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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 11, 2026, regarding the claim objections related to claims 6 and 18 (section: “Remarks Concerning Claims Objection”, page 7) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim objections related to claims 1 and 16 have been fully considered but the amendment has not fully fixed the indicated problems, therefore the related objections, updated to reflect the latest amendment, have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejections of claims 1-20 (section: “Remarks Concerning Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103”, pages 8-9) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons, and therefore the related rejections are being maintained:
Regarding applicant’s argument () that the Spring 11 of Yang does not teach similar limitations in the amended claims 1 & 16, e.g. “[having] a deformation degree to set the pressure sensor to zero”, the examiner disagrees, pointing to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections below. The examiner further notes that the applicant’s argument (page 8, para. 1: “As highlighted…”) that “This deformation degree is used for calibrating the pressure sensor…” is not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and MPEP 2145(VI).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein the gap causes the spring gasket to have a deformation degree to set the pressure sensor to zero” is unclear because it is not sufficiently explained how a deformation degree of the spring gasket acts to “set the pressure sensor to zero”. The written specification recites “A gap size between the opposite end surfaces of the support component 102 and the sole component 103 is adjusted by adjusting the first connector, thereby adjusting a deformation degree of the spring gasket to set the pressure sensor 104 to zero” when discussing a deformation degree of the spring gasket in Para. [0067]; however adjusting a gap size to adjust the deformation degree is not mentioned in the claims and is therefore not read into the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN-211844682-U) in view of LIU (CN-108639181-A) (note: underlined portions below relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience; also note that the MS Word version of the Office Action shows annotated figures in color, as opposed to in grayscale as printed in the PDF version of the same document).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang teaches a foot device of a bionic machine (Abstract), comprising:
a foot body (Upper End of Foot 2, Fig. 1), a pressure sensor (Pressure Sensor 8, Fig. 2), and a spring gasket (Spring 11, Fig. 2); wherein:
the foot body (2) comprises a sole component (Contactor 9, Fig. 1), a connection component (Lower Leg 1, Fig. 1), and a support component (Foot 2, Fig. 1) connecting the sole component (9) and the connection component (1) (as illustrated in Fig. 1), the sole component (9) has a semi-spheroidal bottom end surface (the bottom surface of Contactor 9, Fig. 1; hereafter: “b9”; Paras. [0029]- [0030] describe the Contactor 9 as being a hemispherical- i.e. semi-spheroidal- shape, and it is also illustrated as such in Fig. 1) that is configured to come into contact with a ground (Para. [0016]), the pressure sensor (8) is in direct contact with the sole component (Pressure Sensor 8 being in contact with Contactor 9 at a Protrusion P1 as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A, and Fig. 3 Annotation Set F-A, which is the examiner’s interpretation of the location of Pressure Sensor 8 in Fig. 3 based on Fig. 2), and configured to detect a pressure between the bottom end surface (b9) of the sole component (9) and the ground (Para. [0030]); and
the spring gasket (11) is located in a gap (“GAP”, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A, see also Fig. 2) between a first end surface (S1SC, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A) of the support component (2) and a second end surface (SSL, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A) of the sole component (9) defined by a connector (Fastener 6, Fig. 3) (as illustrated in Figs. 2 & 3 Annotation Set A), the first end surface (S1SC) and the second end surface (SSL) being opposite to each other (as illustrated in Figs. 2 & 3 Annotation Set A);
wherein the gap (GAP) causes the spring gasket (11) to have a deformation degree to (see the corresponding claim objection above) set the pressure sensor (8) to zero when the sole component (9) is off the ground (Spring 11 being understood to press against Contactor 9, as illustrated in Fig. 2 and taught in Para. [0025], and the Gap GAP understood to allow Spring 11 to extend to a deformation degree such that it would cause the Pressure Sensor 8 to read zero when Contactor 9 is off the ground).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
485
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
486
449
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yang does not teach a distance sensor.
LIU, in another quadruped bionic robot (Abstract), teaches a distance sensor (Displacement Sensor, Para. [0027]) located on the bottom end surface (“under the heel”, Para. [0027]), connected to the foot body (comprising Sole 20, Heel 21, Arch 22 and Toe 24; Fig. 10), and configured to detect a distance between the bottom end surface and the ground (Para. [0027]).
LIU describes the distance sensor as being “under the heel” (Para. [0027]), which is understood to imply that it is positioned under the roundest, most prominent, portion of the sole, at the specific location offering the shortest path to the ground, and also ensuring the least interference from the periphery of the sole, which is understood to be more receded, i.e. further away from the ground as compared to “under the heel”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Yang and LIU in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yang’s foot device to include a distance sensor as suggested by LIU. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of added spatial awareness of the foot device that would beneficially provide a bionic machine with better ability to navigate difficult or uneven terrain.
Additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the specific location at a geometric center of the bottom end surface is not precisely discussed by the prior art above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the foot device of Yang/ LIU such that the distance sensor was located in a center of the bottom end surface, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art, considering placing a proximity/distance sensor on a convex part facing downward towards the ground, would find it obvious to place it close to the apex of the protruding end and/or away from the periphery of said bottom end surface (i.e. at the apex of the convexity) to ensure the shortest path of detection between the sensor and the ground and to reduce the risk of interference with peripheral features of the bottom end surface.
Regarding Claim 2, Yang further teaches that the pressure sensor (8) is located on the bottom end surface (b9) (Para. [0025] as illustrated in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang further teaches that the bottom end surface (b9) is a convex surface (Paras. [0029]- [0030] describe the Contactor 9 as being a hemispherical shape, which is convex and it is also illustrated as such in Fig. 1).
Yang does not teach a plurality of pressure sensors distributed around the distance sensor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the singular pressure sensor taught by Yang as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Regarding Claim 5, Yang further teaches that a first end (lower end of Foot 2 in Fig. 1) of the support component (2) is connected to the sole component (9) (Para. [0025] and as illustrated in Fig. 2), and a second end (upper end of Foot 2 in Fig. 1) of the support component (2) is connected to the connection component (1) (as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Yang further teaches that one of:
an end surface of the first end (S1SC, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A) of the support component (2), and
an end surface of an end (SSL, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A) of the sole component (9) near the support component (2)
has a first groove (G1, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A, being located on an end surface of a first end S1SC of Foot 2, teaches alternative (i) of the claimed invention), the other one of:
the end surface of the first end (S1SC) of the support component (2), and
the end surface of the first end (SSL) of the sole component (9)
has a first protrusion (P1, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A, being located on an end surface of a first end SLL of Contactor 9, teaches alternative (ii) of the claimed invention), and the first protrusion (P1) is located in the first groove (G1) (as illustrated in Fig. 3 Annotation Set A); and one of:
an end surface of the second end (S2SC, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A) of the support component (2), and
an end surface of an end (lower left of Lower Leg 1 in Fig. 1; hereafter: “SCC”) of the connection component (1) near the support component (2)
has a second groove (G2, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A, being located on an end surface of a second end S2SC of Foot 2, teaches alternative (iii) of the claimed invention), the other one of:
the end surface of the second end (S2SC) of the support component (2), and
the end surface of the end (SCC) of the connection component (1)
has a second protrusion (Lower Leg 1 being an elongated form, the end surface (SCC) can be said to be a protrusion, and being located on an end surface of an end SCC of Lower Leg 1, teaches alternative (iv) of the claimed invention), and the second protrusion is located in the second groove (as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Yang further teaches that the pressure sensor (8) is located in at least one of the following:
the first groove (G1) (the Pressure Sensor 8 is illustrated in Fig. 2 as being located in the region labeled G1 in Fig. 3 Annotation Set A); or
the second groove (G2) (note Yang’s teachings directed to the first alternative, above).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang teaches the sole component (9) being attached to the support component (2) with a fastener (Fastener 6, Fig. 2 and Para. [0030]) and bolts (Para. [0030]), and support component (2) being attached to the connection component (1) with a threaded connection (Para. [0025]).
Yang does not teach that the connection between the support component and the sole or between the support component and the connection component is a plurality of corresponding holes in said components with respective connectors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the fastener, bolts and threaded connection of Yang with the holes and connectors of the claimed invention as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent attachment devices recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 9, Yang, as modified above, does not teach a distribution arrangement of the second and fourth holes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the foot device of Yang such that the plurality of second holes are distributed around the first groove, and the plurality of fourth holes are distributed around the second groove, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 11, Yang, as modified above to include a distance sensor, further teaches that the connection component (1) is a hollow rod (Para. [0010] and as illustrated in Fig. 1), a signal line of the pressure sensor (8) being located in the connection component (1) (Para. [0030] a signal line being substantially equivalent to a “circuit” as referred to therein).
Yang further teaches that the conductor hole (4) is advantageous for protecting a circuit that is installed through it (Para. [0030]).
Yang, as modified above, does not specifically teach a signal line of the distance sensor being located similarly to Yang’s signal line of the pressure sensor, i.e. in the connection component.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Yang in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the foot device of Yang/ LIU such that the signal line of the distance sensor also was located in the connection component in the same way that Yang’s signal line of the pressure sensor is. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of installing the line through a strong component that would beneficially protect the line in the same way that Yang teaches a conductor hole (4) protecting a circuit as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 12, Yang further teaches that the support component (2) is in a hollowed-out structure or a hollow structure (Conductor Hole 4 extending through the length of Foot 2 as illustrated in Fig. 3, Foot 2 can thus be characterized as hollow).
Regarding Claim 14, Yang further teaches that on an end surface (S1SC) of the support component (2) near the sole component (9), an orthogonal projection of spherical center (SC, Fig. 3 Annotation Set B) of the sole component (9) coincides with a center (C, Fig. 3 Annotation Set B) of the end surface (S1SC) of the support component (2) near the sole component (9).
PNG
media_image4.png
420
431
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yang Fig. 3 Annotation Set B
Regarding Claim 15, Yang further teaches that an angle (THETA, Fig. 1 Annotated) between an end surface (S1SC) of the support component (2) near the sole component (9) and an axis (AXIS, Fig. 1 Annotated) of the connection component is an acute angle (as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated).
PNG
media_image5.png
656
619
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yang Fig. 1 Annotated
Regarding Claim 16, Yang teaches a bionic machine (Robot, Para. [0009]), comprising a control device (Signal Receiver 3, Fig. 1; Para. [0015] teaches that the Signal Receiver 3 filters, collects, integrates, processes, and transmits an electrical signal for subsequent detection and display, and can thus be characterized as a control device), a plurality of leg devices (Lower Leg 1, Fig. 1; made a plurality by the description of the Robot being a “quadruped” in Para. [0009]), and a plurality of foot devices having substantially similar features to the foot device of claim 1 (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above; considered a plurality by the same reasoning as the legs), each of the foot devices being connected to a respective leg device (as illustrated in Fig. 1),
Additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the Signal Receiver (3) taught by Yang cannot be characterized as a control device, LIU teaches a control device (Sole Control Unit 23, Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Yang and LIU in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yang’s bionic machine to include a control device as suggested by LIU. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of coordinating the movements of the individual components that would beneficially make a more effective bionic machine.
Yang does not teach a distance sensor but LIU does (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of LIU and motivation to combine).
Regarding Claim 17, Yang further teaches that the foot body (2) comprises a connection component (Lower Leg 1, Fig. 1), a support component (Foot 2, Fig. 1), and a sole component (Contactor 9, Fig. 1), wherein a first end (lower end of Foot 2 in Fig. 1) of the support component (2) is connected to the sole component (9) (Para. [0025] and as illustrated in Fig. 2), and a second end (upper end of Foot 2 in Fig. 1) of the support component (2) is connected to the connection component (1) (as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Yang further teaches that one of:
an end surface of the first end (S1SC, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A) of the support component (2), and
an end surface of an end (SSL, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A) of the sole component (9) near the support component (2)
has a first groove (G1, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A, being located on an end surface of a first end S1SC of Foot 2, teaches alternative (i) of the claimed invention), the other one of:
the end surface of the first end (S1SC) of the support component (2), and
the end surface of the first end (SSL) of the sole component (9)
has a first protrusion (P1, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A, being located on an end surface of a first end SLL of Contactor 9, teaches alternative (ii) of the claimed invention), and the first protrusion (P1) is located in the first groove (G1) (as illustrated in Fig. 3 Annotation Set A); and one of:
an end surface of the second end (S2SC, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A) of the support component (2), and
an end surface of an end (lower left of Lower Leg 1 in Fig. 1; hereafter: “SCC”) of the connection component (1) near the support component (2)
has a second groove (G2, Fig. 3 Annotation Set A, being located on an end surface of a second end S2SC of Foot 2, teaches alternative (iii) of the claimed invention), the other one of:
the end surface of the second end (S2SC) of the support component (2), and
the end surface of the end (SCC) of the connection component (1)
has a second protrusion (Lower Leg 1 being an elongated form, the end surface (SCC) can be said to be a protrusion, and being located on an end surface of an end SCC of Lower Leg 1, teaches alternative (iv) of the claimed invention), and the second protrusion is located in the second groove (as illustrated in Fig. 1), wherein the pressure sensor (8) is located in at least one of the following:
the first groove (G1) (the Pressure Sensor 8 is illustrated in Fig. 2 as being located in the region labeled G1 in Fig. 3 Annotation Set A); or
the second groove (G2).
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 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 TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights