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
No foreign priority is claimed even though there is a foreign application JP2019183083. Therefore, the effective filing date is 09/23/2020 in reference to application 17/635,565.
Joint Inventors
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.
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.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed subject matter is drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, nor is the abstract idea as a judicial exception integrated into a practical application. With regards to step 1, the claimed invention is directed to a method.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
For step 2A, prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed under MPEP 2106.04 to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold text).
Claim 1 recites:
A data processing apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to
detect a situation of a mobile body based on sensor data output from a sensor mounted on the mobile body, and
determine an environmental sensing algorithm to execute according to the detected situation of the mobile body;
wherein the detected situation of the mobile body includes a change in an environment associated with movement of the mobile body.
These limitations, as drafted, are a method that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as a mental process.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106.04(d), the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application.”
In the present case, the additional elements beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
A data processing apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to
detect a situation of a mobile body based on sensor data output from a sensor mounted on the mobile body, and
determine an environmental sensing algorithm to execute according to the detected situation of the mobile body;
wherein the detected situation of the mobile body includes a change in an environment associated with movement of the mobile body.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the element of “A data processing apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to” and “based on sensor data output from a sensor mounted on the mobile body” is merely describing generic computing components which allow the abstract idea to be applied on a computer or to merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, taken alone, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional element of “according to the detected situation of the mobile body; wherein the detected situation of the mobile body includes a change in an environment associated with movement of the mobile body” are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solutionary).
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the MPEP 2106.05, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, regardless of whether they are looked at individually or in combination.
As discussed above, the additional elements of “A data processing apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to” and “based on sensor data output from a sensor mounted on the mobile body” each amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the additional elements of “according to the detected situation of the mobile body; wherein the detected situation of the mobile body includes a change in an environment associated with movement of the mobile body” each amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (see below). And a conclusion that additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. These particular additional limitations are each undeniably well-understood, routine, and conventional activities already known in the art. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v.Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, and/or merely the outputting of data in a similar manner, are well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a generic manner.
Dependent claims 2 - 18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or also contain well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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.
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: extendable support unit in claim 16.
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 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 17 and 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 17 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim limitation “extendable support unit” in claim 16 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. 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.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 7 – 9 and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US Pub No: 2021/0008723 A1, hereinafter Choi).
Regarding Claim 1:
Choi discloses:
A data processing apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to detect a situation of a mobile body based on sensor data output from a sensor mounted on the mobile body. Paragraph [0029] describes a sensing unit that senses a surrounding environment of the mobile robot.
and determine an environmental sensing algorithm to execute according to the detected situation of the mobile body. Paragraph [0063] describes a mobile robot device that can change the safety operation level of the robot based on the surrounding environment according to a trained artificial intelligence algorithm.
wherein the detected situation of the mobile body includes a change in an environment associated with movement of the mobile body. Paragraph [0063] describes a mobile robot device that can change the safety operation level of the robot based on the surrounding environment according to a trained artificial intelligence algorithm. A change in the safety operation level implies that the environment changed as well and the robot needs to adapt to that change.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 20:
Choi discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having embodied thereon a program, which when executed by a computer causes the computer to execute a data processing method, the method comprising. Paragraph [0097] describes a memory 140 and a processor 120.
The rest of claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 2:
Choi discloses:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensor mounted on the mobile body includes at least one of a distance sensor or a positioning sensor. Paragraph [0100] describes sensors 110 including distance sensors such as Radar sensors, LIDAR sensors and an odometry sensors. Paragraph [0102] describes a GPS, which is a position sensor.
Regarding Claim 3:
Choi discloses:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the determined environmental sensing algorithm is used for at least one of measurement of distance to a target object, generation of three-dimensional map, or estimation of self-position. Paragraph [0100] describes a RADAR sensor 226 and a LIDAR sensor 227. These devices can be used to measure the distance between the robot and a target object. Paragraph [0102] describes a GPS, which is a position sensor. This GPS can estimate the self-position of the robot, as described in paragraph [0104].
Regarding Claim 4:
Choi discloses:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the mobile body includes at least one of a mobile terminal, an automobile, or a mobile robot. Paragraph [0029] describes a sensing unit that senses a surrounding environment of the mobile robot.
Regarding Claim 5:
Choi discloses:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the change in the environment includes at least one of a change of a place where the mobile body is located or a change of a weather, a temperature, a humidity, or a brightness in the place where the mobile body is located. Paragraph [0102] describes an illuminance sensor. An illuminance sensor can measure the brightness of an area. Paragraph [0099] describes a temperature/humidity sensor 232.
Regarding Claim 7:
Choi discloses:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the change in the environment includes at least one of a change of a situation of a person with whom the mobile body is communicating or a change of a situation of an obstacle around the mobile body. Paragraph [0081] describes a person with a walking stick walking around and that the congestion is high nearby. This adjusts the safety operation level of the robot.
Regarding Claim 8:
Choi discloses:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to receive the sensor output from the sensor mounted on the mobile body, and transmit a control signal to the mobile body, and wherein the data processing apparatus comprises a management server. Paragraph [0094] describes a server 2000 that is used to manage the data to determine whether the surroundings of the mobile robot device 1000 are in a dangerous situation. Paragraph [0037] describes that this mobile robot device 1000 can control the operation of the mobile robot device 1000.
Regarding Claim 9:
Choi discloses:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the control signal includes information of the determined environmental sensing algorithm. Paragraph [0063] describes a mobile robot device that can change the safety operation level of the robot based on the surrounding environment according to a trained artificial intelligence algorithm. A change in the safety operation level implies that the environment changed as well and the robot needs to adapt to that change.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Konolige (US Pub No: 2016/0288330 A1, hereinafter Konolige).
Regarding Claim 6:
Choi discloses the above limitations in claim 5. Choi does not disclose a change of environment indicating a switch between an indoor and outdoor environment.
Konolige, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the change of the place where the mobile body is located relates to whether the mobile body is located outdoor environment or indoor environment. Paragraph [0036] describes a robotic system that can transition between indoor and outdoor environments.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Choi to incorporate the teachings of Konolige to show a change of environment indicating a switch between an indoor and outdoor environment. One would have been motivated to do so to determine whether depth sensing or stereo imaging should be performed based on the ambient lighting ([0034] of Konolige).
Claim(s) 10 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US Pub No: 2020/0225673 A1, hereinafter Afrouzi).
Regarding Claim 10:
Choi discloses the above limitations in claim 1. Choi does not disclose a change from a first to a second environment sensing algorithm according to the detected situation.
Afrouzi, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to change from a first environmental sensing algorithm to a second environmental sensing algorithm according to the detected situation of the mobile body. Paragraph [0278] describes a wall-coverage algorithm for a first subarea and a rectangular-spiral coverage algorithm for a second subarea.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Choi to incorporate the teachings of Afrouzi to show a change from a first to a second environment sensing algorithm according to the detected situation. One would have been motivated to do so that map tasks can be accomplished according to unique tags ([0278] of Afrouzi).
Regarding Claim 11:
Afrouzi teaches:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the first environment sensing algorithm and the second environment sensing algorithm are algorithms applied to sensor data output while setting different parameters to a same sensor. Paragraph [0278] describes a wall-coverage algorithm for a first subarea and a rectangular-spiral coverage algorithm for a second subarea. Paragraph [0272] describes that each unique tag for each subarea can be used to provide different work functions for different subareas. This is equivalent to the claim because the same sensors for a robot can have a different parameter based on the subarea the robot is cleaning.
Regarding Claim 12:
Afrouzi teaches:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the first environment sensing algorithm and the second environment sensing algorithm are algorithms applied to sensor data output while setting a same parameter to a same sensor. Paragraph [0278] describes a wall-coverage algorithm for a first subarea and a rectangular-spiral coverage algorithm for a second subarea. Paragraph [0272] describes that each unique tag for each subarea can be used to provide different work functions for different subareas. This is equivalent to the claim because the same sensor can have the same parameter for certain subareas. For example, a camera can function the same because the lighting in each room is equivalent.
Regarding Claim 13:
Afrouzi teaches:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the first environment sensing algorithm and the second environment sensing algorithm are algorithms applied to sensor data output from a plurality of different sensors. Paragraph [0278] describes a wall-coverage algorithm for a first subarea and a rectangular-spiral coverage algorithm for a second subarea. Paragraph [0272] describes that each unique tag for each subarea can be used to provide different work functions for different subareas. This is equivalent to the claim because each algorithm could use different sensors to perform the desired task.
Regarding Claim 14:
Choi and Afrouzi teach:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control operation of the plurality of different sensors in conjunction with determination of the environmental sensing algorithm, wherein the determined environment sensing algorithm is associated with each sensor, and wherein the circuitry controls operations of the plurality of different sensors in conjunction with change and execution of the environment sensing algorithm. Paragraph [0063] of Choi describes a mobile robot device that can change the safety operation level of the robot based on the surrounding environment according to a trained artificial intelligence algorithm. A change in the safety operation level implies that the environment changed as well and the robot needs to adapt to that change. Paragraph [0278] of Afrouzi describes a wall-coverage algorithm for a first subarea and a rectangular-spiral coverage algorithm for a second subarea. Paragraph [0272] describes that each unique tag for each subarea can be used to provide different work functions for different subareas. This is equivalent to the claim because each algorithm could use different sensors to perform the desired task.
Regarding Claim 15:
Afrouzi teaches:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the data processing apparatus comprises a robot, and wherein the circuitry is further configured to control a state of movement of a moving compartment of the robot accompanying conveyance of a conveyance object based on an execution result of at least one of the first environment sensing algorithm or the second environment sensing algorithm. Paragraph [0593] describes transporting an item to a location specified by the user. Paragraph [0278] describes a wall-coverage algorithm for a first subarea and a rectangular-spiral coverage algorithm for a second subarea.
Claim(s) 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Afrouzi and further in view of De Zulueta (US Pub No: 2018/0370028 A1, hereinafter De Zulueta).
Regarding Claim 17:
Choi and Afrouzi teach the above limitations in claim 15. Choi and Afrouzi do not teach adjusting the height of a plate to be the same as the height of another robot part.
De Zulueta, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The data processing device according to claim 15, wherein the attitude state includes a height of the plate, and wherein the circuitry controls the height of the plate to be substantially the same as a height of a part of another robot. Paragraph [0022] and figure 4 describes a plate being raised to the height of a kitchen counter. While this describes adjusting a height for a kitchen counter, this can be applied to another robot as well.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Choi to incorporate the teachings of De Zulueta to show adjusting the height of a plate to be the same as the height of another robot part.. One would have been motivated to do so help users with mobility restrictions ([0023] of De Zulueta).
Regarding Claim 18:
Choi and Afrouzi teach the above limitations in claim 15. Choi and Afrouzi do not teach adjusting the height of a plate to be the same as the height of a part of an object.
De Zulueta, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The data processing device according to claim 15, wherein the attitude state includes a height of the plate, and wherein the circuitry controls the height of the plate to be substantially the same as a height of a part of an object recognized by the sensor mounted on the robot. Paragraph [0022] and figure 4 describes a plate being raised to the height of a kitchen counter.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Choi to incorporate the teachings of De Zulueta to show adjusting the height of a plate to be the same as the height of a part of an object. One would have been motivated to do so help users with mobility restrictions ([0023] of De Zulueta).
Regarding Claim 16:
De Zulueta teaches:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 14, further comprising: a plate; and an extendable support unit configured to support the plate, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control an attitude state of at least one of the plate or the extendable support unit based on the result of at least one of the first environment sensing algorithm or the second environment sensing algorithm. Paragraph [0022] and figure 4 describes a plate being raised to the height of a kitchen counter.
The reason to combine De Zulueta with Choi is for the same reason as in claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kojima (US Pub No: 2022/0095786 A1): The present technology relates to a moving body and a control method capable of improving affinity of the moving body for a person and a space. A moving body according to one aspect of the present technology includes a top plate that serves as a desk at which a person performs work, a support arm that supports the top plate and that can extend and contract, and a moving unit that holds the support arm and performs movement for causing the work to be performed. Furthermore, the moving body controls a posture state including a state of the support arm and a movement state of the moving unit in accordance with a relationship with an environment state as a state of a surrounding environment and a person state as a state of the person located around, sensed by a sensor. The present technology can be applied to a movable robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY KHANDPUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5090. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 6:30.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/JAY KHANDPUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3658