DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This Non-final communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) are:
Claims 1-3, and 6:
[ Image Evoking Unit] Prong1: image evoking unit; Prong 2: that extracts a registered object Prong 3: Sufficient structure not recited. ; Specification: Paragraph {0062} ; A function of the information processing apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment can be realized by cooperation of software and hardware to be described below. Functions of the overall control unit 120, the instruction analysis unit 130, the image evoking unit 140, the name object registration unit 150, and the robot
control unit 160 may be executed by, for example, a CPU 901.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6:
[ Name Object Registration Unit] Prong1: name object registration unit; Prong 2: that registers a correspondence ; Prong 3: Sufficient structure not recited. ; Specification: Paragraph {0062} ; A function of the information processing apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment can be realized by cooperation of software and hardware to be described below. Functions of the overall control unit 120, the instruction analysis unit 130, the image evoking unit 140, the name object registration unit 150, and the robot control unit 160 may be executed by, for example, a CPU 901.
Claims 1, 6 and 8-9:
[ Overall Control Unit] Prong1: overall control unit; Prong 2: that grasps correspondence ; Prong 3: Sufficient structure not recited. ; Specification: Paragraph {0062} ; A function of the information processing apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment can be realized by cooperation of software and hardware to be described below. Functions of the overall control unit 120, the instruction analysis unit 130, the image evoking unit 140, the name object registration unit 150, and the robot control unit 160 may be executed by, for example, a CPU 901.
Claims 7-8:
[Instruction Analysis Unit] Prong1: instruction analysis unit; Prong 2: that analyzes ; Prong 3: Sufficient structure not recited. ; Specification: Paragraph {0062} ; A function of the information processing apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment can be realized by cooperation of software and hardware to be described below. Functions of the overall control unit 120, the instruction analysis unit 130, the image evoking unit 140, the name object registration unit 150, and the robot control unit 160 may be executed by, for example, a CPU 901.
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 1-3, 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Nakano (US 20100332231 A1)
Claim 1:
Nakano teaches the following limitations:
An information processing apparatus comprising: an image evoking unit that extracts a registered object from a captured image and outputs an identifier corresponding to the extracted object; (Nakano - [0136] When a speech for teaching a name of an object is inputted and this expert is activated, this expert requires the image study/recognition module to perform an image study. Then, the image study/recognition module determines whether the object it sees is the same as the one memorized in the past or not. When the object it sees is the same as the one memorized in the past, the image study/recognition module returns the ID of the object. …) a name object registration unit that registers a correspondence between a name of the object and the identifier; and (Nakano - [0139] When a speech for asking a name of an object is recognized, an image study request is sent to the image study/recognition module. When the returned result shows an ID of an object for which the name is already learned, then the name of the object is answered. …) an overall control unit that grasps a correspondence between the name included in an instruction text and the object included in the captured image on a basis of the identifier and (Nakano - [0021] However, when considering a scene when a domestic robot is actually used, it is required to detect a speech that teaches a name in a natural spoken dialogue to extract the name of an object in the speech to link the name to the object. ; [0136] … When the object it sees is the same as the one memorized in the past, the image study/recognition module returns the ID of the object. …) executes an operation on the object instructed by the instruction text. (Nakano - [0117] In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the suggested architecture, a dialogue robot was structured. This robot can learn a name of an object by a dialogue and can move to find the object when receiving an instruction to search the object based on the name. )
Claim 2:
Nakano teaches the following limitations:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the instruction by the instruction text is an instruction about giving a name to an object in the captured image, (Nakano - [0136] When a speech for teaching a name of an object is inputted and this expert is activated, this expert requires the image study/recognition module to perform an image study. Then, the image study/recognition module determines whether the object it sees is the same as the one memorized in the past or not. When the object it sees is the same as the one memorized in the past, the image study/recognition module returns the ID of the object. …) the name object registration unit registers the name included in the instruction text and the identifier output from the image evoking unit to which the captured image is input in association with each other. (Nakano - [0139] When a speech for asking a name of an object is recognized, an image study request is sent to the image study/recognition module. When the returned result shows an ID of an object for which the name is already learned, then the name of the object is answered. …)
Claim 3:
Nakano teaches the following limitations:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein, in a case where the object included in the captured image is not registered, the image evoking unit registers the object and outputs a new identifier corresponding to the object. (Nakano - [0136] … When the object it sees is not the same as the one memorized in the past, the image study/recognition module memorizes the feature of the object image and returns the ID of the object. When the image study/recognition module fails to study the object, the module sends a failure flag. When the study is failed, the lexical acquisition dialogue expert tells the user by a speech that the study is failed. If the ID of the object is obtained, the lexical acquisition dialogue expert requests the lexical acquisition module to perform a lexical acquisition. Then, the lexical acquisition module acquires the name using a language model of a teaching speech that is studied in advance and returns the name.)
