DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remark entered on April 21, 2026.
Claims 1 – 14 are pending in current application.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 4 – 14 are newly added.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims as within applicant claimed apparatus invention.
Therefore, the recited apparatus claim limitation regarding, “another location”, “a type of whether an activity”, “an electronic communication”, “a particular sound”, “a first tone…person…age is less than 10 years old”, “a second tone…person…age is between 10 years old and 18 years old”, “a third tone…person…age is greater than 10 years old”, “another person…a particular set of movements”, “a first emotion…a first tone”, “a second emotion…a second tone”, “a particular set of movements”, “determine that the other person is taking the oral medication with 99% accuracy”, “different types of body movements”, “information based on…sub - system”, “movement relating to the food being ingested”, “a fourth time”, “a particular building”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
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: “computing device configured to” in claim 1.
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.
Claims 4, 5 and 14 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 4, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “age is less than 10 years old….age is between 10 years old and 18 years old….age is greater than 18 years old” does not particular provide the subject matter that ought to be provided within the written description at the time of application filed for conveying to skilled int the art that applicant had possession of the invention at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 5, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “a first time…a second time…a third time” does not particular provide the subject matter that ought to be provided within the written description at the time of application filed for conveying to skilled int the art that applicant had possession of the invention at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 14, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “a fourth time” does not particular provide the subject matter that ought to be provided within the written description at the time of application filed for conveying to skilled int the art that applicant had possession of the invention at the time of filing.
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.
Claims 1 – 14 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.
It is also noted that dependent claims based upon the rejected claims are also rejected based upon dependency.
Regarding claim 1, applicant recited claim limitation “a computing device is configured to…” 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.
In this instant case, upon further review, skilled in the art could not locate commensurate structure, material or acts in commensurate corresponding for the recited function performed under the computer device as the main essence core of the recited claim invention as the result is inconclusive.
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.
Regarding claim 1, applicant recited claim limitation “a particular emotion…a particular emotion” does not provide sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 1, applicant recited claim limitation “the activity is not being conducted” does not particularly and distinctly pointing out applicant’s invention regarding what or which exactly is not being conducted as ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly in positive recitation within applicant’s written description as the metes and bounds is unclear with respect to applicant’s invention.
Please see MPEP 2173.05(i). Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. See Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356-57, 116 USPQ2d 2006, 2010-11 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.
However, a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). "Rather, as with positive limitations, the disclosure must only 'reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.'... While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure."
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation regarding what or which is not being conducted must have positive recitation for exclusion claiming purpose; however, upon further review, skilled in the art could not locate what or which is not being conducted within applicant’s written description as the metes and bound are unclear for exclusion claiming purpose.
Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 4, applicant recited claim limitation “their age” does not provide who exactly is referring to as which group of their is referring that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention.
Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5, applicant recited claim limitation “another person…another person…the other person” does not provide who or which person is another person that applicant is referring to as whether directs to the other person or additional another person that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention.
Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5, applicant recited claim limitation “the person is not conducting” does not particularly and distinctly pointing out applicant’s invention regarding what or which exactly is not being conducted as ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly in positive recitation within applicant’s written description as the metes and bounds is unclear with respect to applicant’s invention.
Please see MPEP 2173.05(i). Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. See Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356-57, 116 USPQ2d 2006, 2010-11 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.
However, a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). "Rather, as with positive limitations, the disclosure must only 'reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.'... While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure."
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation regarding what or which is not being conducted must have positive recitation for exclusion claiming purpose; however, upon further review, skilled in the art could not locate what or which is not being conducted within applicant’s written description as the metes and bound are unclear for exclusion claiming purpose.
Regarding claim 6, applicant recited claim limitation “the other person…the other person…the other person” does not provide who or which the other person that applicant is referring to as another person or additional another person that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention.
Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claims 7 and 10 , applicant recited claim limitation “the other person” does not provide who exactly is referring to as which person is the other person as directs to another person or additional another person that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention.
Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 8, applicant recited claim limitation “particular set of movements…different types of body movements occurring together” does not provide who exactly is referring to as what or which different body movements as a set occurring to together as the body movement sets combination does not set forth metes and bounds regards the body movements.
Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 10, applicant recited claim limitation “the other person…the other person” does not provide who exactly is referring to as what or which person is the other person as another person, the person for the other person or an other person that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention.
Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, applicant recited claim limitation “the person” does not provide who exactly is referring to as what or which person is the person referring to as whether directs to a person, another person, or the other person directs to the precedent claims 1 and 5.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 12, applicant recited claim limitation “the determined geographical location” does not provide sufficient antecedent basis that ought to be provided nor does parent claim 1 recited geographical location determination.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 13, applicant recited claim limitation “the sound is not the same…” does not particularly and distinctly pointing out applicant’s invention regarding what exactly is not the same as ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly in positive recitation within applicant’s written description as the metes and bounds is unclear with respect to applicant’s invention.
Please see MPEP 2173.05(i). Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. See Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356-57, 116 USPQ2d 2006, 2010-11 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.
However, a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). "Rather, as with positive limitations, the disclosure must only 'reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.'... While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure."
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation regarding not being the same must have positive recitation for exclusion claiming purpose; however, upon further review, skilled in the art could not locate what is not being the same within applicant’s written description as the metes and bound are unclear for exclusion claiming purpose.
Regarding claim 13, applicant recited claim limitation “device is not to interact…at the fourth time” does not particularly and distinctly pointing out applicant’s invention regarding what exactly is not to interact at the fourth as ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly in positive recitation within applicant’s written description as the metes and bounds is unclear with respect to applicant’s invention.
Please see MPEP 2173.05(i). Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. See Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356-57, 116 USPQ2d 2006, 2010-11 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.
However, a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). "Rather, as with positive limitations, the disclosure must only 'reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.'... While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure."
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation regarding not to interact have positive recitation for exclusion claiming purpose; further, skilled in the art also could not locate the term, “fourth time” within applicant’s written description as to what or which time exactly is the fourth time referring to.
Upon further review, skilled in the art also could not locate “not to interact” within applicant’s written description as the metes and bound are unclear for exclusion claiming purpose.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenstein et al (US Pat Pub No. 2012/0185094) in view of Nelson (US Pat Pub No. 2019/0248019).
Regarding claim 1, Rosenstein et al shows an apparatus comprising:
a computing device (See at least Para 0004 for robot includes controller); a display screen (See at least Para 0015 for display support above the computer chassis and Para 0234 for Apple iPad); a compartment area (See at least Para 0116 for basket 340); a camera (See at least Para 0133 for image sensor 450) wherein:
the computing means is configured to receive electronic communications that allow the computing means to change the display screen to show a particular information (See at least Para 0196 for robot display map information on webpad for user input electronic communication interaction; also on Para 0238 for webpad as a tablet computer),
the computing means is configured to move from one location to another location (See at least Para 0196 for robot being takes to a specific location by user),
the computing means is configured to take electronic images via the camera (See at least Para 0133 for taking 3D image of user’s face via image sensor 450),
the electronic images determine a type of activity being conducted by a person (See at least Para 0133 for determined gesture of a person as hand pointing/waving/hand signals; also on Para 0259),
the type of activity is occurring at a particular time (See at least Para 0256 for a particular time as emergency event triggered along with fallen gesture);
determine the activity is not being conducted by the person at a particular time and sends an electronic communication that the activity is to be conducted at the particular time (See at least Para 0266 for emergency event with communication request for emergency assistance as at a particular time with the verifying response query not answered by user as activity not conducted by user);
the electronic communication includes a particular response generated by computing means based on the person not conducting the activity at the particular time (See at Para 0266 for electronic communication requesting emergency assistance);
however, Rosenstein does not show the particular information as particular emotion; particular response as particular emotion and particular sound
Nelson shows the particular information as particular emotion (See at least Para 0058 display certain emotions toward user upon the agent device/robot as particular emotion factor used as response on Para 0062);
particular response as particular emotion (See at least Para 0058 display certain emotions toward user upon the agent device/robot as particular emotion factor used as response on Para 0062); particular response as particular sound (See at least Para 0061 for computer generated utterance as a response; also Para 0059 interactive dialogue).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide further particular information including emotion, as exhibited by Nelson, for the human robot interaction of Rosenstein, in order to enhance human robot interaction, as desired by Rosenstein, as providing known emotion information exhibited by Nelson for the similar human robot machine interface interaction of Rosenstein and Nelson, in order to yield predictable result.
Regarding claim 2, Rosenstein the display screen is configured to display color (See at least Para 0198 for layout map with color map on Para 0179 implemented upon the Apple iPad on Para 0234)
the computing means is further configured to generate a voice (See at least Para 0266 for how are you feeling).
Nelson further shows display of facial gesture (Para 0067 and 0070 for robot agent device with facial expression corresponding on the display screen for face rendered), generate a voice with particular tone (See at least Para 0055 for high pitch voice, low deep voice).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide further particular information including facial and sound expression in particular, as exhibited by Nelson, for the human robot interaction of Rosenstein, in order to enhance human robot interaction, as desired by Rosenstein, as providing known emotion information exhibited by Nelson for the similar human robot machine interface interaction of Rosenstein and Nelson, in order to yield predictable result.
Regarding claim 3, Nelson further the computing means is configured to determine the type of activity based on the geographic location of the computing means (See at least Para 0108 for sensor data acquired based geographic location for automated dialogue companion assessment) and language spoken in the geographic location (See at least Para 0126 for character determination with profile parameter dictate which language the agent is to use; also on Para 0098 for English spoken in the British with British accent determination).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide further particular information including geographic location and language spoken in particular, as exhibited by Nelson, for the human robot interaction of Rosenstein, in order to enhance human robot interaction, as desired by Rosenstein, as providing known emotion information exhibited by Nelson for the similar human robot machine interface interaction of Rosenstein and Nelson, in order to yield predictable result.
Regarding claim 9, Rosenthal et al shows the computing means analyze information based on an electronic location sub-system (See at least Para 0123 for creating map as the location system for navigation; Para 0227 and 0228 for tracking user),
electronic situation sub-system (See at least Para 0266 for user health situation)
electronic preference sub-system (See at least Para 0257 for object detection system 3100 translate human user gesture as user preference for trigging each individual event );
Nelson et al further shows an electronic emotion sub-system (See at least Para 0062 for user emotion or intent ; also Para 0067 for robot display with express emotion).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide emotion of Nelson, for the human machine interface of Rosenthal, since emotion is also itself a communication tool that is desired by the interface communication of Rosenthal in order to yield a predictable communication result utilizing a known emotion element of Nelson.
Regarding claim 12, Rosenthal et al shows the computing means determine if the person is outside or inside of the building (See at least Para 0252 for exemplary house with object detection system in various room with image sensor detecting human gesture as determined inside building on Para 0255;
Please also see MPEP 2111.04 (II). contingent limitation as recited claim 12 directed to open end for if conditional contingent clause without further action does not further set forth and state further action as unclosed conditional loop; In this case, applicant recited apparatus claim missing require underlying structure for performing the recited contingent function).
Response to Arguments.
In response to applicant’s remark that Rosenstein doe s not shows applicant newly recited claim limitation; however, applicant’s attention is now directed to Page 2 above where applicant newly recited claim limitation is now addressed.
In this instant case, upon further review, skilled in the art could not locate applicant newly recited claim limitation within the written description, Para 0025 – 0028 and 0032 that applicant stated in applicant’s remark nor has similar written description paragraph in applicant’s written description has been located by skilled in the art. Applicant is advised to further point out the origin.
It is also further noted that applicant’s remark has not provide in the least substantial discussion or analyze with respect to applicant’s invention along with recited reference in claim limitation yet merely states general allegation as recited reference does not show the recited claim limitation amount to mere general allegation.
It is noted applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights