DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the filing of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/887,41 filed on September 17, 2024. Claims 1-14 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Japanese Patent Application No. JP2023-158718, filed on September 22, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 17, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFT 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 13 and 14 are objected to for the use of “the basis” and claim 2 is objected to for the use of “the number of times” and “the number” as each of the elements lack proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 11,135,726, to Hayashi.
As per claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 13 and 14, Hayashi discloses an electronic device comprising a processor configured to update, in a case of an approaching state, a personality parameter representing a pseudo personality of an own device on the basis of a personality parameter representing a pseudo personality of another device (e.g. see Figs. 6, Abstract, and col. 12, lines 24-46, col. 14, lines 43-51, col. 18, lines 45-57, wherein a guest robot 100b (i.e. an own device) receives behavioral characteristic information (i.e. a personality parameter representing a pseudo personality) of a host robot 100a (i.e. another device), including, at a minimum, shyness), the approaching state being a state in which the own device approaches the another device of the same type as the own device within a predetermined distance (e.g. see Figs. 7-8, col. 9, line 1, to col. 10, line 46, wherein the robots have near-field communication capabilities, which requires being within a predetermined distance based upon the type of communication, for the guest robot to receive accreditation and receipt of the host robot’s behavioral characteristics) or a state in which a terminal device corresponding to the another device approaches a terminal device corresponding to the own device within the predetermined distance.
As per claim 2, Hayashi discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: cause the own device to execute an action corresponding to the personality parameter of the own device (e.g. see Abstract, wherein the guest robot, at a minimum, selects a motion (i.e. execute an action) in accordance to the behavioral characteristics information); and cause, in a case of the approaching state, the own device to execute actions corresponding to the number of times of approach that is the number of times the own device has entered the approaching state with the another device (e.g. the Office notes that the pairing of robots would occur every time they are in near-field communication range (i.e. execute actions corresponding to the number of times of approach)).
As per claim 3, Hayashi discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: update, in a case where the personality parameter of the own device is updated not on the basis of the personality parameter of the another device, the personality parameter of the own device to a parameter within a restricted range determined in advance (e.g. see col. 10, lines 4-18, wherein behavior restrictions are placed upon the guest robot); and update, in a case where the personality parameter of the own device is updated on the basis of the personality parameter of the another device, the personality parameter of the own device to a parameter outside the restricted range (e.g. the Office notes that once the guest robot leaves, the restrictions would be removed).
As per claim 6, Hayashi discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the processor is configured to add, in a case where the approaching state is acquired, each personality value of the personality parameter of the another device to each personality value of the personality parameter of the own device to update the personality parameter of the own device (e.g. see col. 10, lines 19-46, wherein the behavioral characteristics of the host robot are transmitted to the guest robot to be added (i.e. each personality value)).
As per claim 7, Hayashi discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the processor is configured to estimate the approaching state between the own device and the another device of the same type as the own device on the basis of radio field intensity of a signal received by the own device from the another device (e.g. see Figs. 7-8, col. 9, line 1, to col. 10, line 46, wherein the robots have near-field communication capabilities (i.e. utilize radio field intensity for estimating an approaching state), which requires being within a predetermined distance based upon the type of communication, for the guest robot to receive accreditation and receipt of the host robot’s behavioral characteristics).
As per claim 8, Hayashi discloses the features of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the processor is configured to estimate that the approaching state is closer as the radio field intensity of the signal received by the own device from the another device is higher (e.g. see Figs. 7-8, col. 9, line 1, to col. 10, line 46, wherein the robots have near-field communication capabilities (i.e. utilize radio field intensity for estimating an approaching state), which requires being within a predetermined distance based upon the type of communication, for the guest robot to receive accreditation and receipt of the host robot’s behavioral characteristics).
As per claim 9, Hayashi discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the processor is configured to update the personality parameter of the own device on the basis of a length of time during which the own device is in the approaching state (e.g. the Office notes that there would have to be a minimum amount of time for near-field communication to be established between the robots).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayash, in view of Designer’s Choice.
As per claim 4, Hayashi discloses the features of claim 2, but fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: set intimacy between the own device and the another device on the basis of the number of times of approach; and update, in a case where the intimacy exceeds a threshold, the personality parameter of the own device on the basis of the personality parameter of the another device. However, Hayashi teaches that restrictions can be removed (update a personal parameter) once a new robot becomes accustomed to the area (i.e. formed intimacy) (e.g. see col. 26, lines 4-16). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the Hayashi to include updating a personal parameter based upon a number of approaches, as opposed to time, as a matter of Designer’s Choice for ascertaining intimacy.
As per claim 10, Hayashi, as modified by Designer’s Choice, teaches the features of claim 4, and Hayashi further discloses wherein the processor is configured to update the intimacy on the basis of an elapsed time from a latest date and time when the own device has been in the approaching state (e.g. see col. 26, lines 4-16, wherein Hayashi teaches that restrictions can be removed (update a personal parameter) once a new robot becomes accustomed to the area (i.e. elapsed time).
As per claim 11, Hayashi, as modified by Designer’s Choice, teaches the features of claim 10, and Hayashi further discloses wherein the processor is configured to update the intimacy in a case where an elapsed time from a date and time when the own device is in the approaching state with the another device of the same type as the own device exceeds a predetermined time (e.g. see col. 26, lines 4-16, wherein Hayashi teaches that restrictions can be removed (update a personal parameter) once a new robot becomes accustomed to the area (i.e. a predetermined elapsed time).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayash, in view of Designer’s Choice, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0288791, to Iida et al. (hereinafter Iida).
As per claim 5, Hayashi, as modified by Designer’s Choice, teaches the features of claim 4, but fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to correct, in a case of the approaching state and a case where an external stimulus to the own device is detected by a predetermined sensor, the intimacy on the basis of the external stimulus. However, Iida teaches establishing Intimacy between a robot and a person based upon a number of contacts therebetween. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the Hayashi to include utilizing a number of contracts for establishing intimacy for the purpose of ensuring a relationship thererbetween.
As per claim 12, Hayashi, as modified by Designer’s Choice, teaches the features of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to add or subtract, in a case where the own device is in the approaching state with the another device and an external stimulus to the own device has been detected, the intimacy in accordance with the external stimulus. However, Iida teaches establishing Intimacy between a robot and a person based upon a number of contacts therebetween. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the Hayashi to include utilizing a number of contracts for establishing intimacy for the purpose of ensuring a relationship thererbetween.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. 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.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B