Claim 5:
Nakano teaches the following limitations:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the name object registration unit associates at least one or more names with one identifier. (Nakano - [0139] When a speech for asking a name of an object is recognized, an image study request is sent to the image study/recognition module. When the returned result shows an ID of an object for which the name is already learned, then the name of the object is answered. …)
Claim 6:
Nakano teaches the following limitations:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the name object registration unit outputs the identifier corresponding to the name included in the instruction text, and (Nakano - [0139] When a speech for asking a name of an object is recognized, an image study request is sent to the image study/recognition module. When the returned result shows an ID of an object for which the name is already learned, then the name of the object is answered. …) the overall control unit grasps the correspondence between the name and the object on a basis of matching between the identifier output from the name object registration unit and the identifier output from the image evoking unit. (Nakano - [0137] The lexical acquisition dialogue expert writes the relation between the acquired words and the object ID in a global context and adds the acquired words to the finite state grammar for speech recognition. ; [0138] When an object search request is recognized, the object search expert obtains the object ID from the recognition result and sends the object search request to the image study/recognition module and moves the robot through a route specified in advance. …)
Claim 7:
Nakano teaches the following limitations:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an instruction analysis unit that analyzes content of the instruction text. (Nakano - [0117] In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the suggested architecture, a dialogue robot was structured. This robot can learn a name of an object by a dialogue and can move to find the object when receiving an instruction to search the object based on the name. ; [0118] A task of the suggested architecture is to allow a robot that performs dialogues of various domains to learn a name of an object in the dialogues with a person. Specifically, it is assumed that there is a lexical acquisition dialogue domain as one domain of the so-called multi domain dialogue. …)
Claim 11:
Nakano teaches the following limitations:
An information processing method comprising: extracting a registered object from a captured image and outputting an identifier corresponding to the extracted object;
(Nakano - [0136] When a speech for teaching a name of an object is inputted and this expert is activated, this expert requires the image study/recognition module to perform an image study. Then, the image study/recognition module determines whether the object it sees is the same as the one memorized in the past or not. When the object it sees is the same as the one memorized in the past, the image study/recognition module returns the ID of the object. …) registering a correspondence between a name of the object and the identifier; and (Nakano - [0139] When a speech for asking a name of an object is recognized, an image study request is sent to the image study/recognition module. When the returned result shows an ID of an object for which the name is already learned, then the name of the object is answered. …) grasping a correspondence between the name included in an instruction text and the object included in the captured image on a basis of the identifier and (Nakano - [0021] However, when considering a scene when a domestic robot is actually used, it is required to detect a speech that teaches a name in a natural spoken dialogue to extract the name of an object in the speech to link the name to the object. ; [0136] … When the object it sees is the same as the one memorized in the past, the image study/recognition module returns the ID of the object. …) causing an operation on the object instructed by the instruction text to be executed. (Nakano - [0117] In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the suggested architecture, a dialogue robot was structured. This robot can learn a name of an object by a dialogue and can move to find the object when receiving an instruction to search the object based on the name. )
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano
(US 20100332231 A1) as modified by Kawamoto (US 20140157156 A1)
Claim 4:
Nakano does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Kawamoto teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the object is displayed in the captured image so as to be able to be uniquely specified.
(Kawamoto - [0109] Further, the robot 22 moves in the room 36 and calculates a score that indicates a degree that the object is the target, that is, a degree that the object is a subject to be processed by the robot 22, based on the captured image obtained by capturing the object with the built-in camera. In addition, an identifier for identifying (a function indicating) whether the object is the target is used to calculate the score.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakano to include a method of captured image containing the target as taught in Kawamoto. This method provides a way of ensuring that the correct object is visually highlighted for the operator which in turn ensures that the object is accurately named, identified, and processed according the intent of the operator.
Claim 8:
Nakano does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Kawamoto teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 7,wherein, in a case where the operation on the object instructed by the instruction text is specified by the instruction analysis unit, (Kawamoto - [0246] Next, FIG. 19 shows a configuration example of the robot 22. ; [0247] The robot 22 includes a communicating unit 61, a camera 62, a distance sensor 63, a microphone 64, a speaker 65, a control unit 66, a driving unit 67, and a storage unit 68. ; [0248] The communicating unit 61 receives instruction information, feedback information, and specified range information from the instructing device 21 and supplies the information to the control unit 66. ; [0249] The communicating unit 61 transmits the robot recognition information from the control unit 66 to the instructing device 21.) the overall control unit causes the operation on the object to be executed on a basis of an analysis result of the instruction analysis unit. (Kawamoto - [0255] Further, the control unit 66 controls the driving unit 67 based on the instruction information from the communicating unit 61 and autonomously performs the behavior instructed by the user. That is, for example, the control unit 66 controls the driving unit 67 to allow the robot 22 to autonomously search, as a target, an object belonging to a category indicated by category information included in the instruction information. ; [0299] Further, the score calculating processing, for example, ends when the robot 22 finds the target and brings the object to the user.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakano to include a method of interpreting and processing incoming instructions as taught in Kawamoto. Providing a method of interpreting and processing incoming instructions from the operator ensures that the robot accurately behaves according the intent of the operator.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano
(US 20100332231 A1) as modified by Kiuchi (US 20250196331 A1)
Claim 9:
Nakano does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Kiuchi teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the overall control unit causes a robot including a manipulator to execute the operation on the object.
(Kiuchi - [0027] As shown in FIG. 1, the robot 20 includes a robot arm 201, an imaging device 202 (an example of a capturing means), and a drive mechanism 203 (an example of a drive means). The robot arm 201 grasps a physical object in accordance with an operation of the drive mechanism 203. The imaging device 202 captures the physical object in the tray T. For example, the imaging device 202 captures a plurality of types of physical objects (e.g., products) packaged by a packaging member with transparency, a barcode or a tag indicating a physical object attached to a physical object, or the like. …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakano to include a manipulator on the robot that is being instructed as taught in Kiuchi. Providing a manipulator for the robot allows the machine to interact with real world objects and act in accordance to the intent of the operator.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano
(US 20100332231 A1) as modified by Kiuchi (US 20250196331 A1) in view of Kawamoto (US 20140157156 A1)
Claim 10:
Nakano in combination with Kiuchi does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Kawamoto teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the instruction text is generated by performing voice recognition on a voice uttered by a user of the robot.
(Kawamoto -[0101] Further, a method for instructing the robot 22 is not limited to the above-mentioned method that uses the instructing device 21. For example, if the robot 22 may recognize a voice of the user by the voice recognition, the user may indicate the target using a voice. …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakano and Kuichi to include a means of receiving instruction via voice recognition as taught in Kawamoto. Providing a means of receiving instructions from the operator via voice recognition allows instructions to be conveyed by an operator with minimal programming experience and also allows for operator and robot to react to changing circumstances with greater flexibility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Horowitz (US 20230191608 A1) describes using machine learning to recognize variant objects by identifying an object as a variant of an object type by inputting sensed data associated with the object into a modified machine learning model corresponding to the variant of the object type, wherein the modified machine learning model corresponding to the variant of the object type is generated using a machine learning model corresponding to the object type; and generating a control signal to provide to a sorting device that is configured to perform a sorting operation on the object.
Aoyama (US 20040215463 A1) describes a learning system, a learning method, and a robot apparatus, the name of an object is obtained from the user through a dialog with the user. The object is identified based on the detection results of the predetermined plural different features of the object and the learning results of the respective features of the known object previously stored.
Sun (US 20210024297 A1) describes a system for sorting moving objects. The system comprises a light source, an image capturing device, a controlling and processing device, and an object sorting device. Particularly, the controlling and processing device is configured to decide a first setting parameter so as to apply a parameter adjustment to the light source, and is also configured to decide a second setting parameter so as to apply a parameter adjustment to the image capturing device. After deciding an object classifier based on the first setting parameter, the second setting parameter, and object images received from the image capturing device, the object sorting device is controlled to apply an object sorting process to the objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW whose telephone number is (703)756-1854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 5.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270 5376. 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.
/ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights