DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 19/109,807, filed on 07 March 2025, are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 07 March 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “a quite space” but should recite – a quiet space –.
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 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: “sensing unit that collects”, “traveling-enabling unit that moves”, and “output unit that outputs” 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 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 6 and 7 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 “quite space”, i.e., quiet space, in claims 6 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quite”, i.e., quiet, 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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vu et al. (US 2007/0192910 A1, “Vu”).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Vu discloses a companion robot for personal interaction and teaches:
a sensing unit that collects situational information in the vicinity (microphone 32 to collect audio data – see at least Fig. 1B and ¶ [0111]; microphone may monitor ambient sound or noise levels – see at least ¶ [0149]; camera 304 – see at least Fig. 1B and ¶ [0148);
a traveling-enabling unit that moves the guidance robot (wheels 14 and motor – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0112]);
a display on which visual information is displayed (body display panel 18 – see at least Fig. 1A and ¶ [0167]);
an output unit that outputs an utterance associated with preset guidance information or visual information displayed on the display (speaker 20 – see at least Fig. 1A and ¶ [0103]; speaker may function as an annunciator – see at least ¶ [0127]); and
a processor that is electrically connected to the sensing unit, the display, and the output unit (controller – see at least ¶ [0156]; PCB E20, PCB E30, PCB E46 – see at least Fig 6B and ¶ [0164]) and adjusts the volume of the utterance to be output to the output unit based on the collected situational information (annunciator may adjust volume based on detected background noise – see at least ¶ [0252]).
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Vu further teaches:
wherein, based on the collected situational information, the processor performs control to adjust the volume of the utterance within a first setting range when a first condition is satisfied (if resident is hard of hearing, robot may increase volume up to about 75 dB or some other threshold – see at least ¶ [0252]; i.e., first condition = a hard of hearing individual in room) and performs control to adjust the volume of the utterance within a second setting range different from the first setting range when a second condition is satisfied (normal speaking volume may be about 55 dB to 65 dB – see at least ¶ [0252]; i.e., second condition = no hard of hearing individuals in room), and wherein the maximum value within the second setting range is set to be lower than the maximum value within the first setting range (i.e., 75 dB>55-65 dB).
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 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu in view of Wolford et al. (US 2019/0308327 A1, “Wolford”).
Regarding claim 4, Vu fails to teach but Wolford discloses condition-based robot audio techniques and teaches:
wherein the sensing unit includes a sensor detecting the traveling speed of the guidance robot (conditional state can also reflect values of conditional parameters computed from the real-time inputs of various sensors, e.g., ambient volume from microphones, orientation from gyroscopes, speed, cliff presence from cliff detectors, height from depth sensors, object presence from cameras, wind presence from wind detectors, and temperature from thermometers – see at least ¶ [0064]), and
wherein the processor recognizes the traveling speed detected through the sensor, as the collected situational information (conditional state can also reflect values of conditional parameters computed from the real-time inputs of various sensors, e.g., ambient volume from microphones, orientation from gyroscopes, speed, cliff presence from cliff detectors, height from depth sensors, object presence from cameras, wind presence from wind detectors, and temperature from thermometers – see at least ¶ [0064]), and, based on the detected traveling speed, adjusts the volume of the utterance within the first setting range (conditional state of robot is determined at 520 – see at least Fig. 5 and [0069]; at 530, audio object is generated that match the obtained conditional state – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0070]; audio object may be associated with an audio parameter, e.g., volume parameter – see at least ¶ [0061]; audio enhancement is output from one or more speakers based on audio object – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0080]; e.g., current speed can be used as conditional parameter that affects audio enhancement, e.g., increasing enhancement as speed increases – see at least ¶ [0076]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robot of Vu to provide a sensor to detect traveling speed and adjust volume based on the traveling speed, as taught by Wolford, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide intuitive, real-time, and responsive feedback to the user which makes the robot easier to use, increases user engagement and makes the robot seem more anthropomorphic (Wolford at ¶ [0005]).
Regarding claim 8, Vu fails to teach but Wolford discloses condition-based robot audio techniques and teaches:
wherein the sensing unit comprises: a sensor for detecting whether or not a visitor is present in the vicinity (conditional state can also reflect values of conditional parameters computed from the real-time inputs of various sensors, e.g., ambient volume from microphones, orientation from gyroscopes, speed, cliff presence from cliff detectors, height from depth sensors, object presence from cameras, wind presence from wind detectors, and temperature from thermometers – see at least ¶ [0064]; conditional parameter can also indicate the presence or absence of users in a room, e.g., computed from camera data – see at least ¶ [0064), and wherein the processor adjusts the volume of the utterance within the first setting range based on the sensor's detection of whether or not a visitor is present in the vicinity (If users are present, the audio objects can be different than if users are not present – see at least ¶ [0064]; conditional state of robot is determined at 520 – see at least Fig. 5 and [0069]; at 530, audio object is generated that match the obtained conditional state – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0070]; audio object may be associated with an audio parameter, e.g., volume parameter – see at least ¶ [0061]; audio enhancement is output from one or more speakers based on audio object – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0080]; e.g., current speed can be used as conditional parameter that affects audio enhancement, e.g., increasing enhancement as speed increases – see at least ¶ [0076]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robot of Vu to provide a sensor to detect presence of visitor and adjust the volume based on the detection, as taught by Wolford, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide intuitive, real-time, and responsive feedback to the user which makes the robot easier to use, increases user engagement and makes the robot seem more anthropomorphic (Wolford at ¶ [0005]).
Claims 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu in view of Huber et al. (US 2019/0311718 A1, “Huber”).
Regarding claim 3, Vu fails to teach but Huber discloses context-aware control for smart devices and teaches:
wherein the first condition is for a case where the utterance targets an unspecified multiplicity of persons, and the second condition is for a case where the utterance targets a specific person (target user activity is detected at 402 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0047]; context parameters may include the number of target users detected – see at least ¶ [0047]; at 406, input/output modalities are set in accordance with use context – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0048]; modulate output volume to match the detected use context – see at least ¶ [0007], [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robot of Vu to provide for conditions regarding the number of persons, as taught by Huber, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for optimizing the user interaction for a particular environment (Huber at ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 6, Vu fails to teach but Huber discloses context-aware control for smart devices and teaches:
a sensor for detecting a traveling space for the guidance robot (voice-interaction device – see at least ¶ [0022]), and wherein the processor adjusts the volume of the utterance within the first setting range, depending on whether or not the traveling space recognized through the sensor is a closed space or a quite space (target audio signal being whispered indicates a quiet room – see at least ¶ [0022], [0054]; controller may adjust output volume lower to match the input context – see at least ¶ [0022], [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robot of Vu to provide for adjusting the volume, as taught by Huber, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for optimizing the user interaction for a particular environment (Huber at ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 7, Vu fails to teach but Huber further teaches:
wherein when the traveling space recognized through the sensor is determined to be a closed space or a quite space, the processor adjusts the magnitude of the volume of the utterance either to the minimum value within the first setting range or to a value lower than the minimum value (target audio signal being whispered indicates a quiet room – see at least ¶ [0022], [0054]; controller may adjust output volume lower to match the input context – see at least ¶ [0022], [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robot of Vu to provide for adjusting the volume, as taught by Huber, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for optimizing the user interaction for a particular environment (Huber at ¶ [0003]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu in view of Wolford, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0005810 A1, “Park”).
Regarding claim 9, Vu and Wolford fail to teach but Park discloses a robot and operating method and teaches:
wherein in response to the sensor detecting that no visitor is present in the vicinity, the processor adjusts the magnitude of the volume of the utterance either to the minimum value within the first setting range or to a value lower than the minimum value (sound is output in a first, second, or third mode when the user is within FFA, STA, or NFA zones – see at least Figs. 4, 7; i.e., no sound output outside of these zones is a volume magnitude lower than a minimum).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robot of Vu to provide for recognizing visitors and changing the volume of the utterance, as taught by Park, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for adjusting the sound output intensity depending on the position of the sound source (Park at ¶ [0111]).
Regarding claim 10, Vu and Wolford fail to teach but Park discloses a robot and operating method and teaches:
wherein the processor recognizes that one of the visitors in the vicinity approaches (input sound from a base sound source is received through a plurality of microphones – see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0107]), and, based on verification of the approaching visitor's intention to use the guidance robot (CDR of sound is calculated at 620 – see at least Fig. 6 and ¶ [0107]), changes the volume of the utterance to a value lower than before within first setting range or changes the volume of the utterance within the second setting range, for the purpose of adjustment (if sound source is in far field area FFA at S730, sound is output in a first mode having the strongest volume output at S740 – see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0111]; when sound source is in sound tracking area STA at S745, sound is output in a second mode or third mode at S750 and S760, respectively, having a lower volume – see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0113]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robot of Vu to provide for recognizing visitors and changing the volume of the utterance, as taught by Park, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for adjusting the sound output intensity depending on the position of the sound source (Park at ¶ [0111]).
Regarding claim 11, Park further teaches:
wherein, in response to the approaching visitor moving away by a predetermined range or greater, the processor adjusts the volume of the utterance to a value higher than before within the first setting range (if sound source is in far field area FFA at S730, sound is output in a first mode having the strongest volume output at S740 – see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0111]; when sound source is in tracking area STA at S745, sound is output in a second mode or third mode at S750 and S760, respectively, having a lower volume – see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0113]).
Claims 12-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu in view of Shin et al. (US 2020/0005787 A1, “Shin”).
Regarding claim 12, Vu further teaches:
wherein the display comprises:
a first display provided on the front surface of the body of the guidance robot (body display panel 18 – see at least Fig. 1A and ¶ [0167]); and
[ ], and
wherein, based on the collected situational information, the processor controls the output unit in such a manner as to output an utterance associated with content displayed on one of the first and second displays (speaker 20 – see at least Fig. 1A and ¶ [0103]; speaker may function as an annunciator – see at least ¶ [0127]).
Vu fails to teach but Shin discloses an intelligent service robot and teaches:
wherein the display comprises:
a second display provided on the rear surface of the body of the guidance robot (display unit 151 may be provided on the rear as well as the front – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0056]), and
controls the output unit in such a manner as to output an utterance associated with content displayed on one of the first and second displays (audio output module 152 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0068]; speaker 152 performs a function of notifying information to be provided to the user through a voice – see at least ¶ [0053]; simultaneous output of information via the display unit and the speaker – see at least ¶ [0102]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robot of Vu to provide a second display, as taught by Shin, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide information for users located in front or behind the robot as the robot travels a path (Shin at ¶ [0056).
Regarding claim 13, Shin further teaches:
wherein, while the guidance robot travels, the processor controls the output unit in such a manner as to output an utterance associated with content displayed on the second display (audio output module 152 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0068]; speaker 152 performs a function of notifying information to be provided to the user through a voice – see at least ¶ [0053]; simultaneous output of information via the display unit and the speaker – see at least ¶ [0102]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined robot of Vu and Shin to output an utterance displayed on the second display, as further taught by Shin, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide information for users located in front or behind the robot as the robot travels a path (Shin at ¶ [0056).
Regarding claim 14, Shin further teaches:
wherein, while the guidance robot travels, the processor controls the output unit in such a manner as to output an utterance associated with content displayed on the second display (audio output module 152 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0068]; speaker 152 performs a function of notifying information to be provided to the user through a voice – see at least ¶ [0053]; simultaneous output of information via the display unit and the speaker – see at least ¶ [0102]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined robot of Vu and Shin to output an utterance displayed on the second display, as further taught by Shin, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide information for users located in front or behind the robot as the robot travels a path (Shin at ¶ [0056).
Regarding claim 20, Vu further teaches:
outputting an utterance associated with content displayed [ ] at the adjusted volume, based on the collected situational information (annunciator may adjust volume based on detected background noise – see at least ¶ [0252])
Vu fails to teach but Shin discloses an intelligent service robot and teaches:
a step of displaying different content items on a first display provided on the front surface of the body of the guidance robot and a second display provided on the rear surface of the body of the guidance robot, respectively (display unit 151 may be provided on the rear as well as the front – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0056]); and
a step of outputting an utterance associated with content displayed on one of the first and second displays at the adjusted volume, based on the collected situational information (audio output module 152 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0068]; speaker 152 performs a function of notifying information to be provided to the user through a voice – see at least ¶ [0053]; simultaneous output of information via the display unit and the speaker – see at least ¶ [0102]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robot of Vu to display different content on first and second displays, as taught by Shin, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide information for users located in front or behind the robot as the robot travels a path (Shin at ¶ [0056).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights