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 1-2,4,6,8,10-15 and 17-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 03/20/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: “an information acquisition unit that acquires a plurality of pieces of information” in claims 1 and 17, “a designated item acquisition unit that acquires a designated item” in claim 11, “a determination unit that determines” in claim 18, and “a notification unit that notifies” in claim 19. See Fig. 21 of the instant application disclosing all of the units may configure the operation learning support device, which is configured by one computer or a plurality of computers see [0118] of the instant application.
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 § 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, 10-11, 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 1
Oleynik discloses “A control device comprising: an actuating unit that moves an object;” (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 a plurality of pieces of information;” (See Oleynik [0137] disclosing sensors capable of collecting and providing data including environment and geometrical sensors.).
Oleynik discloses “and a control unit that controls the actuating unit by using the information acquired by the information acquisition unit and AI.” (See Oleynik [0137] disclosing abstraction motion-commands can be generated from the raw data, refined, and optimized through a multitude of iterative learning processes, carried out live and/or off-line, allowing 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 10
Oleynik discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the control device according to claim 1.” (See Oleynik Fig. 2, Chars. 16 and 52 disclosing a robotic kitchen computer with a memory.).
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 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.
Claims 4, 6, 8, and 12 are 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 4 and similarly with respect to claims 6, 8, 12
Oleynik discloses “The control device according to claim 1, wherein the information acquisition unit acquires at least one of an operation of a cook, and heat, 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 “and the control unit controls the actuating unit by using the information and AI, and causes the actuating unit to reproduce a dish,” (See Oleynik [0141] disclosing the assembly of minimanipulations into end-to-end-tasks is performed by robotic planning, taking into account the preconditions and postconditions of the component minimanipulations. The library is repository that uses sensor data, such as a camera, and iterative learning (AI), see Oleynik [0426]-[0427].).
Oleynik discloses “wherein the actuating unit is configured to be worn by a human,” (See Oleynik [0426] disclosing a human chef wears a complete arm-exoskeleton.).
Oleynik discloses all the elements of claim 4 except “and the control unit causes the actuating unit to assist a motion of the human who cooks.” (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 motion of the human who cooks.” (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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2
The recitation “wherein the control unit controls the actuating unit in units of 1/1 billion seconds by using the information and AI,” 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Furuya et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0398937) discloses an information processing device, information processing method, and program which may acquire sensor data corresponding to a difference between the body movement of a first user wearing a wearable and a second user, perform machine learning operations on the data and provide feedback to the second user, see Abstract, Fig. 3, and [0217].
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
Prosecution Insights