rDETAILED 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the nonfinal Office action on 04/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant makes the following arguments:
The combination of references fails to teach “coordinate timing of a joint action while each vehicle maintains control over its respective operations, the joint action including retrieval of the respective payload.”
Tappeiner teaches away from autonomous control, instead teaching “a centralizing control in a peer device”.
The motivation to combine Tappeiner and Wedler is not rational, because Wedler teaches a standardized payload module which would not lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to seek to use the robot of Wedler for a nonstandard payload.
The modification of Wedler with the suspension of Gillett would complicate Wedler without providing a meaningful improvement.
Regarding argument A: As discussed below, the amendments to the claims are taught by the combination of references. In light of paragraph [0105] of the current application, the limitation “coordinate timing of a joint action” is interpreted to mean that the two parts of the joint action are “initiated at substantially the same instance in time”. Paragraph [0167] and Fig. 9 of Tappeiner teach this limitation by showing two robots lifting a load at the same time.
Regarding argument B: Tappeiner additionally teaches that “mobile agents 104 and other active components 402 can function to attempt to achieve high-level goals that can be specified by a user or control unit, while functioning autonomously at a low level to achieve such goals.” (Tappeiner – [0064]). Therefore, the teaching of centralizing control and the teaching of autonomous control are not mutually exclusive.
Regarding argument C: Wedler teaches that “[t]he payload module can be suitable for coupling with further, in particular identical, payload modules.” Such a coupling of a plurality of payload modules may result in a load that is difficult for a single robot to carry. In such a case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a plurality of robots to carry a coupled plurality of payload modules, as discussed below.
Regarding argument D: Both Wedler and Gillett teach articulated legs for a robot. In addition, Gillett teaches a robot provided with a spring damper for additional shock absorption (Gillett – [0079]). Thus, Gillett provides an improved ability to handle unevenness compared to that of Wedler.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-18, and 21-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 10-13, and 19-21 of co-pending Application No. 17/650,237 in view of Tappeiner et al.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Present Application (17/650,240)
Copending Application (17/650,237)
1
Claim 1 and Tappeiner et al.
3
Claim 3 and Tappeiner et al.
4
Claims 10, 11 and Tappeiner et al.
5
Claim 12 and Tappeiner et al.
6
Claim 13 and Tappeiner et al.
8
Claims 10, 11 and Tappeiner et al.
9
Claim 12 and Tappeiner et al.
10
Claim 19 and Tappeiner et al.
11
Claim 20, 21 and Tappeiner et al.
14
Claim 2 and Tappeiner et al.
15
Claim 1 and Tappeiner et al.
16
Claim 1 and Tappeiner et al.
17
Claim 3 and Tappeiner et al.
18
Claim 3 and Tappeiner et al.
21
Claim 1 and Tappeiner et al.
22
Claim 1 and Tappeiner et al.
23
Claim 11 and Tappeiner et al.
24
Claim 20 and Tappeiner et al.
The aforementioned claims of the reference application disclose a single vehicle with all the capabilities of one of the first or second vehicles claimed in the instant application, though the reference application does not explicitly disclose that said vehicle has the ability to communicate with others of its type. Tappeiner et al. discloses a system for using a plurality of robots to achieve a task such as lifting an object [0167]. In service of this task, the robots are in communication with each other [0042]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the modification of using multiple vehicles of this type to achieve a common goal because it would allow for the transport of objects which are either too heavy or too awkwardly shaped for a single vehicle to be capable of lifting them.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13, 14, 19-22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wedler (EP 2698307, previously cited) in view of Tappeiner et al. (US 20140342834, previously cited) and further in view of Gillett (US 20210283783, previously cited).
Claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
305
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Top view of a rover as disclosed by Wedler (originally Wedler Fig. 1)
With reference to Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, Wedler teaches:
a chassis configured to receive at least a portion of a respective payload
(Wedler – [0026]) “The back section 112 and the leg sections 114, 116 form a receptacle 118 for a payload module.”
a plurality of control legs coupled to the chassis including a first control leg and a second control leg
(Wedler – [0030]) “The wheels 128 are each arranged at the free ends of the legs 104, 106, 108, 110.”
a plurality of propulsion components coupled to the plurality of control legs
(Wedler – [0030]) “The wheels 128 are each arranged at the free ends of the legs 104, 106, 108, 110.”
one or more processors configured to control the first control leg and the second control leg
(Wedler – [0027]) “The legs 104, 106, 108, 110 are connected to the central body 102 using joints such as 120. … The joints 120 each have a drive.”
wherein the one or more processors of the
(Wedler – [0009]) “The chassis can first be positioned and/or aligned in order to pick up and/or put down the payload module and subsequently the payload module can be picked up and/or put down by an at least approximately linear movement of the chassis.”
in accordance with a determination that the
(Wedler – [0009]) “The chassis can first be positioned and/or aligned in order to pick up and/or put down the payload module and subsequently the payload module can be picked up and/or put down by an at least approximately linear movement of the chassis.”
[Examiner Note: If the robot of Wedler has a two step process of first aligning with the payload module and then moving perpendicularly to the surface to pick up the module (elsewhere in Wedler [0009]), then there is an inherent step of determining that the vehicle has approached the payload before the picking up step.]
the one or more processors of the
(Wedler – [0009]) “The payload module can be picked up and/or set down by an at least approximately linear movement in a plane that is at least approximately perpendicular to the placement or placement surface of the payload module.”
[Examiner Note: As made clear by Fig. 2 below, the vertical translation of the rover is accomplished by control of the legs of the rover.]
PNG
media_image2.png
340
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: A series of steps showing the range of motion of the leg of the rover (originally Wedler Fig. 3)
the
(Wedler – [0009]) “The payload module can be picked up and/or set down by an at least approximately linear movement in a plane that is at least approximately perpendicular to the placement or placement surface of the payload module.”
[Examiner Note: As made clear by Fig. 2 above, the vertical translation of the rover is accomplished by control of the legs of the rover.]
However, Wedler does not teach the use of a plurality of vehicles. Tappeiner et al. teaches:
a plurality of vehicles including a first vehicle and a second vehicle
(Tappeiner – [0167]) “two mobile agents 104 engage and lift a physical load (component 402F), each from either end of component 402F. Agents 104 then move in coordination to the intended location for their shared cargo.”
the first vehicle in communication with the second vehicle
(Tappeiner – [0042]) “mobile agents 104 may communicate with one another so as to ascertain their relative locations with respect to one another”
wherein, in accordance with a determination that the first vehicle and the second vehicle have approached the respective payload, the one or more processors of the first vehicle are configured to communicate with the one or more processors of the second vehicle to coordinate timing of a joint action while each vehicle maintains autonomous control over its respective operations during the joint action, the joint action including retrieval of the respective payload
(Tappeiner – [0064]) “mobile agents 104 and other active components 402 can function to attempt to achieve high-level goals that can be specified by a user or control unit, while functioning autonomously at a low level to achieve such goals.”
(Tappeiner – [0167]) “two mobile agents 104 engage and lift a physical load (component 402F), each from either end of component 402F. Agents 104 then move in coordination to the intended location for their shared cargo.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the rover of Wedler with the inter-vehicle coordination of Tappeiner et al. One would have been motivated to do this because it allows for the transport of payloads that may be too heavy or awkwardly shaped for a single vehicle to carry unassisted (Tappeiner – [0166]).
PNG
media_image3.png
536
383
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: An example control leg for a vehicle (originally Gillett Fig. 2A)
However, neither Wedler nor Tappeiner et al. explicitly teaches determining that the surface includes unevenness. With reference to Fig. 3, Gillett teaches:
a determination that a surface on which the first and second vehicles are disposed includes unevenness relative to at least one of the first and second control legs of the first vehicle and at least one of the first and the second control legs of the second vehicle during retrieval of the respective payload
(Gillett – [0089]) “In various motion states, the actuators 201, 201, 202 flexibly cause one or more actions like raising, lowering, bobbing and undulating so that MRSV 100 is stabilized when traversing over various surfaces, and/or flexibly transposing to hoist the MRSV 100 over uneven terrain as the wheels 104 of the leg array provide various degrees of motion states for stepping, walking, and driving”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the rover fleet formed by the combination of Wedler and Tappeiner et al. with the suspension system of Gillett. One would be motivated to do this in order to assist in movement in difficult terrain (Wedler – [0006]).
Claim 3.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., and Gillett teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Wedler further teaches:
the first part of the joint action includes lowering the chassis of the
the second part of the joint action includes lowering the chassis of the
(Wedler – [0009]) “The payload module can be picked up and/or set down by an at least approximately linear movement in a plane that is at least approximately perpendicular to the placement or placement surface of the payload module.”
[Examiner Note: As shown in Fig. 2, the rover is capable lowering varied amounts (see labels 202, 204, and 208, which show at least three possible levels of extension for the legs).]
Claim 14.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., and Gillett teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Wedler further teaches:
wherein the reference includes the surface
With reference to Fig. 2, Wedler indicates that a vertical translation of the rover body can be performed. As the rover disclosed by Wedler is a wheeled vehicle, it is thus inherent that the vertical translation of the rover body is being performed with respect to the ground.
Claim 19.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., and Gillett teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Wedler further teaches:
wherein the respective payload includes a planetary lander
Inclusion of the material worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). Therefore, this limitation is given minimal patentable weight. Furthermore, Wedler discloses that the rover is capable of use on planetary surfaces [0021].
Claim 20.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., and Gillett teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Tappeiner et al. further teaches:
the first and second vehicles each further comprises a communications unit in communication with the one or more processors
(Tappeiner – [0042]) “mobile agents 104 may communicate with one another so as to ascertain their relative locations with respect to one another”
(Tappeiner – [0167]) “two mobile agents 104 engage and lift a physical load (component 402F), each from either end of component 402F. Agents 104 then move in coordination to the intended location for their shared cargo.”
the one or more processors of the first vehicle are configured to communicate with the one or more processors of the second vehicle via a communication link between the communications unit of the first vehicle and the communications unit of the second vehicle
(Tappeiner – [0167]) “two mobile agents 104 engage and lift a physical load (component 402F), each from either end of component 402F. Agents 104 then move in coordination to the intended location for their shared cargo.”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings by the same rationale given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 21.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 22.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 25.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., and Gillett teach all the limitations of claim 22, as discussed above. Tappeiner et al. further teaches:
the first and second vehicles each further comprises a communication unit
the communications unit of the first vehicle and the communications unit of the second vehicle communicatively coupled via a communication link used for performing the first and second parts of the joint action involving the respective payload
(Tappeiner – [0042]) “mobile agents 104 may communicate with one another so as to ascertain their relative locations with respect to one another”
(Tappeiner – [0167]) “two mobile agents 104 engage and lift a physical load (component 402F), each from either end of component 402F. Agents 104 then move in coordination to the intended location for their shared cargo.”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings by the same rationale given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4-6, 8-12, 15-18, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wedler, Tappeiner et al., and Gillett as applied to claims 1-3, 13, 14, 19-22, and 25 above, and further in view of Martens (US 20200031472, previously cited).
Claim 4.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., and Gillett teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. With reference to Fig. 1 above, Wedler further teaches:
a first side and an opposite second side
See figure labels 114 and 116.
a medial member extending between an upper portion of the first side and an upper portion of the second side
See figure label 112.
wherein the medial member at least partially forms a top of the chassis
See figure label 112.
None of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., or Gillett explicitly teach the use of a latch system. However, Martens teaches, with reference to Fig. 4 below:
PNG
media_image4.png
521
868
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4: An example of a payload transfer system (originally Martens Fig. 1)
the
the latch system comprising a plurality of hooks configured to selectively protrude from interior portions of the chassis of a given vehicle to latch with a portion of the respective payload
(Martens – [0030]) “each engagement latch 110 is configured to translate in a lateral direction 104 that is at least substantially parallel to alignment plane 102 as engagement latch 110 transitions between the engaged configuration and the disengaged configuration”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings, modifying the lifting robot system of the combination of Wedler with the engagement latch system of Martens. One would have been motivated to do this because the alignment guide ensures that an object is properly positioned for being picked up (Martens – [Abstract]).
Claim 5.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., Gillett, and Martens teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Wedler further teaches:
(Wedler – [0007]) “The robot device can be autonomously mobile.”
(Wedler – [0009]) “The payload module can be picked up and/or set down by an at least approximately linear movement in a plane that is at least approximately perpendicular to the placement or placement surface of the payload module.”
[Examiner Note: As made clear by Fig. 2 above, the vertical translation of the rover is accomplished by control of the legs of the rover.]
However, Wedler does not explicitly teach a determination or a latch system. With reference to Fig. 3, Martens further teaches:
in accordance with a determination
(Martens – [0042]) “payload engagement system 100 additionally may include an alignment sensor 32 configured to detect when payload 50 is in the coupling position.”
[Examiner Note: The coupling position as taught by Wedler occurs when the vehicle is in position to acquire the payload.]
the one or more processors of the
(Martens – [0060]) “automated controller 40 may be configured to direct latch actuator 120 to transition each engagement latch 110 of payload engagement system 100 from the disengaged configuration to the engaged configuration responsive to alignment sensor 32 detecting payload 50 in the coupling position.”
at the
(Martens – [0030]) “each engagement latch 110 is configured to translate in a lateral direction 104 that is at least substantially parallel to alignment plane 102 as engagement latch 110 transitions between the engaged configuration and the disengaged configuration”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 4.
Claim 6.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., Gillett, and Martens teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. With reference to Fig. 3, Martens further teaches:
at the
(Martens – [0030]) “each engagement latch 110 is configured to translate in a lateral direction 104 that is at least substantially parallel to alignment plane 102 as engagement latch 110 transitions between the engaged configuration and the disengaged configuration”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 4.
Claim 8.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 9.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., Gillett, and Martens teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Wedler further teaches:
(Wedler – [0007]) “The robot device can be autonomously mobile.”
(Wedler – [0009]) “The payload module can be picked up and/or set down by an at least approximately linear movement in a plane that is at least approximately perpendicular to the placement or placement surface of the payload module.”
[Examiner Note: As made clear by Fig. 2 above, the vertical translation of the rover is accomplished by control of the legs of the rover.]
However, Wedler does not explicitly teach a determination or a latch system. With reference to Fig. 3, Martens further teaches:
in accordance with a determination
(Martens – [0042]) “payload engagement system 100 additionally may include an alignment sensor 32 configured to detect when payload 50 is in the coupling position.”
[Examiner Note: The coupling position as taught by Wedler occurs when the vehicle is in position to acquire the payload.]
The rest is rejected by the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 10.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., and Gillett teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Wedler further teaches:
the
(Wedler – [0035]) “The payload module is then picked up by a horizontal linear movement of the rover 100.”
performing the
(Wedler – [0030]) “The wheels 128 are each arranged at the free ends of the legs 104, 106, 108, 110. The wheels 128 can each be driven. The wheels 128 are each steerable.”
(Wedler – [0035]) “The payload module is then picked up by a horizontal linear movement of the rover 100.”
Wedler does not explicitly teach a determination that the chassis is associated with a portion of the payload [Examiner Note: this limitation is interpreted as meaning “the chassis is engaged with the payload”]. However, Martens teaches:
in accordance with a determination that the chassis of the
(Martens – [0042]) “payload engagement system 100 additionally may include an alignment sensor 32 configured to detect when payload 50 is in the coupling position.”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 4.
Claim 11.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., Gillett, and Martens teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. With reference to Fig. 1, Wedler further teaches:
the first control leg and the second control leg of the
(Wedler – [0030]) “The wheels 128 are each arranged at the free ends of the legs 104, 106, 108, 110. The wheels 128 can each be driven. The wheels 128 are each steerable.”
the motor assembly configured to drive the propulsion component coupled to a given control leg
(Wedler – [0030]) “The wheels 128 are each arranged at the free ends of the legs 104, 106, 108, 110. The wheels 128 can each be driven. The wheels 128 are each steerable.”
a steering actuator coupled to a first portion of the control leg associated with the steering actuator
(Wedler – [0030]) “The wheels 128 are each arranged at the free ends of the legs 104, 106, 108, 110. The wheels 128 can each be driven. The wheels 128 are each steerable.”
the steering actuator configured to cause a first propulsion-producing movement of the propulsion component coupled to the control leg associated with the steering actuator
(Wedler – [0030]) “The wheels 128 are each arranged at the free ends of the legs 104, 106, 108, 110. The wheels 128 can each be driven. The wheels 128 are each steerable.”
(Wedler – [0034]) “For steering, the wheel can be rotated about the z-axis”
a wheel actuator coupled to the propulsion component coupled to the control leg associated with the wheel actuator
(Wedler – [0030]) “The wheels 128 are each arranged at the free ends of the legs 104, 106, 108, 110. The wheels 128 can each be driven. The wheels 128 are each steerable.”
the wheel actuator configured to cause a second propulsion-producing movement, different from the first propulsion-producing movement, of the propulsion component
(Wedler – [0030]) “The wheels 128 are each arranged at the free ends of the legs 104, 106, 108, 110. The wheels 128 can each be driven. The wheels 128 are each steerable.”
(Wedler – [0034]) “This makes it possible for the rover to move forward or backward in the extension direction of the y-axis”
Claim 12.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., Gillett, and Martens teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Wedler further teaches:
the one or more processors of the first/second vehicle are in communication with the motor assembly associated with each of the first control leg and the second control leg of the first/second vehicle
(Wedler – [0007]) “The robot device can have software, electronics and/or hardware for control.”
(Wedler – [0030]) “The wheels 128 are each arranged at the free ends of the legs 104, 106, 108, 110. The wheels 128 can each be driven. The wheels 128 are each steerable.”
selectively control the steering actuator associated with each of the first control leg and the second control leg to cause the first propulsion-producing movement of each of the first propulsion component and the second propulsion component to orient the first propulsion component and the second propulsion component in the respective direction
(Wedler – [0030]) “The wheels 128 are each arranged at the free ends of the legs 104, 106, 108, 110. The wheels 128 can each be driven. The wheels 128 are each steerable.”
(Wedler – [0034]) “For steering, the wheel can be rotated about the z-axis”
(Wedler – [0035]) “The payload module is locked to the Rover 100 and can then be transported.”
selectively control the wheel actuator associated with each of the first control leg and the second control leg to cause the second propulsion-producing movement of each of the first propulsion component and the second propulsion component to cause a movement of the first/second portion of the payload in the respective direction
(Wedler – [0030]) “The wheels 128 are each arranged at the free ends of the legs 104, 106, 108, 110. The wheels 128 can each be driven. The wheels 128 are each steerable.”
(Wedler – [0034]) “This makes it possible for the rover to move forward or backward in the extension direction of the y-axis”
(Wedler – [0035]) “The payload module is locked to the Rover 100 and can then be transported.”
Claim 15.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., Gillett, and Martens teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above. Wedler further teaches:
the
(Wedler – [0035]) “The payload module is locked to the Rover 100 and can then be transported.”
the
(Wedler – [0034]) “This makes it possible for the rover to move forward or backward in the extension direction of the y-axis”
(Wedler – [0035]) “The payload module is locked to the Rover 100 and can then be transported.”
Wedler does not teach a determination that the chassis is associated with the respective payload; however, Martens teaches:
in accordance with a determination that the chassis of the
(Martens – [0042]) “payload engagement system 100 additionally may include an alignment sensor 32 configured to detect when payload 50 is in the coupling position.”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 4.
Claim 16.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., Gillett, and Martens teaches all the limitations of claim 15, as discussed above. Gillett further teaches:
the first and the second control legs of
(Gillett – [0089]) “In various motion states, the actuators 201, 201, 202 flexibly cause one or more actions like raising, lowering, bobbing and undulating so that MRSV 100 is stabilized when traversing over various surfaces, and/or flexibly transposing to hoist the MRSV 100 over uneven terrain as the wheels 104 of the leg array provide various degrees of motion states for stepping, walking, and driving”
the one or more processors of the
(Gillett – [0033]) “processors 401 linking to motor sensors, actuators or IMU or accelerometers which function to keep the MRV 100A stabilized”
[Examiner Note: Not shown in Fig. 4]
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings by the same reasoning given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 17.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., Gillett, and Martens teaches all the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 4, Gillett further teaches:
in accordance with a determination that the surface includes unevenness relative to at least one of the first and second control legs of the
(Gillett – [0089]) “In various motion states, the actuators 201, 201, 202 flexibly cause one or more actions like raising, lowering, bobbing and undulating so that MRSV 100 is stabilized when traversing over various surfaces, and/or flexibly transposing to hoist the MRSV 100 over uneven terrain as the wheels 104 of the leg array provide various degrees of motion states for stepping, walking, and driving”
at the
(Gillett – [0094]) “the actuators 201, 201, 202 disposed on the chassis 101, when combined or when independent each work to stabilize and support the MRSV 100, wherein the spring damper connects to a leg section by pivoting brackets 213 such that the spring damper cushions impact to the robotic leg actuator 201-203 similar to a common vehicle suspension system”
such that the respective payload remains within a range of orientations with respect to the surface while at least one of the first propulsion component and the second propulsion component of the
(Gillett – [0089]) “In various motion states, the actuators 201, 201, 202 flexibly cause one or more actions like raising, lowering, bobbing and undulating so that MRSV 100 is stabilized when traversing over various surfaces, and/or flexibly transposing to hoist the MRSV 100 over uneven terrain as the wheels 104 of the leg array provide various degrees of motion states for stepping, walking, and driving”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings by the same reasoning given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 18.
The combination of Wedler, Tappeiner et al., Gillett, and Martens teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above. Gillett further teaches:
wherein the first/third amount is different from the second/fourth amount
As shown in Fig. 5, the suspension system of Gillett allows for multiple distances by which the propulsion components are displaced.
PNG
media_image5.png
385
483
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5: An image of a rover traversing uneven terrain (originally Gillett Fig. 1G)
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings by the same reasoning given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 23.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 24.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 11.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
10/3/25