www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/837, 192
`
`04/01/2020
`
`Naotaka KUSUI
`
`733156.561
`
`5784
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panasonic
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`MURILLO GARCIA, FABRICIO R
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2633
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`07/09/2021
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`USPTOeAction @ SeedIP.com
`
`pairlinkdktg @seedip.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-12 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected.
`(1 Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`C} Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[M) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a) All
`1.{¥] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20210517
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/837, 192
`KUSUI etal.
`
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`
`FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA|2633 Yes
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 05/11/2021.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/837,192
`Art Unit: 2633
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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.
`
`Responseto Arguments
`
`Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s argumentsfiled on 11
`
`May 2021.
`
`Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 103
`
`Applicant's arguments [Pages 5-6] with respect to rejection of claims 1 and 7
`
`have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been
`
`withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in
`
`view of newly foundprior art reference(s).
`
`Regarding claim 1, on pages 5-6, Applicants argue that prior art of record fails
`
`to teach, “on a basis of information indicating an associative relationship between
`
`the state of the animal determined by the state determiner, an environmental
`
`sound picked up by the microphone, andthe feeling of the animaf, and further
`
`refer to the examples illustrated in Fig. 7 of the instant application.
`
`The Examiner respectfully submits that, as currently recited, this limitation is not
`
`indicating a further definition for “associative relationship” but a general illustration of the
`
`scopeof the invention. For example, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/837,192
`Art Unit: 2633
`
`Page 3
`
`having a combination of parameters, obtained from a pet, to determine a current feeling
`
`from said paid, similar as the parameters and feelings determined by Kuang’s Fig.3.
`
`That is, claim 1
`
`is generally grouping several parameters to determine a feeling of the
`
`dog, but not further defining them or explaining how they are actually related, as in the
`
`explanation of Fig.7 (page 6 of the arguments), where it would appearthat the shown
`
`chart is interconnecting each of the listed parameters.
`
`Hence, based on the Examiner’s interpretation, newly found reference Mizokawa
`
`discloses a system (Fig. 1a) which, upon the gathering of parameters -including
`
`environmental sounds- some behaviors from a user are determined [Paragraphs 21-23,
`
`44, 68]. Thus, a person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that, based on
`
`the Mizokawa’s disclosure, several parameters in Kuang are combinable in order to
`
`determine how, for example, a dog is feeling; where said parameters are the
`
`environment surrounding the pet, the position of the pet, and the emotions from it.
`
`Regarding claim 7, this claim has been amendedto incorporate similar
`
`limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1, and is rejected based on similar
`
`reasoning.
`
`Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
`
`Claim Status
`
`Claims 1 and 7 have been amended. Claims 8-12 have been added. Thus,
`
`claims 1-12 are presented for examination.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/837,192
`Art Unit: 2633
`
`Page 4
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections setforth 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 of thistitle, if the differences
`between the claimed invention andthe prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole
`would have been obvious before the effectivefiling 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Perlo (US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0154592) in view of Kuang (US
`
`Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0213401) and further in view of Mizokawa
`
`(US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0192625).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Perlo teaches an information processing apparatus(Figs.
`
`1-2), comprising:
`
`a feeling determiner that determinesa feeling of the animal (feelings of dogs
`
`are determined [Paragraphs 10, 14, 21]); and
`
`a notification processor that notifies a terminal of a wording indicating the
`
`feeling of the animal determined by the feeling determiner (user 7 is notified about
`
`the feeling of the animal by an equivalent phrase of the dog [Paragraph 5, 13, 14, 28]).
`
`However, Perlo does not explicitly mention a) a state determiner that
`
`determinesa state of an animal using a captured image of the animal; b) ona
`
`basis of information indicating a relationship between the state and thefeeling of
`
`the animal.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/837,192
`Art Unit: 2633
`
`Page 5
`
`Kuang teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of pet systems, the following:
`
`a) a state determiner that determines a state of an animal using a captured
`
`image of the animal (images taking of a dog are analyzed based on emotions and
`
`body signals (gestures or actions) of the dog [Paragraphs 4, 56)]);
`
`b) on a basis of information indicating an associative relationship between
`
`the state and the feeling of the animal (thus, based on the state and feeling of the
`
`dog, it is determined the feeling [Paragraphs 45, 56, 63]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art
`
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pet system (as
`
`taught by Perlo) by determining state of animals via imaging (as taught by Kuang) for
`
`the purpose of improving the understanding of animal communication (Kuang —
`
`Paragraph 5).
`
`But, the combination of Perlo and Kuang does notexplicitly mention a
`
`microphone configured to pick up environmental sounds; of the animal
`
`determined by the state determiner, an environmental sound picked up by the
`
`microphone.
`
`Mizokawateaches, in a similar field of endeavor of behavior systems, the
`
`following:
`
`a microphoneconfigured to pick up environmental sounds; of the animal
`
`determined by the state determiner, an environmental sound picked up by the
`
`microphone (The Examiner respectfully submits that, as currently recited, this limitation
`
`is not indicating a further definition for “associative relationship” but a general illustration
`
`of the scope of the invention. For example, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/837,192
`Art Unit: 2633
`
`Page 6
`
`having a combination of parameters, obtained from a pet, to determine a current feeling
`
`from said paid, similar as the parameters and feelings determined by Kuang’s Fig.3.
`
`That is, claim 1
`
`is generally grouping several parameters to determine a feeling of the
`
`dog, but not further defining them or explaining how they are actually related, as in the
`
`explanation of Fig.7 (page 6 of the arguments), where it would appearthat the shown
`
`chart is interconnecting each of the listed parameters. Hence, based on the Examiner’s
`
`interpretation, newly found reference Mizokawa discloses a system (Fig. 1a) which,
`
`upon the gathering of parameters -including environmental sounds- some behaviors
`
`from a user are determined [Paragraphs 21-23, 44, 68]. Thus, a person having ordinary
`
`skills in the art would recognize that, based on the Mizokawa’s disclosure, several
`
`parameters in Kuang are combinable in order to determine how, for example, a dog is
`
`feeling; where said parameters are the environment surrounding the pet, the position of
`
`the pet, and the emotions from it).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`before the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to modify the pet system (as
`
`taught by Perlo) by determining state of animals via imaging (as taught by Kuang) by
`
`acquiring environmental sounds (as taught by Mizokawa)for the purpose of decreasing
`
`an uncomfortable feeling to pets (Mizokawa — Paragraph7).
`
`Regarding claim 2, Kuang further teaches the information processing apparatus
`
`according to claim 1, wherein the state determiner determines, on a basis of the
`
`captured image of the animal, at least one of a posture and a facial expression of
`
`the animal asthe state of the animal (since dog’s signals, which represent attitudes of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/837,192
`Art Unit: 2633
`
`Page 7
`
`the dog, are consideredfor the feeling of the dog, a person having ordinary skills in the
`
`art would recognize that postures of expression of the dog are considered [abstract]).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Perlo further teaches the information processing apparatus
`
`according to claim 1, wherein the state determiner determinesthe state of the
`
`animal using a produced soundof the animal (vocal signals of the dog are
`
`considered [Paragraphs 13, 28]).
`
`Regarding claim 4, Kuang further teaches the information processing apparatus
`
`according to claim 3, wherein the state determiner determines, on a basis of the
`
`produced soundof the animal, a cry of the animal as the state of the animal
`
`(sounds of the animal are considered for the determination of the state and feelings of
`
`the dog [Paragraph 45]).
`
`Regarding claim 5, Perlo further teaches the information processing apparatus
`
`according to claim 1, wherein the notification processor notifies of the wording
`
`whenthe wording is different from a wording notified last time (notifications are
`
`sent to users when the dog manifests different feelings such as hungry,thirst; wherein a
`
`person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that when each notification is
`
`different from a previous one [Paragraph 14]).
`
`Regarding claim 6, Kuang further teaches the information processing apparatus
`
`according to claim 1, wherein the notification processor notifies of the captured
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/837,192
`Art Unit: 2633
`
`Page 8
`
`image of the animal together with the wording (it is disclosed that based on the
`
`imagestaken to the dog, as well as body signals, and dog’s voices, the system perform
`
`many actions [Paragraph 56], where said many actions comprise displaying the pictures
`
`and sending the wording to external users [Paragraph 60]).
`
`Regarding claims 7-12, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-6.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
`
`§ 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
`
`CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortenedstatutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the eventa first reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS ofthe mailing date ofthis final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortenedstatutory period, then the
`
`shortenedstatutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whosetelephone
`
`number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5pm.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/837,192
`Art Unit: 2633
`
`Page 9
`
`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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Sam K Ahn can be reached on 5712723044. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on accessto the Private
`
`PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll-free).
`
`If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access
`
`to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-
`
`272-1000.
`
`July 5, 2021
`
`/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
`
`