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 .
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.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 5th, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 Line 2: “POI” should be revised to either “Person of Interest (POI)” or “Point of Interest (POI)”. Examiner notes intended abbreviations should be expanded prior to referring to them in their abbreviated forms.
Claim 5 Line 2: “surface of the body” should be revised to “surface of a body” to avoid antecedent basis issues.
Claim 11 Line 1: “a visitor’s facial expression or behavioral change” should be revised to “a facial expression or behavioral change of a visitor”.
Claim 12 Line 5: “included the visitor information” should be revised to “included in the visitor information”.
Claim 12 Lines 5-6: “whether or not change” should be revised to “whether or not to change”.
Claim 15 Lines 1-2: “the number of remaining visitors” should be revised to “a number of remaining visitors” to avoid antecedent basis issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is: “step” in claims 16-19.
Because this claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this limitation 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 to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 2-5, 7-8, 11-12 and 14-15 (along with Claim 13 due to dependency) 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.
Claims 2-4 recite the limitation "the detailed location", while no limitation prior to this in the claim or the independent base claim mentions any “detailed location”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 further recites the limitation “POI that is input in advance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the examiner how or through what interface or mechanism anything is input to the guidance robot, as there is no claim limitation mentioning the guidance robot includes the capability to receive any input(s).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “at or below average”. The term “average” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “average” 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 5 further recites the limitation “surface of the body of the guidance robot”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 and all the claims it is dependent upon do not mention the guidance robot having a body.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the facial expression", “the facial density distribution”, and “the attention focus direction”, while no limitation prior to this in the claim or the independent base claim mentions any of these limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “at or above average” and “for an extended period”. The terms “average” and “extended period” in claim 8 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “average” and “extended period” are 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 8 further recites the limitations “the attention focus direction” and “the facial density distribution”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the degree of concentration during viewing", while no limitation prior to this in the claim or the independent base claim mentions any “degree of concentration during viewing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the degree of congestion" and “the next target exhibition”, while no limitation prior to this in the claim or the independent base claim mentions any “degree of congestion” or “next target exhibition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the next target exhibition” and “the updated visitor information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the examiner how or through what the visitor information is being updated, as there is no claim limitation prior to this in the claim, or in the independent base claim(s) mentioning the guidance robot includes the capability to self-update this information.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the next target exhibition” and “the updated visitor information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the examiner how or through what the visitor information is being updated, as there is no claim limitation prior to this in the claim, or in the independent base claim(s) mentioning the guidance robot includes the capability to self-update this information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuno et al. (JP Patent Pub. No. 2009-166184A), herein “Kuno”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Kuno discloses a guidance robot and method of operating a guidance robot (See 0001, “[…] guide robot for explaining exhibits to visitors at museums, exhibitions, etc. […]”), comprising:
a sensor for acquiring visitor information in the vicinity (See 0002, “[…] robot is equipped with an infrared sensor that detects the infrared rays of an infrared tag attached to a person and an ultrasonic distance sensor that measures the distance to the other party […]” See also 0022, “[…] an ultrasonic distance sensor 51 for measuring a distance, a video camera 50 for photographing a situation around the robot, and a sensor input / output board 62 for relaying input / output of signals to / from […]”);
a processor that determines an arrival location associated with a target exhibition based on the visitor information (See 0018, “[…] moving means can be configured to move to a position suitable for a predetermined explanation, and the instruction means can indicate the position of the guidance destination of the person […]”); and
a traveling-enabling unit for moving the guidance robot to the determined arrival location (See 0017, “[…] a moving unit that moves the robot to a designated position […]”),
wherein the processor adjusts the posture or gazing direction of the guidance robot at the determined arrival location in such a manner as to correspond to the facial direction of a visitor included in the visitor information, and determines the next operation on the basis of the visitor information updated during an utterance about the target exhibition (See 0005, “[…] the head rotating means rotates the head to change the direction of the face side, and the speech / behavior determining means is The object detected by the face direction detecting means; Based on the face orientation of the inventor, and determines a subsequent speech content or behavior.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Kuno further discloses the guidance robot of claim 1, wherein the sensor for acquiring the visitor information includes at least one of the following: a camera, a 3D depth camera, a LiDAR, or a proximity sensor (See 0022, “[…] guide robot has a head 10, a body 20, an arm 30, a hand 31, a moving wheel 40, and a video camera 50.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Kuno further discloses the guidance robot of claim 1, wherein, when the guidance robot moves to the determined arrival location, the processor adjusts the traveling speed of the guidance robot through the traveling-enabling unit in such a manner that the guidance robot maintains a predetermined distance from a visitor (See 0002 as referenced above. See also 0029, “[…] movement trajectory approaches a little arc, and the distance to the person measured by the ultrasonic distance sensor 51 is reduced to a predetermined value.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Kuno further discloses the guidance robot of claim 1, further comprising:
a speaker that is mounted on the guidance robot and outputs an utterance about the target exhibition (See 0005, “[…] the utterance / behavior determination means for determining the utterance content and action of the robot, and the utterance data stored in advance.” See also 0022, “[…] the audio system includes a speaker 12 that converts speech data into sound and outputs the sound, and a sound output board 63 that relays signal output to the speaker […]”),
wherein, before the utterance about the target exhibition begins, the processor analyzes the characteristics of a visitor, corresponding to the visitor information, and adjusts at least one of the following: the type of voice for the utterance, the volume of the utterance, or the speed of the utterance (See 0010, “[…] the speech / behavior determining means is detected by the face direction detecting means at that time. The subsequent utterance content or action may be determined based on the person's face orientation.” See also 0031, “[…] utterance data having an utterance content different from the previous utterance data is selected from the plurality of utterance data stored in the memory […] various kinds of utterance data are prepared in the memory 65, and the utterance history and behavior history of the guide robot are stored.” Examiner notes the speech determination and utterance content is clearly determined by a characteristic of the visitor).
Regarding Claim 11, Kuno further discloses the guidance robot of claim 1, wherein the processor analyzes a visitor's facial expression or behavioral change, which is included in the visitor information, and, on the basis of the degree of concentration during viewing, resulting from the analysis, determines whether or not to change the content of an utterance about the target exhibition or to adjust the duration of the utterance (See 0010 and 0031 as referenced above as well as, “[…] face image is detected but the front face is not detected, the person is interested in the work but is not aware of the robot's utterance.” Examiner notes the visitor’s degree of interest is analyzed through their degree of concentration, determined by the orientation of their face).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 2-5, 12-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kuno et al. (JP Patent Pub. No. 2009-166184A), in view of Mikubo et al. (JP Patent Pub. No. 2019-51568A), herein “Mikubo”.
Regarding Claim 2, Kuno does not explicitly disclose the guidance robot of claim 1, wherein the processor determines at the determined arrival location whether or not the detailed location of the guidance robot needs to be adjusted, based on the degree of congestion in the vicinity of the target exhibition, and, after moving or identifying the detailed location according to the determination, adjusts the posture or gazing direction of the guidance robot.
Mikubo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor determines at the determined arrival location whether or not the detailed location of the guidance robot needs to be adjusted, based on the degree of congestion in the vicinity of the target exhibition, and, after moving or identifying the detailed location according to the determination, adjusts the posture or gazing direction of the guidance robot (See 0002, “[…] a robot that detects the degree of congestion around a communication robot and performs a communication action according to the detection result.” See also 0027, “[…] guiding device 1 can detect the number of persons (target persons to be attended) in the vicinity based on the captured image every predetermined time, and can perform different guiding processing according to the detected number of people […] a gesture is made to direct the front of the head 1a to one target person, and in the case where there are a plurality of target persons, a gesture that points the front of the head 1a alternately to all the target persons. It is possible to respond with different gestures […]”).
In view of Mikubo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the exhibit guidance robot system as disclosed by Kuno, determination of whether location or the robot’s posture and gaze should be adjusted based on a degree of congestion, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the combination would predictable improve the effectiveness of the robot’s exhibit guidance operations by allowing the interactions to be tailored according to current audience conditions, engagement levels, or size and density of people in the environment.
Regarding Claim 3, Kuno does not explicitly disclose the guidance robot of claim 2, wherein, in response to the degree of congestion in the vicinity of the target exhibition reaching or exceeding a predetermined range, by controlling the traveling-enabling unit, the processor adjusts the detailed location of the guidance robot in such a manner as to be located at a point located a predetermined distance from the visitor in the vicinity of the target exhibition, and adjusts the angle of the guidance robot in such a manner that the guidance robot faces the target exhibition.
Mikubo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in response to the degree of congestion in the vicinity of the target exhibition reaching or exceeding a predetermined range, by controlling the traveling-enabling unit, the processor adjusts the detailed location of the guidance robot in such a manner as to be located at a point located a predetermined distance from the visitor in the vicinity of the target exhibition, and adjusts the angle of the guidance robot in such a manner that the guidance robot faces the target exhibition (See 0027 as referenced above and, “[…] the distance to the target person can be changed, for example, it approaches the target person, and when there are a plurality of target persons, the distance to the target person can be changed […]”. See also 0030-0031, “[…] performs different guidance processing depending on whether the number of people present around the guidance device 1 is less than a predetermined number […] performed when collecting the customer and the distance to the target person (the surrounding people) […] information indicating an operation performed when introducing a product to a plurality of target persons and a distance to the target persons.” See also 0056, “[…] guidance processing unit 24 may determine the degree of interest of the subject based on the distance from the guidance device 1 to the subject.”).
In view of Mikubo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the exhibit guidance robot system as disclosed by Kuno, determination of whether location or the robot’s posture and gaze should be adjusted based on a degree of congestion, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the combination would predictable improve the effectiveness of the robot’s exhibit guidance operations by allowing the interactions to be tailored according to current audience conditions, engagement levels, or size and density of people in the environment.
Regarding Claim 4, Kuno further discloses the guidance robot of claim 3, wherein, when it is determined that the guidance robot is unable to move to candidate points in a first group, which correspond to a POI that is input in advance, the processor determines one of candidate points in a second group, which correspond to the arrival location of the guidance robot, which is determined based on the visitor information, as the detailed location of the guidance robot (See 0023, “[…] information such as utterances and behavior histories of robots and movement trajectories is stored.” See also 0030, “[…] guide robot moves to a position suitable for the explanation […] position suitable for viewing […] “position suitable for explanation” where the guide robot moves is a position where the arm 30 and the hand 31 can be extended to guide a human to a position suitable for viewing. The viewing position and the explanation position can be determined in advance […]” Examiner notes the candidate points for a viewing position and candidate points for an explanation position are two different groups), and
wherein the relationships among the candidate points in the second group correspond to the relationships among the candidate points in the first group (See 0023 and 0030 as referenced above).
Regarding Claim 5, Kuno does not explicitly disclose the guidance robot of claim 4, further comprising:
a display that is mounted on the front-facing surface of the body of the guidance robot and displays visual information associated with the target exhibition,
wherein, in response to the degree of congestion in the vicinity of the target exhibition reaching or exceeding the predetermined range, the processor rotates the front-facing surface of the body of the guidance robot in such a manner that the display faces the direction in which the degree of congestion is at or below average.
Mikubo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a display that is mounted on the front-facing surface of the body of the guidance robot and displays visual information associated with the target exhibition (See 0011, “[…] an operation panel 12 is provided on the body 1 b, and the display surface side of the operation panel 12 is set as the front side of the guiding device […]” See also 0014, “[…] displays information to be notified to the user, information necessary for operation, and the like according to an instruction from the control unit […]”),
wherein, in response to the degree of congestion in the vicinity of the target exhibition reaching or exceeding the predetermined range, the processor rotates the front-facing surface of the body of the guidance robot in such a manner that the display faces the direction in which the degree of congestion is at or below average (See 0027 as referenced above. See also 0022, “[…] guidance processing unit 24 displays the first image read from the guidance processing information DB on the operation panel 12, and operates the head 1a and the arm 1c by the gesture mechanism 16 based on the first gesture information to perform the first gesture […]” Examiner notes the gesture operations include parameters of crowd density to determine where the robot will direct its orientation towards).
In view of Mikubo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the exhibit guidance robot system as disclosed by Kuno, a display mounted on the robot body and adjustments to the body’s orientation depending on detected areas of congestion, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the combination would predictable improve the effectiveness of the robot’s exhibit guidance operations by allowing the interactions to be tailored according to current audience conditions, engagement levels, or size and density of people in the environment. Furthermore, including a display on a robot in a robot guidance system is a common and conventional use of known robotic architectures.
Regarding Claim 12, Kuno further discloses the guidance robot of claim 1, further comprising:
a memory in which a viewing path, along which the guidance robot provides guidance within a predetermined space, and information about the target exhibition are stored (See 0030, “[…] The viewing position and the explanation position can be determined in advance for each work and stored in the memory 65.”).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor determines whether or not to modify the stored viewing path, based on the degree of congestion, which is included the visitor information, and determines whether or not change the next target exhibition, based on the degree of congestion in the vicinity of the target exhibition to be explained.
Mikubo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor determines whether or not to modify the stored viewing path, based on the degree of congestion, which is included the visitor information, and determines whether or not change the next target exhibition, based on the degree of congestion in the vicinity of the target exhibition to be explained (See 0018, “[…] an operation of bringing the gaze toward a plurality of target persons […] a gesture larger than the first gesture of the one-person guidance process is registered in the second gesture of the multiple-person guidance process.” See also 0027, “[…] can perform different guiding processing according to the detected number of people.” See also 0052, “If it is determined that the guidance process is to be switched (S43: YES), the control unit 10 proceeds to the process of step S41, reads a message related to the guidance process to be performed next from the guidance process information […]”).
In view of Mikubo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the exhibit guidance robot system as disclosed by Kuno, determination of whether or not to change a next target location based on congestion, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the combination would predictable improve the effectiveness of the robot’s exhibit guidance operations by allowing the interactions to be tailored according to current audience conditions, engagement levels, or size and density of people in the environment.
Regarding Claim 13, Kuno does not explicitly disclose the guidance robot of claim 12, wherein the processor determines whether or not to change the stored viewing path or a stipulated regulatory guidance approach, on the basis of the characteristics of a visitor, which are included in the visitor information.
Mikubo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor determines whether or not to change the stored viewing path or a stipulated regulatory guidance approach, on the basis of the characteristics of a visitor, which are included in the visitor information (See 0027 and 0030 as referenced above. See also 0028, “[…] when the number of persons of the target person changes, switching is made to the guidance processing according to the number of people after the change […]”).
In view of Mikubo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the exhibit guidance robot system as disclosed by Kuno, determination of whether or not to change a stored path based on characteristics of a visitor, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the combination would predictable improve the effectiveness of the robot’s exhibit guidance operations by allowing the interactions to be tailored according to current audience conditions, engagement levels, or size and density of people in the environment.
Regarding Claim 14, Kuno further discloses the guidance robot of claim 12, wherein the processor determines whether or not to provide guidance to the next target exhibition, on the basis of the number of remaining visitors, which is included in the updated visitor information, during an utterance about the target exhibition (See 0005, 0010 and 0018 as referenced above. See also 0038, “[…] the viewer 90 determines that he is not interested in explaining the guide robot, and says "Let's go to the next work.””).
Regarding Claim 17, Kuno further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the step of determining the arrival location associated with the target exhibition and moving the guidance robot to the determined arrival location comprises:
a step of moving the guidance robot to the next arrival location while maintaining a predetermined distance from the visitor (See 0002 and 0029 as referenced above).
But does not explicitly disclose the step of determining the arrival location associated with the target exhibition and moving the guidance robot to the determined arrival location comprises:
a step of determining whether or not to modify the arrival location associated with the target exhibition according to the degree of congestion, which is included in the visitor information; and
a step of modifying the arrival location or the posture of the guidance robot on the basis of the degree of congestion in the vicinity of the target exhibition.
Mikubo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the step of determining the arrival location associated with the target exhibition and moving the guidance robot to the determined arrival location comprises:
a step of determining whether or not to modify the arrival location associated with the target exhibition according to the degree of congestion, which is included in the visitor information (See 0002 and 0027 as referenced above); and
a step of modifying the arrival location or the posture of the guidance robot on the basis of the degree of congestion in the vicinity of the target exhibition (See 0002, 0027, 0030-0031 and 0056 as referenced above).
In view of Mikubo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the exhibit guidance robot system as disclosed by Kuno, determination of whether or not to change a next target location based on congestion, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the combination would predictable improve the effectiveness of the robot’s exhibit guidance operations by allowing the interactions to be tailored according to current audience conditions, engagement levels, or size and density of people in the environment.
Regarding Claim 18, Kuno further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the step of the posture or gazing direction of the guidance robot in such a manner as to correspond to the facial direction of the visitor included in the visitor information, comprises:
a step of monitoring the face of the visitor at the arrival location through a sensor (See 0005, 0010 and 0031 as referenced above);
a step of adjusting the type of voice for the utterance, the volume of the utterance, or the speed of the utterance, on the basis of the result of the monitoring (See 0010 and 0031 as referenced above); and
a step of beginning the utterance while moving the head of the guidance robot or the gazing direction of the pupils of the guidance robot leftward and rightward in such a manner that the guidance robot focuses attention on a location or region where a large number of visitors are present, for an extended period (See 0010 and 0031 as referenced above).
But does not explicitly disclose a step of modifying the arrival location or performing a predetermined motion at the current location, on the basis of the result of the monitoring.
Mikubo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a step of modifying the arrival location or performing a predetermined motion at the current location, on the basis of the result of the monitoring (See 0002, 0027, 0030-0031 and 0056 as referenced above).
In view of Mikubo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the exhibit guidance robot system as disclosed by Kuno, determination of whether or not to change a next target location based on the monitoring of a visitor, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the combination would predictable improve the effectiveness of the robot’s exhibit guidance operations by allowing the interactions to be tailored according to current audience conditions, engagement levels, or size and density of people in the environment.
Regarding Claim 19, Kuno further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the step of determining the next operation on the basis of the visitor information updated during the utterance about the target exhibition, comprises:
a step of analyzing the visitor's facial expression or behavioral change, which is included in the updated visitor information, and determining whether or not to modify the content of the utterance or the duration of the utterance, on the basis of the degree of concentration during viewing, resulting from the analysis (See 0010 and 0031 as referenced above).
But does not explicitly disclose a step of determining whether or not to change a guided viewing path or the next target exhibition, on the basis of the degree of congestion, which is included in the updated visitor information; and
a step of determining whether or not to terminate viewing guidance, based on the number of visitors, which is included in the updated visitor information.
Mikubo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a step of determining whether or not to change a guided viewing path or the next target exhibition, on the basis of the degree of congestion, which is included in the updated visitor information (See 0018, 0027 and 0052 as referenced above); and
a step of determining whether or not to terminate viewing guidance, based on the number of visitors, which is included in the updated visitor information (See 0002 and 0027 as referenced above. See also 0059-0060, “[…] case where the guidance process is ended is the case where the control unit 10 determines that the detected number of people is not 0 […] it is determined that the guidance process is to be ended (S55: YES), the control unit 10 stores the end date and time in the evaluation log DB (S56), and ends the process.”).
In view of Mikubo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the exhibit guidance robot system as disclosed by Kuno, determination of whether or not to change a viewing path or end a guidance operation, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the combination would predictable improve the effectiveness of the robot’s exhibit guidance operations by allowing the interactions to be tailored according to current audience conditions, engagement levels, or size and density of people in the environment. Furthermore, the combination merely represents the predictable use of known visitor-analysis techniques to improve the operation of a known exhibit-guidance robot.
Claims 7-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kuno et al. (JP Patent Pub. No. 2009-166184A), in view of Mikubo et al. (JP Patent Pub. No. 2019-51568A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakaguchi et al. (JP Patent Pub. No. 2019-196959A), herein “Sakaguchi”.
Regarding Claim 7, Kuno further discloses the guidance robot of claim 1, wherein the processor aligns the center of the body unit in such a manner that the second display faces the facial direction of the visitor included in the visitor information, and controls the display on the first display on the basis of the facial density distribution, which is included in the visitor information, in such a manner as to change the attention focus direction of the guidance robot (See 0005 and 0030 as referenced above. See also 0010, “[…] rotating means rotates the head so as to change the direction of the face side in the direction indicated by the indicating means, and the speech / behavior determining means is detected by the face direction detecting means at that time. The subsequent utterance content or action may be determined based on the person's face orientation.” See also 0018, “[…] detects the face orientation of the person to be explained who faces the robot for a predetermined time or more by the face orientation detecting means after the speech means offers the explanation of the exhibit.”).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the guidance robot is divided into a head unit including a first display that is positioned on the upper portion and displays a change in the facial expression of the guidance robot, and a body unit including a second display that is positioned between the head unit and the traveling-enabling unit and displays visual information associated with an explanation about the target exhibition.
Sakaguchi, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the guidance robot is divided into a head unit including a first display that is positioned on the upper portion and displays a change in the facial expression of the guidance robot (See 0030, “[…] panel unit PL is a display unit composed of, for example, a liquid crystal panel, an organic EL panel, or the like as one means for transmitting information, and is provided on the front side of the head-shaped unit HD corresponding to the face […] by displaying an image of the eyes, nose and mouth on the panel part PL, and providing an image like a face on the head part HD, the head part HD at the top is the head of a humanoid robot. Can be recognized by the user. In the illustrated example, a large eyeball is displayed. In particular, in the present embodiment, the panel unit PL displays an image necessary for performing various types of guidance.”).
Mikubo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a body unit including a second display that is positioned between the head unit and the traveling-enabling unit and displays visual information associated with an explanation about the target exhibition (See 0011, 0022 and 0027 as referenced above).
In view of Mikubo and Sakaguchi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the exhibit guidance robot system as disclosed by Kuno, the robot being divided into a head and body portion with separate displays and displaying logic, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such structure would improve the effectiveness and flexibility of exhibit guidance by enabling the robot to adapt interactions and manage progression through more precise monitoring of the environment and other people. Furthermore, all three references are directed towards guidance systems using visitor information to influence robot behavior and navigation systems, thus their teachings are complementary.
Regarding Claim 8, Kuno does not explicitly disclose the guidance robot of claim 7, wherein the processor adjusts the attention focus direction of the guidance robot by controlling the first display in such a manner that the guidance robot focuses attention on a point or region where the facial density distribution of the visitors is at or above average, for an extended period.
Mikubo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor adjusts the attention focus direction of the guidance robot by controlling the first display in such a manner that the guidance robot focuses attention on a point or region where the facial density distribution of the visitors is at or above average, for an extended period (See 0002, 0011, 0022 and 0027 as referenced above. See also 0018, “[…] an operation of bringing the gaze toward a plurality of target persons […] a gesture larger than the first gesture of the one-person guidance process is registered in the second gesture of the multiple-person guidance process. Furthermore, a longer distance is registered in the second distance of the multi-user guiding process than the first distance of the single-person guiding process. The registered content of the guidance process information DB is not limited to the above-described content.”).
In view of Mikubo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the exhibit guidance robot system as disclosed by Kuno, adjusting a direction of the robot towards a designated density distribution area of the environment, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such structure would improve the effectiveness and flexibility of exhibit guidance by enabling the robot to adapt interactions and manage progression through more precise monitoring of the environment and other people. Furthermore, both references are directed towards guidance systems using visitor information to influence robot behavior and navigation systems, thus their teachings are complementary.
Regarding Claim 15, Kuno does not explicitly disclose the guidance robot of claim 14, wherein, when it is determined through the sensor that the number of remaining visitors, which is included in the updated visitor information, is not present, the processor recognizes that guidance along the viewing path is complete and terminates viewing guidance without providing guidance to the next target exhibition.
Mikubo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches when it is determined through the sensor that the number of remaining visitors, which is included in the updated visitor information, is not present, terminates viewing guidance without providing guidance to the next target exhibition (See 0002 and 0027 as referenced above. See also 0059-0060, “[…] case where the guidance process is ended is the case where the control unit 10 determines that the detected number of people is not 0 […] it is determined that the guidance process is to be ended (S55: YES), the control unit 10 stores the end date and time in the evaluation log DB (S56), and ends the process.”).
Sakaguchi, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor recognizes that guidance along the viewing path is complete (See 0078-0079, “When the guidance is finished, the main control unit 12 confirms whether or not the notice operation is finished […] dialogue with the user has ended (step S105: Yes), the main control unit 12 similarly notifies whether or not the guidance operation is to be ended.”).
In view of Mikubo and Sakaguchi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the exhibit guidance robot system as disclosed by Kuno, determining a termination of the guidance operation while also recognizing a viewing path is completed, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the combination would enable the robot to intelligently manage progression through multiple destinations where there would inevitably be an end to either the path or the guidance operation. Furthermore, all three references are directed towards guidance systems using visitor information to influence robot behavior and navigation systems, thus their teachings are complementary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ohtake et al. (CN Patent Pub. No. 111055291 B), which is directed towards a robot providing guidance services where the language the robot speaks changes based on pre-registered data and recognition of a user-spoken language.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights