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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 8, 10, 11, and 13-15 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 12 have been amended. Claims 1-7, 9, and 12 are pending and examined below.
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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200114521 A1 (“Mahoor”) in view of US 10258295 B2 (“Fountaine”).
As per Claim 1, Mahoor discloses an action control systems comprising:
a memory (¶ 104—“memory”); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory (Claim 1—“a processor electrically coupled with the projector, the facial camera, the microphone, and the speaker”), the at least one processor being configured to:
determine an emotion of a user or an emotion of a robot (¶ 13—“determining with a processor a mood based on the speech input and/or the facial images”); and
generate an action content of the robot for an action of the user and the emotion of the user or the emotion of the robot based on a dialogue function of causing the user and the robot to have a dialogue with each other, and determines an action of the robot corresponding to the action content (¶ 28—“a dialog management system that integrates emotional intelligence into spoken dialog with users…interpret a user's affect (e.g., engagement, frustration, excitement, tone, facial expression, etc.), and produce contextually appropriate responses, facial expressions, and/or neck movements”),
detect the action of the user ¶ 25—“ recognize a user's expressions”)
Fountaine teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Mahoor, including namely wherein the at least one processor determines whether or not the action of the user is dangerous, and generates a first action content for correcting the action of the user in a case where the action of the user is dangerous (Col 2 Line 38—“determine occurrence of an event of concern”; Col 3 Line 5—“generate a verbal warning to the user with the speaker”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mahoor to include the limitations as taught by Fountaine for monitoring adverse events of a user and/or coordinating emergency actions such as caregiver communication (Fountaine: Col 1 Lines 13-14).
As per Claim 2, Fountaine teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Mahoor, including namely wherein the first action content includes at least one of making a gesture for correcting the action of the user and reproducing a speech for correcting the action of the user (Col 3 Line 5—“generate a verbal warning to the user with the speaker”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mahoor to include the limitations as taught by Fountaine for monitoring adverse events of a user and/or coordinating emergency actions such as caregiver communication (Fountaine: Col 1 Lines 13-14).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahoor in view of Fountaine and further in view of US 11670156 B2 (“Weisswange”).
As per Claim 3, Weisswange teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Mahoor, including namely wherein the at least one processor determines whether or not the action of the user has been corrected by detecting the action of the user after the robot makes the gesture or reproduces the speech, and generates a second action content different from the first action content in a case where the action of the user has been corrected (Claim 1—“detect, after or during the selected first behavior is carried out, an activity performed by the person; Claim 1—“determine whether the detected activity is the at least one activity”; Claim 1—“a second behavior representing an acknowledgment signal when the detected activity is the at least one activity”; Claim 1—“carry out the selected second behavior”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mahoor to include the limitations as taught by Weisswange to improve the performance of a system and method for reminding a person to perform certain activities (Weisswange: Col 1 Lines 36-38).
As per Claim 5, Weisswange teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Mahoor, including namely wherein the at least one processor determines whether or not the action of the user has been corrected by detecting the action of the user after the robot makes the gesture or reproduces the speech, and generates a third action content different from the first action content in a case where the action of the user has not been corrected (Col 4 Lines 5-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mahoor to include the limitations as taught by Weisswange to improve the performance of a system and method for reminding a person to perform certain activities (Weisswange: Col 1 Lines 36-38).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahoor in view of Fountaine and Weisswange and further in view of US 20200242966 A1 (“Hori”).
As per Claim 4, Hori teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Mahoor, including namely wherein the second action content includes at least one of a speech for praising the action of the user and a speech for expressing gratitude for the action of the user (¶ 21—“makes an encouraging speech for encouraging an action of a user”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mahoor to include the limitations as taught by Hori for making a speech for encouraging a user's action (Hori: ¶ 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahoor in view of Fountaine and Weisswange and further in view of US 20190358822 A1 (“Wojciechowski”).
As per Claim 6, Wojciechowski teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Mahoor, including namely wherein the third action content includes at least one of transmitting specific information to a person other than the user, making a gesture that draws an interest of the user, reproducing a sound that draws an interest of the user, and reproducing a video that draws an interest of the user (Claim 11—“sending an alert to another user”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mahoor to include the limitations as taught by Wojciechowski to provide an assistant robot that can take actions to prevent dangerous situations (Wojciechowski: ¶ 4).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahoor in view of Fountaine and further in view of US 10405745 B2 (“Gnana”).
As per Claim 7, Gnana teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Mahoor, including namely wherein the robot is mounted on a stuffed toy or is connected wirelessly or by wire to control target equipment mounted on a stuffed toy (Abstract—“a robotic figurine with a furry layer”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mahoor to include the limitations as taught by Gnana to provide healthcare delivery & monitoring as well as life style monitoring (Gnana: Col 1 Lines 18-19).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160199977 A1 (“Breazeal”) in view of Mahoor and Wojciechowski.
As per Claim 12, Breazeal discloses an action control system comprising:
a memory (¶ 137—“memory”); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory (¶ 131—“processor”), the at least one processor being configured to:
recognize a user state including an action of a user and a state of electronic equipment (¶ 60—“moment-to-moment physical state of users”; ¶ 322—“and the environment of the user of PCD”);
determine, as an action of the electronic equipment, any one of a plurality of types of equipment operations including performing no operation by using at least one of the user state, the state of the electronic equipment, the emotion of the user, and the emotion of the electronic equipment, and an action determination model at a predetermined timing (¶ 73—“may select his own goals (based on user input), and execute a closed loop real-time control system”); and
store, in history data, data including the action of the user (¶ 275—“longitudinal data collection facility for collecting data about the interactions of the user”).
Mahoor teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Breazeal, including namely
determine an emotion of the user or an emotion of the electronic equipment (¶ 9—“mood based on the speech input and/or the facial images”);
store, in history data, event data including an determined emotion value (¶ 74—“the database may include specific user profiles consisting of user preferences, a history of interactions, a history of user moods, a history of user responses”)
wherein the equipment operation includes provision of advice on caregiving to the user (¶ 27—“instruct a user about physical exercises”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Breazeal to include the limitations as taught by Mahoor to provide robots with emotional and social capabilities that may be useful for interacting with people in home situations (Mahoor: ¶ 2).
Wojciechowski teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Breazeal, including namely in a case where the at least one processor determines, as the action of the electronic equipment, to provide the advice on caregiving to the user, collects information regarding caregiving for the user and provides the advice on caregiving for the user based on the collected information (Claim 1—“recognizing a set of actions performed by the individual from the set of one or more images of the individual; recognizing verbal content from the individual from the sound signals; determining a health condition by analyzing the set of actions performed by the individual, the verbal content from the individual, and the environment data”; ¶ 47—“ask the user 201 for additional input thereby to diagnose the user”; Claim 11—“the set of actions includes at least one of: following the individual, alerting the individual, monitoring the individual, assisting the individual, and sending an alert to another user”; ¶ 47—“determines to contact another party (e.g., a physician, an emergency contact, another user nearby, etc.) and/or to provide assistance”). , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mahoor to include the limitations as taught by Wojciechowski to provide an assistant robot that can take actions to prevent dangerous situations (Wojciechowski: ¶ 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BASIL T JOS whose telephone number is (571)270-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 8:00 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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/Basil T. Jos/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
