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 the Claims
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are as follows:
“A movement module” recited in Claims 1-18;
“An interaction module” recited in Claims 1-18;
“A control module” recited in Claims 1-18;
“An identify authentication unit” recited in Claim 7;
“A communication module” recited in Claims 8-17;
“An audio pickup element” recited in Claims 8-16;
“An audio output element” recited in Claim 8-16;
“An image display element” recited in Claim 10;
“An image capture element” recited in Claim 10;
“A conversation module” recited in Claims 12-16;
“An audio processing unit” recited in Claim 15;
“A speech recognition unit” recited in Claim 15;
“A response generation unit” recited in Claim 15;
“A speech synthesis unit” recited in Claim 15;
“A response optimization unit” recited in Claim 16; and
“A storage unit” recited in Claim 18.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 1-18 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, Claim 1 recites “the control module is configured to control the interaction module to interact with the care recipient according to the caregiving task information independently without intervention of the caregiver.” This is deemed new matter, as the feature of the robot interacting with the care recipient “independently without intervention of the caregiver” is not disclosed by the as-filed Specification. For example, [0016] of the as-filed Specification discloses that “the interaction module 12 is configured to receive one or more input instructions from a caregiver,” and “the control module controls the caregiving robot 1 to perform a caregiving task according to the input instruction.” Additionally, [0025] of the as-filed Specification discloses that “the caregiver can remotely control the caregiving robot 1 to perform the caregiving task in a specific mode.” That is, the Specification discloses enabling a caregiver to input an instruction, wherein the input instruction enables the caregiver to control the robot to perform caregiving tasks. The Specification does not disclose enabling the robot to interact with the care recipient “independently without intervention of the caregiver.” In the interest of compact prosecution, this language will be interpreted as at least some aspect of the interaction being performed automatically. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent Claims 2-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their dependence from independent Claim 1.
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 1-18 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, Claim 1 recites “an interaction module, configured to receive an input instruction from a caregiver…wherein the care instruction at least comprises…a caregiving task information,” and “a control module is configured to control the interaction module to interact with the care recipient according to the caregiving task information independently without intervention of the caregiver.” That is, Claim 1 recites receiving an input instruction including caregiving task information from a caregiver, further recites interacting with a care recipient based on the received caregiving task information, and further recites that this interaction is performed “independently without intervention of the caregiver.” However, it is unclear how the control module can interact with the care recipient “independently without intervention of the caregiver” when the system requires caregiver input to initiate the interaction, and wherein the interaction is performed “according to” the input instruction received from the caregiver. In the interest of compact prosecution, this language will be interpreted as at least some aspect of the interaction being performed automatically. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent Claims 2-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependence from independent Claim 1.
Subject Matter Eligibility
Examiner notes that Claims 1-18 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The following represents Examiner' s rationale as to why the present invention is patent eligible in view of 35 U.S.C. 101.
The present invention is not properly interpreted as being directed towards the abstract idea of a mathematical concept because it is not directed towards a mathematical relationship, formula, equation, and/or calculation. Additionally, the present invention is not reasonably interpreted as being directed towards the abstract idea of a mental process because it is not reasonably interpreted as observations, evaluations, judgments and/or opinions that are reasonably performed in the human mind. Furthermore, the present invention is not properly interpreted as being directed towards the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because it is not reasonably interpreted as a fundamental economic principle or practice, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Instead, the present claimed invention recites a caregiving robot comprising a movement module, an interaction module, and a control module, e.g. see Claim 1. Additionally, as shown above, the aforementioned modules are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and comprise hardware/structural limitations that are disclosed in the as-filed Specification. That is, the claimed invention recites at least a hardware-implemented robot configured to receive patient-related data including a location, and in response to the received data, cause movement of the robot to the location specified in the received data. Hence, Examiner asserts that this is not properly interpreted as reciting an abstract idea.
However, even assuming, arguendo, that the present invention was properly interpreted as being directed towards the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activities (e.g. following rules or instructions dictating personal behavior or relationships or interactions between a caregiver and a care recipient), it nonetheless includes additional elements that integrate any purported abstract ideas into a practical application. Specifically, [0016] of the as-filed Specification discloses that the movement module may include wheels, tracks, or other movement components driven by a motor, and further that the control module is electronically connected to the movement module and configured to control the movement module to make the caregiving robot move to a target location where the care recipient is located, wherein the target location is included in the input instruction from a caregiver. That is, the as-filed Specification discloses the control module (i.e. a processor) receiving location data and controlling the movement module (i.e. a physical structure such as wheels) to move the caregiving robot to a location corresponding to the received location data to perform a caregiving task, which constitutes implementing the abstract idea (i.e. a certain method of organizing human activities) with the use of a particular machine, which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(b).
