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 .
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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on 7/22/2025. Claims 1-19 are pending and considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 2/10/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
An attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application 2023-018854 to which priority is claimed failed on 9/4/2025.
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:
“action unit” (claims 1-17) is a loudspeaker, light, display, arm, leg, wheel or belt on a robot, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0105-0106] (PGPub); FIG. 1, robot-10, action unit-17, mobilizing mechanism-17a, loudspeaker-17b, light-17c, image outputter-17d, and movable mechanism-17e; and FIG. 4, robot-10, mobilizing mechanism-17a, and light-17c;
“movable mechanism” (claim 2) is a robot arm, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, paragraph [0113]; and
“mobilizing mechanism” (claims 2 and 5-6) is a robot leg, wheel, or belt, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, paragraph [0105].
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
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 1-8, 10-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sternitzke (US-2023/0039466-A1, hereinafter Sternitzke).
Regarding claim 1, Sternitzke discloses:
A robot that is mobile, the robot comprising: a controller that controls the robot, and an action unit that performs an action based on an instruction from the controller (paragraphs [0036-0037] and [0042]; FIG. 1, control elements-36, display-37, differential drive-39, control-41, loudspeaker-42, and motor control-44; and FIG. 2, robot-1, controller-41, wheels-805, robot computer-810, robot processing unit-815, robot memory-820, processor-830, and memory-835); and
wherein the controller causes the action unit to perform a preliminary action before the robot starts to move in a place where the robot and a person are present together (paragraphs [0070-0072]; and FIG. 9, Elevator moves towards the destination floor-405, Robot signals that it plans to leave the elevator-435, and Robot exits elevator to target floor-445).
Regarding claim 2, Sternitzke further discloses:
wherein the action unit is at least one of a loudspeaker, a light, an image outputter, a movable mechanism, or a mobilizing mechanism for moving the robot (paragraphs [0036-0037] and [0042]; FIG. 1, display-37, and loudspeaker-42; and FIG. 2, robot-1, and wheels-805).
Regarding claim 3, Sternitzke further discloses:
wherein the controller causes the action unit to perform the preliminary action before the robot gets off a mobile body that moves in order to transport a person (paragraphs [0070-0072]).
Regarding claim 4, Sternitzke further discloses:
wherein the controller outputs, to the action unit, a preliminary action signal for causing the action unit to perform the preliminary action (paragraphs [0036-0037] and [0042]); and
the action unit performs the preliminary action upon receiving the preliminary action signal (paragraphs [0070-0072]).
Regarding claim 5, Sternitzke further discloses:
wherein the action unit includes a mobilizing mechanism for moving the robot (paragraphs [0036] and [0042]); and
the controller drives the mobilizing mechanism to perform the preliminary action, by outputting the preliminary action signal to the action unit (paragraph [0072], when the floor is reached, the robot can signal to bystanders that the robot wants to leave the elevator by slow movements towards the elevator door).
Regarding claim 6, Sternitzke further discloses:
wherein the controller drives the mobilizing mechanism to cause the robot to get off the mobile body, by outputting a main action signal to the action unit after outputting the preliminary action signal (paragraph [0072], as soon as the elevator door opens, the robot on the target floor leaves the elevator and moves to its target position on this floor).
Regarding claim 7, Sternitzke further discloses:
wherein the controller causes the action unit to perform the preliminary action, based on current position information of the mobile body and information on a location where the robot is to get off the mobile body (paragraphs [0070-0072]; and FIG. 9, Elevator moves towards the destination floor-405, Scanning the environment to detect elevator operating components and elevator display elements-410, and Robot signals that it plans to leave the elevator-435).
Regarding claim 8, Sternitzke further discloses:
wherein the information on the location where the robot is to get off the mobile body is information on a scheduled getting-off location where the robot is scheduled to get off the mobile body (paragraph [0037], planned route).
Regarding claim 10, Sternitzke further discloses:
wherein the controller causes the action unit to perform the preliminary action, when a floor occupancy proportion that is a proportion of (i) a floor area occupied by the robot and a person on a floor of the mobile body to (ii) a floor area of the floor of the mobile body is higher than a predetermined threshold (paragraphs [0063-0072]; FIG. 7, Occupancy grid map; and FIG. 9, Elevator moves towards the destination floor-405, Scanning the environment to detect elevator operating components and elevator display elements-410, Output via display/loudspeaker to make robot aware of target floor-420, Evaluation feedback via speech recognition/display-430, and Robot signals that it plans to leave the elevator-435).
Regarding claim 11, Sternitzke further discloses:
wherein the controller causes the action unit to perform the preliminary action to prevent the robot from coming in contact with a person in a vicinity of the robot (paragraph [0072], safety distances).
Regarding claim 12, Sternitzke further discloses:
wherein the controller causes the action unit to perform the preliminary action to enable a person located in a moving direction of the robot to notice the preliminary action (paragraph [0072], signal to bystanders).
Regarding claim 13, Sternitzke further discloses:
wherein the controller causes the action unit to perform the preliminary action according to a type of a person in the mobile body (paragraphs [0040] and [0072]; and FIG. 1, person detection-20, person identification-21, visual person tracking-22, laser-based person-tracking-23, and skeleton model creation-24).
Regarding claim 14, Sternitzke further discloses:
wherein when a person is in the mobile body, the controller causes the action unit to perform the preliminary action (paragraphs [0063-0066] and [0072]; and FIG. 7, Occupancy grid map); and
when no person is in the mobile body, the controller does not cause the action unit to perform the preliminary action (paragraphs [0063-0066] and [0072]).
Regarding claim 15, Sternitzke further discloses:
a detector that detects an inside of the mobile body (paragraphs [0040] and [0042]; FIG. 1, person detection-20, person identification-21, visual person tracking-22, laser-based person-tracking-23, skeleton model creation-24, LIDAR-34, and camera-35; and FIG. 2, robot-1, LIDAR-34, and camera-35); and
wherein the controller causes the action unit to perform the preliminary action based on information obtained by the detector (paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 16, Sternitzke further discloses:
wherein the robot is configured to move in the mobile body before the robot gets off the mobile body (paragraph [0072]; and FIG. 9, Robot signals that it plans to leave the elevator-435, and Robot exits elevator to target floor-445); and
the controller causes the action unit to perform the preliminary action before the robot moves in the mobile body (paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 18, Sternitzke further discloses:
A robot control method of controlling a robot that is mobile, the robot control method comprising: (paragraphs [0036-0037] and [0042]; FIG. 1, control elements-36, display-37, differential drive-39, control-41, loudspeaker-42, and motor control-44; and FIG. 2, robot-1, controller-41, wheels-805, robot computer-810, robot processing unit-815, robot memory-820, processor-830, and memory-835); and
causing the robot to perform a preliminary action before the robot starts to move in a place where the robot and a person are present together (paragraphs [0070-0072]; and FIG. 9, Elevator moves towards the destination floor-405, Robot signals that it plans to leave the elevator-435, and Robot exits elevator to target floor-445).
Regarding claim 19, Sternitzke further discloses:
wherein the preliminary action is performed before the robot gets off a mobile body that moves in order to transport a person (paragraphs [0070-0072]).
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sternitzke, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Deyle et al. (US-2022/0234194-A1, hereinafter Deyle).
Regarding claim 17, Sternitzke does not disclose a robot which exits and re-enters an elevator before reaching a destination floor. However, Deyle discloses a robot configured for operation in a commercial or industrial setting, including the following features:
wherein the robot is configured to get off and get on the mobile body again at a location that is different from a destination before getting off the mobile body at the destination (paragraph [0216]); and
the controller causes the action unit to perform the preliminary action before the robot moves to get off and get on again the mobile body at the location (paragraphs [0096-0102]; and FIG. 8, touch screen display-802).
Deyle teaches that a robot can leave an elevator altogether to let someone off the elevator, and can re-enter the elevator after the person has left (paragraph [0216]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system of temporarily moving a robot out of an elevator to allow passengers to exit of Deyle into the system of signaling bystanders when a robot plans to leave an elevator of Sternitzke. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of allowing people to exit the elevator. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with the social custom of temporarily exiting an elevator to allow others to exit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights