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 .
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamiya et al. (US 6,175,772), hereafter referred to as Kamiya.
Regarding claim 1, Kamiya discloses a robot (Figure 1) comprising:
a controller (FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram showing the structures of the controller, element 20) including at least one circuit (circuit is made of elements 2, 4, 6, and 8) configured to:
acquire information on contact of a user with respect to the robot (“the controller 20 detects information about the state of the user”, col. 5, lines 5-11); and
instruct to perform a predetermined action that induces a favorable response of the user in accordance with a state of an interaction style of the user, based on the information on the contact (“the control method further comprises the steps of deducing preference/habit of the user from the recognized intention/emotional expression of the user, learning the deduced result, and using the learned deduced result for recognizing the intention/emotional expression of the user”, col. 2, lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 2, Kamiya discloses the robot as claimed in claim 1, and additionally discloses a robot wherein the controller is configured to estimate the predetermined action suitable for the state of the interaction style of the user (Figure 3, elements 31, 32, 35, and 40; “The information on the user's intentions and/or emotional expressions recognized at the intention/emotional expression recognition unit 31 is used as one piece of information for generating pseudo-emotions and as information for evaluating adequacy of the generated pseudo-emotions at the pseudo-emotion generation unit 32”, col. 7, lines 50-55);
observe the state of the interaction style of the user based on the information on the contact (intention/emotional expression recognition unit, element 31); and
determine the predetermined action suitable for the state of the interaction style based on a value of the action (behavior decision unit, element 40; Figure 2; col. 11, lines 6-16).
Regarding claim 3, Kamiya discloses the robot as claimed in claim 1, and additionally discloses a robot wherein the information on the contact includes information on at least one of a contact part, a contact range, a contact time, or a contact force (Figure 3: “pressure sensing senor”, element 4, includes information on contact force; and “approach sensing sensor”, element 6, includes).
Regarding claim 4, Kamiya discloses the robot as claimed in claim 1, and additionally discloses a robot further comprising a sensor configured to detect the information on the contact, wherein the sensor is configured not to disturb a tactile feeling of the user (Figure 4(a)-4(d) shows the tactile movement and feeling of a user, electrostatic approach-sensing sensor units, elements 6FL, 6FR, 6RL, and 6RR).
Regarding claim 5, Kamiya discloses the robot as claimed in claim 1, and additionally discloses a robot wherein the state of the interaction style is a predetermined state classified by a combination of the interaction style estimated based on the information on the contact and information on at least one of a contact time or a contact force of the interaction style (“ Further, the rubbing/hitting detection unit 23 conducts two-step detection: detection of contacted location and detection of being rubbed, i.e., the unit 23 detects first whether the user rubs the robot 1, and if the user rubs the robot, second how the user rubs the robot 1.”, col. 5, lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 8, Kamiya discloses the robot as claimed in claim 2, and additionally discloses a robot wherein the controller is configured to generate, by machine learning, a learning model configured to receive the state of the interaction style of the user and output the value of the action of the robot (“preference/habit learning unit”, element 35; “causing the neural network to undergo advance learning the relationship between pieces of information including the user's state and preferences/habits, and the contents of intentions.” And “information for creating target-achievement motion in accordance with the user's intentions/emotional expressions”, col. 6, lines 41-62).
Regarding claim 9, Kamiya discloses the robot as claimed in claim 8, and additionally discloses a robot wherein the controller is configured to acquire information on a result of quality of a reaction of the user as a result of the action of the robot, and wherein the controller updates the learning model based on the result of the quality of the response (“information related to reaction from the user in response to the robot's behavior at a behavior decision means 40, and is further used as teacher data related to the user's preferences/habits at the preference/habit learning unit 35”, col. 6, lines 50-62).
Regarding claim 10, Kamiya discloses the robot as claimed in claim 8, and additionally discloses a robot wherein the learning model is an action value table or a neural network (“neural network”, col. 6, line 42).
Regarding claim 11, Kamiya discloses the robot as claimed in claim 9,
wherein the controller further acquires a face image of a user (“facial expressions are detected”, col. 16, lines 39-40) and biological information of the user (“the user's heartbeat or perspiration”, col. 16, lines 38-39),
wherein the information on the result of the quality of the reaction includes an emotional level of the user estimated from the face image and the biological information (“the user's state (such as laughing or angry) recognized based on the user's facial expressions, gestures, rubbing/hitting behavior, voices, or the like is used as input, and basic emotional models are outputted”, col. 8, lines 14-26), and
wherein the controller acquires a reward for the action of the robot based on the result of the quality of the reaction, and updates the value of the action for the state of the interaction style of the user based on the reward (“coupling load “, col, 8, lines 14-26).
Regarding claim 12, Kamiya discloses a learning device (FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram showing the structures of the controller, element 20) communicatively connected to a robot, the learning device comprising:
a processor (element 20); and
a memory (“information memory unit”, Figure 3, element 37) storing program instructions that cause the processor to:
observe, based on information on contact of a user with respect to the robot, a state of an interaction style of the user (intention/emotional expression recognition unit, Figure 3, element 31); and
generate, by machine learning, a learning model configured to receive the state of the interaction style of the user and output a value of an action of the robot (“recognition of the user's intentions using a neural network…requests to the robot”, col.6, lines 41-49).
Regarding claim 13, Kamiya discloses the learning device as claimed in claim 12,
wherein the program instructions cause the processor to determine the action of the robot suitable for the state of the interaction style based on the value of the action (“preference/habit learning unit”, element 35; “causing the neural network to undergo advance learning the relationship between pieces of information including the user's state and preferences/habits, and the contents of intentions.”, col. 6, lines 41-62); and
transmit, to the robot, a command to perform the action (“information for creating target-achievement motion in accordance with the user's intentions/emotional expressions”, col. 6, lines 41-62).
Regarding claim 14, Kamiya discloses a method of a robot, the control method comprising:
acquiring, by the robot, information on contact of a user with respect to the robot (“the controller 20 detects information about the state of the user”, col. 5, lines 5-11); and
performing, by the robot, a predetermined action that induces a favorable response of the user in accordance with a state of an interaction style of the user, based on the information on the contact (“the control method further comprises the steps of deducing preference/habit of the user from the recognized intention/emotional expression of the user, learning the deduced result, and using the learned deduced result for recognizing the intention/emotional expression of the user”, col. 2, lines 58-63).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya (US 6,175,772) in view of Kamajima et al. (JP 2006-088276), hereafter referred to as Kamajima.
Regarding claim 6, Kamiya discloses robot as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose a robot wherein the predetermined action is an action that imitates the interaction style of the user. Furthermore, Kamajima teaches a robot (Figure 1, element 12) wherein the predetermined action is an action that imitates the interaction style of the user (motion generation system, Figure 1, element 10; “operation that imitates (i.e., is similar to or the same as) the body motion of the human”, paragraph [0028]). Kamajima reveals that it is known in the art of interactive robots to provide a predetermined action that imitates the interaction style of the user for the purpose of smooth communication with humans. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the robot of Kamiya to incorporate the teachings of Kamajima to provide a predetermined action that imitates the interaction style of the user for the purpose of smooth communication with humans.
Regarding claim 7, Kamiya discloses robot as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose a robot wherein the predetermined action is an action that imitates at least one of a duration of the interaction by the user, a contact change rate of the user, or a contact force of the user. Furthermore, Kamajima teaches a robot (Figure 1, element 12) wherein the predetermined action is an action that imitates at least one of a duration of the interaction by the user, a contact change rate of the user, or a contact force of the user (motion generation system, Figure 1, element 10; “operation that imitates (i.e., is similar to or the same as) the body motion of the human or an operation that synchronizes with the motion of the human 14 is executed”, paragraph [0028]; Note that an operation that synchronizes with the motion of the human would have to be moving at the same rate as the human). Kamajima reveals that it is known in the art of interactive robots to provide a predetermined action that imitates the interaction contact change rate of the user for the purpose of smooth communication with humans. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the robot of Kamiya to incorporate the teachings of Kamajima to provide a predetermined action that imitates the interaction contact change rate of the user for the purpose of smooth communication with humans.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALYN G YOUNGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/K.G.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