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-18 are patent eligible in view of 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2013/0325244) in view of Oda (US 2022/0208328).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches the following: A caregiving robot, comprising:
a movement module, configured to enable the caregiving robot to move (The system includes a robot comprising a drive system that enables omni-directional and/or holonomic motion control of the robot, e.g. see Wang [0155] and [0158].);
an interaction module, configured to receive an input instruction from a caregiver and interact with a care recipient according to the input instruction (The robot enables videoconferencing (i.e. an interaction between a caregiver and care recipient) through an interface module, e.g. see Wang [0173]-[0174], and the robot may receive user commands (i.e. input instructions) from a user, e.g. see Wang [0169], [0171], [0315]-[0316], and [0342].), wherein the input instruction at least comprises a target location information of the care recipient and a caregiving task information (The robot receives a user command specifying a location for the robot to move to, e.g. see Wang [0307], [0314], and [0342], and further receives an instruction for a task to be performed, e.g. see Wang [0217]-[0220], Fig. 6C.), wherein the caregiving task information comprises a task mode and/or corresponding task actions (The instructions may include various controls over the robot, for example media controls enabling a user to acquire and store media (i.e. corresponding task actions), e.g. see Wang Fig. 6C.); and
a control module, electrically connected to the movement module and the interaction module and configured to control the movement module and the interaction module (The robot includes a controller that coordinates the operations of and the movement of the robot, e.g. see Wang [0155], [0205], Fig. 5.), wherein the control module is configured to perform a caregiving task according to the input instruction received by the interaction module (The robot receives a an instruction for a task to be performed, for example media controls that enable a user to interact with a patient by documenting interactions or playing audio or video clips to educate the patient, e.g. see Wang [0217]-[0220], Fig. 6C.), during execution of the caregiving task, the control module is configured to control the movement module to make the caregiving robot move to a target location where the care recipient is located according to the target location information (The robot receives a user command specifying a location for the robot to move to and causes the robot to move to the specified location, e.g. see Wang [0307], [0314], and [0342]-[0343].), and when the caregiving robot arrives at the target location, the control module is configured to control the interaction module to interact with the care recipient according to the caregiving task information independently without intervention of the caregiver so as to collect health status input from the care recipient (The robot includes various controls that enables a user to interact with a patient and documents the interactions, for example by acquiring photographs and/or audio/video of the patient to document various conditions, e.g. see Wang [0217]-[0220], Fig. 6C. Additionally, the robot performs functions/actions based on tag information comprising a robot action modifier, wherein the tag may be created by a user, automatically by a terminal, and/or automatically by a robot, e.g. see Wang [0318].), wherein the control module is further configured to generate a status report according to the health status input (The system includes a web-based portal for gathering and/or providing information including personal information and robot status information, wherein the portal may collect data and report on actions performed by the robot and/or a person or an environment viewed by the robot, e.g. see Wang [0229].), and the status report comprises health status information and status evaluation information of the care recipient (The system collects data and reports on actions performed by the robot and/or a person or an environment viewed by the robot, e.g. see Wang [0229], wherein the robot may gather medical condition information (i.e. health status information and status evaluation information) for the patient viewed by the robot, e.g. see Wang [0219].).
But Wang does not teach and Oda teaches the following:
wherein the input instruction further comprises an identity information of the care recipient (The system includes a mobile robot including a display unit and an operation interface that enables it to receive an instruction input from the user, e.g. see Oda [0098], wherein the input may include a patient name, e.g. see Oda [0104] and [0128].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Wang to incorporate receiving an input of the patient name as taught by Oda in order to ensure that the proper recipient receives the proper medication, e.g. see Oda [0004]-[0005].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Wang and Oda teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Wang further teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 1, wherein according to the input instruction from the caregiver, the control module performs the caregiving task once (The robot receives an instruction for a task to be performed, e.g. see Wang [0217]-[0220], Fig. 6C, and performs the task, e.g. see Wang [0219].), periodically or when a certain condition is met, and the certain condition comprises that the care recipient does not respond to a contact attempt from the caregiver.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Wang and Oda teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Wang further teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 1, wherein the interaction module comprises an operation interface configured for the caregiver to operate to provide the input instruction (The robot includes a plurality of media controls that allow the user to input various commands, for example to play audio and/or video clips, obtain photographs of a patient, and document the user’s interaction with the patient, e.g. see Wang [0219], Fig. 6C.).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Wang and Oda teaches the limitations of Claim 3, and Wang further teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 3, wherein the operation interface is further configured for the care recipient to operate to input an instruction, and the control module is further configured to perform the caregiving task according to the instruction input by the care recipient through the operation interface (The robot includes a plurality of media controls that allow the user to input various commands, for example to play audio and/or video clips, obtain photographs of a patient, and document the user’s interaction with the patient, e.g. see Wang [0219], Fig. 6C.).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Wang and Oda teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Wang further teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 1, further comprising a communication module electrically connected to the control module, wherein the communication module is configured to communicate with a management device of the caregiver (The system includes a remote operator computing device (i.e. a management device of the caregiver) operated by a doctor that enables communication between the doctor and the patient, e.g. see Wang [0217] and [0329], Fig. 6C), the interaction module comprises an audio pickup element and an audio output element, the audio pickup element is configured to capture sound and generate a sound signal accordingly, and the audio output element is configured to play sound according to a received sound signal (The robot includes a microphone (i.e. an audio pickup element) and speakers (i.e. an audio output element) that are used for the videoconferencing, e.g. see Wang [0174]-[0175].).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Wang and Oda teaches the limitations of Claim 8, and Wang further teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 8, wherein in the caregiving task, when the caregiving robot arrives at the target location, the control module is configured to control the communication module and the interaction module to initiate communication between the caregiver and the care recipient, which allows the caregiver to check a health status of the care recipient via the communication (The robot initiates a videoconference (i.e. communication) between the doctor and patient, wherein the robot may acquire photographs to document various patient conditions (i.e. health statuses), e.g. see Wang [0219].).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Wang and Oda teaches the limitations of Claim 9, and Wang further teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 9, wherein the communication between the caregiver and the care recipient is a video call, the interaction module further comprises an image capture element and an image display element, the image capture element is configured to capture an image of the care recipient and generate an image signal accordingly, and the image display element is configured to display an image according to an image signal received by the communication module (The robot initiates a videoconference (i.e. a video call) between the doctor and patient, wherein the videoconference displays a video (i.e. an image) of the patient and the physician, e.g. see Wang [0217], Fig. 6C.).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Wang and Oda teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Wang further teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 1, further comprising a communication module electrically connected to the control module, wherein the communication module is configured to communicate with a management device of the caregiver and transmit the status report to the management device (The system includes a web portal that facilitates patient data collection, e.g. see Wang [0229], wherein the patient data may be accessed by a computing device used by a web pad and/or a remote user device (i.e. a management device of the caregiver), e.g. see Wang [0217], Fig. 6C.).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Wang and Oda teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Wang further teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 1, wherein the control module comprises a storage unit configured to store data required for the caregiving robot to perform the caregiving task, the status report generated by the control module, and/or software executed by the control module (The controller stores applications that are allowed to control the robot, e.g. see Wang [0205], wherein the applications can be stored in memory, e.g. see Wang [0206], Fig. 5.).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wang and Oda in view of Kayser (US 2022/0367043).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Wang and Oda teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Kayser teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 1, wherein the control module is configured to automatically identify a language used by the care recipient according to an interaction between the interaction module and the care recipient, and the control module controls the interaction module to continue the interaction with the care recipient in the language (The system detects the patient language spoken by a patient (i.e. an interaction), and automatically outputs first information in the detected language, e.g. see Kayser [0009] and [0078], wherein the first information output by the system includes various information such as information enabling participation in a video conference with a care provider and/or patient instructions, e.g. see Kayser [0047]-[0051].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Wang and Oda to incorporate detecting the patient language and proceeding in the patient language as taught by Kayser in order to conform to patient preferences, e.g. see Kayser [0078].
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Wang and Oda teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Kayser teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 1, wherein the control module knows a language used by the care recipient according to the identity information of the care recipient, and the control module is configured to control the interaction module to interact with the care recipient in the language during the execution of the caregiving task (The system includes patient information (i.e. identity information of the care recipient) indicating a patient name and a preferred language for the patient, e.g. see Kayser [0094], wherein the system translates words into a language preferred by the patient, e.g. see Kayser [0078].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Wang and Oda to incorporate detecting the patient language and proceeding in the patient language as taught by Kayser in order to conform to patient preferences, e.g. see Kayser [0078].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wang and Oda in view of Chiang (US 2017/0323074).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Wang and Oda teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Chiang teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 1, wherein the control module comprises an identity authentication unit configured to authenticate identities of the caregiver and the care recipient, in the caregiving task, when the caregiving robot arrives at the target location, the identity authentication unit authenticates the identity of the care recipient to ensure that the identity of the care recipient matches the identity information included in the input instruction (The system receives a physician log-in data, authenticates the log-in data, receives patient identity data such as the patient’s name, authenticates the patient identification information, and after authenticating the physician and the patient enables an on-demand all-points telemedicine (APTM) consultation session between the physician and the patient, e.g. see Chiang [0037], wherein the APTM consultation session includes high-definition video conferencing, e.g. see Chiang [0021].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Wang and Oda to incorporate authenticating the physician and patient to engage in the consultation as taught by Chiang in order to be HIPAA-compliant and secure, e.g. see Chiang [0029].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wang and Oda in view of Durlach (US 2019/0198167).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Wang and Oda teaches the limitations of Claim 9, but does not teach and Duralach teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 9, wherein in the caregiving task, when the caregiving robot arrives at the target location, the control module is configured to control the communication module and the interaction module to initiate the communication between the caregiver and the care recipient if the control module knows that a health status of the care recipient doesn’t meet a preset condition through the interaction module (The system detects a patient condition, for example determining that the patient’s blood pressure exceeds predetermined thresholds (i.e. doesn’t meet a preset condition), e.g. see Durlach [0087], and further initiates a videoconference (i.e. communication) between the patient and caregiver based on the detected patient condition, e.g. see Durlach [0094]-[0096].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Wang and Oda to incorporate initiating the videoconference based on the patient condition as taught by Durlach in order to enable the remote control of the patient monitoring while maintaining patient comfort and safety, e.g. see Durlach [0003].
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wang and Oda in view of Kidd (US 2017/0228520).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Wang and Oda teaches the limitations of Claim 8, but does not teach and Kidd teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 8, wherein the control module further comprises a conversation module configured to generate response content for responding to human’s speech based on a language model; in the caregiving task, when the caregiving robot arrives at the target location, the conversation module is configured to control the interaction module to engage in a conversation with the care recipient based on the language model so as to check a health status of the care recipient through the conversation (The system includes a companion robot that obtains patient inputs and determines a model for interactions with the patient based on the patient inputs including patient medical conditions, e.g. see Kidd [0030]-[0031], [0036], and [0040], Fig. 1B, wherein the interactions include a conversation with the patient, e.g. see Kidd [0050], Fig. 1B.).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Wang and Oda to incorporate the robot conversation with the patient as taught by Kidd in order to promote engagement with the patient and improve the healthcare of the patient, e.g. see Kidd [0017] and [0073].
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Wang, Oda, and Kidd teaches the limitations of Claim 12, and Kidd further teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 12, wherein during the conversation between the caregiving robot and the care recipient, the control module is configured to control the interaction module and the communication module to initiate communication between the caregiver and the care recipient when a certain condition is met, and the certain condition comprises that the care recipient actively requests to communicate with the caregiver and/or the control module determines that the health status of the care recipient is at risk (The system may detect a medical emergency trigger condition (i.e. a health status of the care recipient is at risk), and initiate a teleconference with a care provider in response to the trigger condition, e.g. see Kidd [0053] and [0072], Fig. 9.).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Wang and Oda to incorporate the robot conversation initiating the teleconference with the care provider and the patient as taught by Kidd in order to promote engagement with the patient and improve the healthcare of the patient, e.g. see Kidd [0017] and [0073].
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Wang, Oda, and Kidd teaches the limitations of Claim 12, and Kidd further teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 12, wherein the conversation module comprises an artificial intelligence chatbot, and the artificial intelligence chatbot is configured to generate the response content according to speech of the care recipient and guide the care recipient to describe the health status (The system includes conversation components that are generated with artificial intelligence, e.g. see Kidd [0054], [0061], and [0068].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Wang and Oda to incorporate the artificial intelligence components to generate conversation segments between the robot and the patient as taught by Kidd in order to promote engagement with the patient and improve the healthcare of the patient, e.g. see Kidd [0017] and [0073].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wang, Oda, and Kidd in view of Jones (US 2017/0228520).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Wang, Oda, and Kidd teaches the limitations of Claim 12, and Wang further teaches the following: The caregiving robot according to claim 12, wherein the conversation module comprises:
an audio processing unit, connected to the audio pickup element of the interaction module, and configured to process the sound signal generated by the audio pickup element (The robot includes a microphone (i.e. an audio pickup element), e.g. see Wang [0174]-[0175], and speech recognition capabilities executed by a computing device of the robot, e.g. see Wang [0226].);
But the combination of Wang, Oda, and Kidd does not teach and Jones teaches the following:
a speech recognition unit, connected to the audio processing unit and configured to convert the sound signal processed by the audio processing unit into a text content (The system includes a voice interaction system comprising a speech-to-text system, e.g. see Jones [0088]-[0089], [0114], and [0148], Fig. 5.);
a response generation unit, connected to the speech recognition unit and configured to generate a response text, based on the language model, for responding to the text content generated by the speech recognition unit (The system analyzes the text converted from the speech to determine a structured request (i.e. a response text), e.g. see Jones [0148].); and
a speech synthesis unit, connected to the response generation unit and the audio output element of the interaction module, and configured to convert the response text generated by the response generation unit into a sound signal, and the audio output element is configured to play speech according to the sound signal generated by the speech synthesis unit (The processes the request and generates a personalized response utilizing a personalized interaction model, wherein the response is processed through a text-to-speech system which converts the response into a format suitable for a voice assistant device that produces the voice output through speakers, e.g. see Jones [0149].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Wang, Oda, and Kidd to incorporate the speech-to-text and text-to-speech models and the respective voice input and output as taught by Jones in order to provide improved patient healthcare while reducing physician workload, e.g. see Jones [0189].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wang, Oda, and Kidd in view of Maisonnier (US 2017/0125008).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Wang, Oda, and Kidd teaches the limitations of Claim 12, but does not teach and Maisonnier teaches the following:
The caregiving robot according to claim 12, wherein the conversation module comprises a response optimization unit, according to personal information of the care recipient (The system includes a robot that engages in conversation with a user, e.g. see Maisonnier [0006], wherein the system further personalizes the dialog contents and/or voice skins of the robot based on various parameters such as geolocation and preferences (i.e. personal information), e.g. see Maisonnier [0019] and [0056]-[0057].), the response optimization unit trains the language model to configure role, wordings, tone and pitch used by the caregiving robot during the conversation (The dialog voice skins configure voice rendering parameters including frequency, tone, velocity, and pitch, e.g. see Maisonnier [0030]. Additionally, the robot utilizes dialog execution rules that include vocabulary and expressions, e.g. see Maisonnier [0031], and dialog modes implementing specific professional jargons such as medical jargon, e.g. see Maisonnier [0078]-[0079].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Wang, Oda, and Kidd to incorporate the optimizing or personalizing of the robot dialog as taught by Maisonnier in order to improve the services rendered by the robot or connected devices and to improve the user experience, e.g. see Maisonnier [0004] and [0019].
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks, filed March 3, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants allege that Wang and Oda are deficient to teach the limitations of Claim 1 because Wang does not teach that the interaction between the caregiver and care recipient is controlled “independently without intervention of the caregiver,” and because Oda does not teach any interaction with patients, e.g. see pgs. 6-9 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
As an initial matter, as stated above, the limitation of performing the interaction “independently without intervention of the caregiver” is not disclosed by the as-filed Specification and is unclear because it is unclear how this operation is performed “without intervention of the caregiver” when Claim 1 explicitly recites that it is performed “according to” caregiving task information that is received from the caregiver. Hence, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted this language as reciting that at least some aspect of the interaction is performed automatically.
Regarding Wang, Examiner largely agrees with Applicants’ characterization of Wang. Wang generally teaches a mobile robot including remote control functionality, wherein a caregiver may control the robot to perform a teleconference with a patient, e.g. see Wang [0154] and [0216]-[0220]. Furthermore, as shown above, Wang teaches that the robot may include tags that comprise a robot action modifier controlling various actions of the robot, wherein the tag may be created by a user, automatically by a terminal, and/or automatically by a robot, e.g. see Wang [0318]. Hence, Wang teaches that the robot may perform actions based on an automatically generated tag, wherein the actions performed include conducting a teleconference with a patient, and Wang is not deficient to teach the features it is cited for.
Regarding Oda, as shown above, Oda is cited only to teach receiving identity information for a care recipient, and is not cited to teach the specific interaction and/or any of the other limitations claimed in Claim 1. Oda teaches a mobile robot including a display unit and an operation interface that enables it to receive an instruction input from the user, e.g. see Oda [0098], wherein the input may include a patient name, e.g. see Oda [0104] and [0128]. Hence Oda is not deficient to teach the feature of receiving identity information for the care recipient.
Additionally, as shown above, none of the remaining references of Kyser, Chiang, Durlach, Kidd, Jones, and Maisonnier are cited to teach the newly amended language of Claim 1, and hence are not deficient to teach the features for the Claims they are cited for.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Chiang (US 2020/0176116) – teaches a system that conducts an interactive health assessment that determines questions to present using machine learning and semantic interpretation, wherein the means for presenting the assessment include a mobile robot.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm Pacific.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights