally discloses
the robot further comprising: a… speaker (See large speaker 28 of virtual presence robot 2 in Fig. 1. See also [0055].).
Copley additionally discloses
wherein the control unit further includes a remote sound processing unit that acquires remote sound, which is a sound emitted from the plurality of remote users, from the external network via the communication interface, and outputs the acquired remote sound from the… speaker in a manner in which the direction of the remote users is recognizable (External data network 110 connects the client devices 108 to host device(s) 104 directly or indirectly through communications servers 114 via a network interface 818; see Figs. 1 and 8 and [0041]. See “The host device 104 can also include one or more speakers that output audio of other participants of a video conference [remote sound]… Communication capabilities (e.g., provided by a transceiver) of the smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer can be used… to receive [acquire] visual and audio data [remote sound] from the communication server(s) 114 and/or client devices 108” used by remote users [0042]. See “The host display devices 408 may also use virtual audio techniques to spatially position a client-side user's audio [remote sound] at the appropriate location, so it sounds like audio from a client-side user 112 [remote user] is originating from their virtual location at the host site 401” [0064]. The computing device 800 used to implement the host devices [0083] comprises an “audio output device 824 [speaker(s), which] provides for stereo sound” “in order to enable a user to experience spatialized sound” [0086]. The stored software [0083] that performs the claimed function may be labeled a remote sound processing unit. See also [0043], [0061-0062], and Figs. 4A, 9, and 10.).
However, Copley/Sutherland do not explicitly teach “a directional speaker, wherein the control unit further includes a remote sound processing unit that acquires remote sound, which is a sound emitted from the plurality of remote users, from the external network via the communication interface, and outputs the acquired remote sound from the directional speaker in a manner in which the direction of the remote users is recognizable.”
Valli, in the same field of endeavor (telepresence systems), teaches
a directional speaker (See “Audio system producing and capturing spatial audio so that remote participant's sound seems to be coming from direction of the corresponding video stream… In some embodiments, the audio system may include a directional multi-speaker system” [0071].),
…outputs the acquired remote sound from the directional speaker in a manner in which the direction of the remote users is recognizable (See “It may be beneficial for a local participant to realize which one of the remote participants is talking, based on the direction of the audio. For this purpose, the system may be equipped with a spatial audio system, allowing the audio from the remote participants to be mixed so that a remote participant's sound seems to be coming from direction of the corresponding video stream. Such embodiments may be achieved by a multi-speaker audio system in the local site” [0100]. See also [0120].).
Copley/Sutherland disclose receiving audio transmitted over a network from a remote site and providing the received audio to host site users as stereoscopic or spatialized sound (see above citations, particularly [0049] and [0086] of Copley) from a robot’s speakers (Sutherland, [0055]). Valli teaches using a directional multi-speaker system such that a “remote participant's sound seems to be coming from direction of the corresponding video stream” [0071]. In combination, Copley/Sutherland and Valli teach transmitting “a directional speaker, wherein the control unit further includes a remote sound processing unit that acquires remote sound, which is a sound emitted from the plurality of remote users, from the external network via the communication interface, and outputs the acquired remote sound from the directional speaker in a manner in which the direction of the remote users is recognizable.”
The robot of Copley/Sutherland differs from the claimed robot in that the speakers of Copley/Sutherland are not directional. As shown above, directional speaker systems and their functions, like that disclosed by Valli, were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have performed the simple substitution of the speaker system of Copley/Sutherland with the speaker system of Valli, and the results of the substitution would have predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the telepresence robot of Copley/Sutherland with the directional speaker system of Valli.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copley in view of Sutherland, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20050021187 A1; “Wang ‘187”).
Regarding claim 8, Copley/Sutherland disclose the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above. However, Copley/Sutherland do not explicitly teach “further comprising: a robot arm, wherein the control unit further includes a robot arm control unit that receives operation instructions from the plurality of remote users from the external network via the communication interface and operates the robot arm in response to the received operation instructions.”
Wang ‘187, in the same field of endeavor (telepresence robots), teaches
further comprising: a robot arm (See “The arm 114 may have an end effector 116 such as a gripper that can grasp objects” [0030]. The arm 114 of robot 116 is shown in two different positions in Figs. 4 and 5. See also [0036-0041].),
wherein the control unit further includes a robot arm control unit that receives operation instructions from the plurality of remote users from the external network via the communication interface and operates the robot arm in response to the received operation instructions (See Fig. 1: “The robotic system 10 includes a robot 12, a base station 14 and a remote control station 16. The remote control station 16 may be coupled to the base station 14 through a[n external] network 18” [0019]. See “the low level controller 52 [of robot 12] provides instructions… to actuate an arm of the robot. The low level controller 52 may receive movement instructions from the high level controller 50. The movement instructions may be received as movement commands from the remote control station” [0025], allowing “a user at the remote control station 16 to move the robot 12 through the input device 32” of the computer 22 of the remote control station 16 [0021]. The network connections of the robot 12 and remote control station 16 and input device 32 are communication interfaces. The low level controller 52 and high level controller 50 (and stored software) are the control unit and robot arm control unit. Plurality of remote users: “any number of robots 12 may be controlled by any number of remote stations… one robot 12 may be coupled to a plurality of remote stations 16” [0020]. See also [0023], [0027], and [0044].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the telepresence robot of Copley/Sutherland with the robot arm of Wang ‘187. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of remotely controlling the robot arm to grasp objects, including loading items for transport (Wang ‘187, [0030-0031]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moya Ly whose telephone number is (571)272-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am-6:00 pm 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/MOYA LY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights