Ex Parte Kurzweil

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

10734616 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/734,616 12/12/2003 Raymond C. Kurzweil 14202-004001 1709
26161 7590 11/17/2017
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
NOLAN, PETER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYMOND C. KURZWEIL
Appeal 2016-0039221
Application 10/734,6162
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Aug. 4, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 4, 2016), the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 6, 2016) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Dec. 24, 2014).
2 Appellant identifies Kurzweil Technologies, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-003922
Application 10/734,616
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—3, 7—13, 15, and 18—21. An oral hearing was held on
October 3, 2017. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to virtual reality devices, and
in particular, using these devices for communication and contact.” Spec. 1,
11. 4—6.
Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A virtual reality encounter system comprising,
a first humanoid robot disposed at a first location, the first
robot having tactile sensors positioned along the exterior of the
robot, the sensors sending tactile signals over a communications
network, the first robot including:
a first body;
a first camera coupled to the first body, the first
camera for sending first video signals to the
communications network; and
a first microphone coupled to the first body, the first
microphone for sending first audio signals to the
communications network; and
a body suit having tactile actuators, the actuators receiving
the tactile signals from the corresponding tactile sensors on the
robot from the communications network, with the tactile sensors
and the corresponding tactile actuators calibrated in connection
with variable sensitivity associated with different regions of a
human; and
a gateway device, comprising:
a memory;
2
Appeal 2016-003922
Application 10/734,616
a computer storage medium storing data for
generating supplemental virtual tactile sensation signals;
and
a processor configured to execute computer
instructions stored in the memory, the computer
instructions configured to:
retrieve data from the computer storage
medium; and
generate the supplemental virtual tactile
sensation signals from the data retrieved from the
computer storage medium;
overlay the tactile signals from the
corresponding tactile sensors with the generated
supplemental tactile sensation signals;
send the overlaid tactile signals to the body
suit;
a first set of goggles at a second, different location from
the first location including a display to render the first video
signals received from the first camera and a transducer to
transduce the first audio signals received from the first
microphone;
a second humanoid robot having life-like features, the
second humanoid robot at the second location, the second robot
comprising:
a second body;
a second camera coupled to the second body, the
second camera for sending second video signals to the
communications network; and
a second microphone coupled to the second body,
the second microphone for sending second audio signals
to the communications network; and
a second set of goggles in the first location to receive the
second video signals from the second camera and a second
transducer in the first location to receive the second audio signals
from the second microphone.
3
Appeal 2016-003922
Application 10/734,616
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 7—9, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Abbasi (US 6,786,863 B2, iss. Sept. 7, 2004),
Simmons ’911 (US 6,741,911 B2, iss. May 25, 2004), McIntosh (US
5,103,404, iss. Apr. 7, 1992), Louis Barry Rosenberg, “Virtual Fixtures”:
Perceptual Overlays Enhance Operator Performance in Telepresence Tasks
(Aug. 1994) (unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University) (on file
with University Microfilms International) (hereinafter “Rosenberg”),
Tremblay (US 2004/0046777, pub. Mar. 11, 2004), and Simmons ’397
(US 2003/0030397 Al, pub. Feb. 13, 2003).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Abbasi, Simmons ’911, McIntosh, Rosenberg, Tremblay,
Simmons ’397, and Algazi (US 7,333,622 B2, iss. Feb. 19, 2008).
Claims 11, 12, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable Abbasi, Simmons ’911, McIntosh, Rosenberg, Tremblay,
Simmons ’397, Algazi, and Yee (US 6,016,385, iss. Jan. 18, 2000).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1 and 13, and Dependent Claims 2, 3, 7—9, 15, and 18
In rejecting independent claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
the Examiner primarily relies on Abbasi as describing a virtual reality
encounter system. Final Act. 7—8, 17. The Examiner acknowledges that
Abbasi does not describe that mechanical surrogates for physical contact are
humanoid robots. Id. at 11. And the Examiner relies on Simmons ’911 to
cure the deficiency. Id. (citing Simmons ’911, col. 5,11. 40-42, col. 5,1. 63-
col. 6,1. 11, col. 7,11 29-32, col. 8,11. 39-50, col. 10,11. 49-52).
4
Appeal 2016-003922
Application 10/734,616
Abbasi relates to enabling remote physical contact. Abbasi, col. 1,
11. 66—67. A user kisses a first mechanical surrogate attached to a first
computer. The kiss is perceived at sensors located in the first mechanical
surrogate, and characteristics of the kiss are communicated by the first
computer to the second computer. Id. at col. 4,1. 62—col. 5,1. 1. The kiss is
recreated on a second mechanical surrogate attached to the second computer.
Id. at col. 5,11. 1—3. Video information is received from a video camera
attached to the first computing device and conveyed to a second computing
device for display. Id. at col. 2,11. 54—60. In addition, audio information
from a microphone attached to the first computing device is conveyed to a
speaker of the second computing device. Id. at col. 2,11. 63—67. Users
control privacy by selecting command buttons on the display to enable or
disable video or audio transmission. Id. at col. 7,11. 31—35.
Simmons ’911 allows a human operator to control a remote robot to
perform tasks as if the user were there. Simmons ’911, col. 1,11. 36—39. At
a remote site, a robot (having build characteristics similar to those of the
user) has an array of tiny sensors that capture pressure and vibration on
fingertips and other desired areas of the robot, and these measurements are
converted to vibration and pressure to the user at the local site. See id. at
col. 5,11. 40-43; col. 8,11. 39—50; col. 10,11. 49—52. The user wears
equipment that, in part, senses position of the user’s joints and directs
actions of the remote robot. See id. at col. 5,11. 33—37.
The Examiner determines that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill... to
combine the remote humanoid robot control system and user
body suit of Simmons ’911 with the remote physical interaction
and virtual reality system of Abbasi because the robot and body
5
Appeal 2016-003922
Application 10/734,616
suit as part of the remote system of Simmons ’911 would allow
each user/operator in each of the first and second locations to
sense the same environment of the corresponding robot in a
natural fashion, thereby providing each user of Abbasi a fully
immersive experience[.]
Final Act. 12 (citing Simmons ’911, Abstract, col. 1,11. 39-46).
Yet Simmons ’911 describes a system that enables a user at a local
site to remotely control a robot at a second site. Simmons ’911 does not so
much as involve a second robot. The Examiner does not adequately explain
how or why, one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Abbasi, which
describes remote physical contact using mechanical surrogates, based on the
teachings of Simmons ’911, which describes a user controlling a robot
remotely, to arrive at Appellant’s invention, as recited in claim 1, and
similarly recited in claim 13.
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1 and 13, and dependent claims 2,
3, 7—9, 15, and 18.
Dependent Claims 10—12 and 19—21
Claims 10-12 and 19—21 depend from claims 1 and 13, respectively.
The Examiner’s rejections of these dependent claims do not cure the
deficiencies in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13. Therefore, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of dependent
claims 10-12 and 19—21 for the same reasons discussed above with respect
to claims 1 and 13.
DECISION
6
Appeal 2016-003922
Application 10/734,616
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—3, 7—13, 15, and 18—21 under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
7