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
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 03/20/2025. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10-15 and 17-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9, 16 and 21-22 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 07/01/2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/31/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10-15 and 17-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9, 16 and 21-22 are canceled. Examiner further acknowledges applicant’s acknowledgment of examiner’s interpretation of the 112(f) limitation found in claims 1, 11 and 17-19.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oleynik (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0348854)-IDS.
Regarding claim 11
Oleynik discloses “An operation reproducing device comprising: an actuating unit that reproduces an operation of a model;” (See Oleynik [0137] disclosing a system for a robotic manipulation method including human motion-capture systems such as an exoskeleton and powered equipment including actuators.).
Oleynik discloses “an information acquisition unit that acquires information related to the operation of the model from a sensor;” (See Oleynik [0137] disclosing sensors capable of collecting and providing data including environment and geometrical sensors.).
Oleynik discloses “a designated item acquisition unit that acquires a designated item when reproducing the operation of the model;” (See Oleynik [0137] disclosing generating abstraction motion-commands from the raw (sensor) data and iterative learning processes.).
Oleynik discloses “and a control unit that causes the actuating unit to reproduce the operation based on the information acquired from the sensor and the designated item.” (See Oleynik [0137] disclosing abstraction motion-commands allow the robotic kitchen systems to successfully deal with measurement-uncertainties, ingredient variations, etc., enabling complex (adaptive) minimanipulation motions using fingered-hands mounted to robot-arms and wrists, based on fairly abstraction/high-level commands.).
Regarding claim 13
Oleynik discloses “The operation reproducing device according to claim 11, wherein the information acquisition unit acquires at least one of an operation of cooking by a cook who cooks, a time taken for each step of cooking, a shape and a size of an ingredient, and a temperature, a shape, a color, a texture, and an odor of a dish as information,” (See Oleynik [0141] & [0547] disclosing a minimanipulation library of higher-level sensing-and-execution sequences for complex tasks, including cooking, taking care of the infirm, or other tasks performed by the next generation of humanoid robots. And [0519]-[0520] disclosing part assembly (factory work).).
Oleynik discloses “the designated item acquisition unit acquires at least one of seasoning, a time by which the dish is desired to be completed, a type of the cook, and a level of the cook as the designated item,” (See Oleynik Fig. 5A, Char. 158 & [0414] disclosing abstraction data includes temporal (start/finish, type) distribution types of processes (stir, fold, etc.) being applied, and ingredients added (type, amount, state of prep, etc.) through the cooking sequence and process abstraction module.).
Oleynik discloses “and the control unit causes the actuating unit to reproduce the operation of cooking based on the information acquired from the sensor and the designated item.” (See Oleynik [0137] disclosing abstraction motion-commands allow the robotic kitchen systems to successfully deal with measurement-uncertainties, ingredient variations, etc., enabling complex (adaptive) minimanipulation motions using fingered-hands mounted to robot-arms and wrists, based on fairly abstraction/high-level commands.).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furuya et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0104213).
Regarding claim 17
Furuya discloses “An operation learning support device that supports a user to learn an operation of a model, the operation learning support device comprising: an actuating unit that operates in accordance with given information;” (See Furuya [0154] disclosing moving members of the wearable device with an actuator, and based on the feedback information which is determined via sensors and the role model, see Furuya [0079] & [0192]. Also see Furuya [0082] disclosing the movement may be related to a sports activity.).
Furuya discloses “a first information acquisition unit that acquires, from a first sensor, information related to the operation of the model;” (See Furuya [0078]-[0079] & [0132] disclosing obtaining sensing data from an expert(s) performing a task, to build a role model, with a plurality of sensors.).
Furuya discloses “a second information acquisition unit that acquires information related to an operation of the user via a second sensor worn by the user;” (See Furuya [0117] disclosing the sensor device may be a wearable device. Also see Furuya [0131] disclosing acquiring the sensor data of the user wearing the sensing device.).
Furuya discloses “an extraction unit that compares the information related to the operation of the model with the information related to the operation of the user and extracts a difference between two;” (See Furuya [0142] disclosing comparing the user sensor data to previous user data with a comparator.).
Furuya discloses “and a control unit that generates, based on the difference between the two, complementary information for complementing difference in operation between the user and the model, and outputs the complementary information to the actuating unit.” (See Furuya [0143] disclosing outputting feedback information based on the comparison and Furuya [0154] disclosing moving members of the wearable device with an actuator, and based on the feedback information which is determined via sensors and the role model.).
Regarding claim 18
Furuya discloses “The operation learning support device according to claim 17, further comprising: a determination unit that determines an operation learning level of the user based on the difference between the two, and outputs a determination result,” (See Furuya [0079] disclosing determining a users degree of shift from a role model of an expert, based on the comparison.).
Furuya discloses “wherein the control unit generates the complementary information for complementing the difference in operation between the user and the model based on the difference between the two and the determination result, and outputs the complementary information to the actuating unit.” (See Furuya [0079] disclosing providing feedback to a user based on the comparison. The feedback is provided to the actuator, see Furuya [0154].).
Regarding claim 19
Furuya discloses “The operation learning support device according to claim 17, further comprising a notification unit that notifies the user of the difference in operation when the difference between the two is extracted.” (See Furuya [0093] disclosing providing notifications to a user based on the feedback information.).
Regarding claim 20
Furuya discloses “The operation learning support device according to claim 19, wherein the control unit outputs the complementary information to the actuating unit and the notification unit,” (See Furuya [0093] disclosing providing notifications to a user based on the feedback information and Furuya [0154] disclosing providing the feedback information to the actuator.).
Furuya discloses “and the notification unit notifies the difference in operation based on the complementary information,” (See Furuya [0093] disclosing providing notifications to a user based on the feedback information.).
Furuya discloses “wherein the operation of the model is an operation by a cook or an operation by an athlete.” (See Furuya [0007] disclosing a sensing data acquisition unit configured to acquire multiple sets of sensing data from at least one sensors configured to sense a condition. of multiple movement elements in a performance that is performed because multiple parts of a body of a user move and Furuya [0082] disclosing the movement may be related to a sports activity.).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oleynik (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0348854)-IDS in view of Glaser (D.E. Publication No. 10 2018/221993).
Regarding claim 12
Oleynik discloses “The operation reproducing device according to claim 11, wherein the actuating unit is worn by a human,” (See Oleynik [0426] disclosing a human chef wears a complete arm-exoskeleton.).
Oleynik discloses all the elements of claim 12 except “and the control unit causes the actuating unit to assist a human wearing the actuating unit to reproduce the operation.” (See Oleynik [0137] disclosing performing robotic minimanipulations, however not necessary assisting the human wearing the exoskeleton with the actuator and Oleynik [0426] disclosing a human chef wears a complete arm-exoskeleton.).
Glaser discloses “and the control unit causes the actuating unit to assist a human wearing the actuating unit to reproduce the operation.” (See Glaser [0011] disclosing exoskeletons may reinforce the movement of a user with an actuator.).
Oleynik and Glaser are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oleynik to incorporate the teachings of Glaser to include actuating an exoskeleton to support a user. Doing so provides a known method in the art for giving an external support structure to a body part or a biological organism, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it may advantageously support a user in improving a physical condition see Glaser [0007].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oleynik (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0348854)-IDS in view of Furuya et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0104213).
Regarding claim 14
Oleynik discloses “The control device according to claim 11,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the information acquisition unit acquires at least one of a body motion, a line of sight, and a moving speed when an athlete plays as information,”, “the designated item acquisition unit acquires a skill of a person who plays as the designated item,”, & “and the control unit causes the actuating unit to reproduce an operation of sports based on the information acquired from the sensor and the designated item.”.
Furuya discloses “wherein the information acquisition unit acquires at least one of a body motion, a line of sight, and a moving speed when an athlete plays as information,” (See Furuya [0007] disclosing a sensing data acquisition unit configured to acquire multiple sets of sensing data from at least one sensors configured to sense a condition. of multiple movement elements in a performance that is performed because multiple parts of a body of a user move and Furuya [0082] disclosing the movement may be related to a sports activity.).
Furuya discloses “the designated item acquisition unit acquires a skill of a person who plays as the designated item,” (See Furuya Fig. 14, Char. S303 and [0191]-[0192] disclosing acquiring a role model for a person using the wearable device, from a database.).
Furuya discloses “and the control unit causes the actuating unit to reproduce an operation of sports based on the information acquired from the sensor and the designated item.” (See Furuya [0154] disclosing moving members of the wearable device with an actuator, and based on the feedback information which is determined via sensors and the role model, see Furuya [0079] & [0192]. Also see Furuya [0082] disclosing the movement may be related to a sports activity.).
Oleynik and Furuya are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oleynik to incorporate the teachings of Furuya to include actuating an exoskeleton to support a user performing a sports/athletic related body motion. Doing so provides a known method in the art for giving an external support structure to a body part or a biological organism, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it may advantageously provide a new and novel information processing device that provides, as feedback to a user, information based on a level of collaboration of multiple movement elements in a performance provided. by collaborative or non-collaborative moves of multiple parts of a body of the user and that is usable to support mastering a performance, see Furuya [0010].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oleynik (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0348854)-IDS in view of Glaser (D.E. Publication No. 10 2018/221993) in further view of Furuya et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0104213).
Regarding claim 15
Oleynik in view of Glaser discloses “The control device according to claim 12,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the actuating unit feeds back information related to a motion of the human wearing the actuating unit to the designated item acquisition unit,”, & “and the designated item acquisition unit acquires the fed back information as a designated item.”.
Furuya discloses “wherein the actuating unit feeds back information related to a motion of the human wearing the actuating unit to the designated item acquisition unit,” (See Furuya [0079] disclosing measuring movement of a user wearing the device.).
Furuya discloses “and the designated item acquisition unit acquires the fed back information as a designated item.” (See Furuya [0079] disclosing measuring movement of an expert user wearing the device as the role model.).
The rationale for forming the combination is similar to the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 14 in section 6.a.v of this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
352
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding P. 8-10 of arguments filed with respect to claims 11 and 17
Oleynik discloses “a designated item acquisition unit that acquires a designated item when reproducing the operation of the model;” (See Oleynik [0137] disclosing generating abstraction motion-commands from the raw (sensor) data and iterative learning processes.) At least see [0093] of the instant application disclosing the designated item acquisition unit may acquire feedback information relating to a motion of a person wearing an actuating unit. Oleynik [0137] further discloses “Sensors capable of collecting and providing such data include… sensors, as well as human motion-capture systems (human-worn camera-targets, instrumented suits/exoskeletons, instrumented gloves, etc.),” That is, the raw sensor data may correspond to the motion of a human wearing an actuating unit and the “raw data is processed by one or more software abstraction engines to create a recipe-script that is both human-readable and, through further processing, machine-understandable and machine-executable, spelling out all actions and motions for all steps of a particular recipe that a robotic kitchen would have to execute.” Raw data corresponding to the motion of human worn actuation units is feedback information related to the motion of a person wearing an actuation unit.
Oleynik discloses “and a control unit that causes the actuating unit to reproduce the operation based on the information acquired from the sensor and the designated item.” (See Oleynik [0137] disclosing abstraction motion-commands allow the robotic kitchen systems to successfully deal with measurement-uncertainties, ingredient variations, etc., enabling complex (adaptive) minimanipulation motions using fingered-hands mounted to robot-arms and wrists, based on fairly abstraction/high-level commands.). Oleynik [0137] further discloses “raw data is processed by one or more software abstraction engines to create a recipe-script that is both human-readable and, through further processing, machine-understandable and machine-executable, spelling out all actions and motions for all steps of a particular recipe that a robotic kitchen would have to execute.” That is the sensor data is collected and processed by the abstraction engine and the output is used to control an actuator, and therefore both sensor data and the abstraction output, which corresponds to the output of the designated item acquisition unit, are used to control an actuator.
PNG
media_image2.png
359
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furuya discloses “an extraction unit that compares the information related to the operation of the model with the information related to the operation of the user and extracts a difference between two;” (See Furuya [0142] disclosing comparing the user sensor data to previous user data with a comparator.). At least see Furuya [0079] disclosing “a feature value of the collected sensing data… and a feature value… of sensing data serving as a model for the taught person… (referred to as a role model below) are compared with each other” Further see Furuya [0089] disclosing “The sensor device 10 can be a sensor that is wearable on part of the body of a taught person or a player, an imaging device that captures images of the taught person or the player, a pressure sensor that is arranged in a piano that is played by the taught person or the player, or a sound pickup device that picks up sounds of the piano. The sensor device 10 is not particularly limited as for the number of sensor devices and the type as long as the sensor device 10 acquires multiple sets of sensing data.” Still further see Furuya [0093] disclosing “The user side device 70 is a device that notifies the taught person, or the like, of feedback information from the server”… “Furthermore, the user side device 70 may be a wearable device wearable on part of the body of the taught person.”. That is Furuya discloses using sensor data from a role model of an expert wearing a wearable sensor device, see Furuya [0132] disclosing the database is constructed from users wearing the sensor device and Furuya [0139] disclosing the comparator selects a feature value (role model) of a given playing condition (perfect playing by an expert) serving as a model for the taught person from the database. The role model therefore corresponds to the information related to the operation of the model and that role model information is compared with sensor data from a taught person to provide feedback.
Furuya discloses “and a control unit that generates, based on the difference between the two, complementary information for complementing difference in operation between the user and the model, and outputs the complementary information to the actuating unit.” (See Furuya [0143] disclosing outputting feedback information based on the comparison and Furuya [0154] disclosing moving members of the wearable device with an actuator, and based on the feedback information which is determined via sensors and the role model.). The feedback output from the comparison is based on a skill difference between the role model data and the taught person data, and therefore is complementary to the difference between an expert and a taught person. The feedback may be output to an actuator, see Furuya [0154]. “The haptic mechanism 710 is a device that provides haptic transmission, such as application of a force to part (such as a joint) of the body of the taught person based on the feedback information 506 that is transmitted from the server 30. For example, the haptic mechanism 710 is a globe-type wearable device (wearable device) 712 that is worn on the hands of the taught person as illustrated in FIG. 10. Specifically, the globe-type wearable device 712 is called a hand finger exoskeleton robot and, as illustrated in FIG. 11, is formed of a mechanism consisting of a plurality of exoskeleton members 712 a and an actuator (such as an electric actuator or a pneumatic actuator) (not illustrated in the drawing) that enables the exoskeleton members 712 a to move. The globe-type wearable device 712 causes the exoskeleton members 712 a to move using the actuator to apply forces to hand fingers and joints of the taught person, thereby, for example, allowing the taught person to haptically perceive how much the force in a direction in which a joint stretches out and bends is excessive or insufficient.”
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1
The amendment to incorporate the limitation “wherein the control unit controls the actuating unit in units of 1/1 billion seconds by using the information and Al, and the actuating unit drives a vehicle.” overcomes the art of record, rendering the claims in a manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art, Oleynik (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0348854). The claims specifically overcome the art of record, because of the limitation directed to controlling an actuating unit in units of 1/1 billion seconds based on sensor data and AI. For example, standard robotic actuators for wearables, such as an exoskeleton, operate with controllers in units of microseconds, as theoretically if an exoskeleton controller updated torque commands in units of 1 nanosecond, then the device could be damaged as the system's mechanical structure would be overwhelmed by high-frequency vibrations. The standard in the art therefore teaches away from performing control in this manner, and it would not have been reasonably obvious to modify Oleynik to arrive at the claimed invention in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claims is therefore allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
