His 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 21, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on October 21, 2025. Claims 1-36 are currently pending.
Priority
Request for priority to Provisional App. No. 63/260,746 is acknowledged. Examiner notes that the current claims do not appear to be fully supported by the provisional application and further notes that the Applicant may be requested to perfect one or more of the claims in the situation where applied prior art has priority falling between the filing date of the non-provisional application dated August 29, 2022 and the provisional applications dated August 31, 2021, respectively. No action on the part of the Applicant is requested at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 21, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on October 21, 2025 have overcome the prior art rejections. Therefore the examiner withdraws the prior art rejections made in the final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 10-12, filed October 21, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-36 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, as shown below, an amended prior art rejection is further made in view of Deyle.
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.
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.
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 1-14, 16-32, & 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0248016 A1, to Deyle et al., hereafter Deyle (previously of record) in view of US 9,987,745 B1, to Berard et al., hereafter Berard (newly of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Deyle discloses A computer-implemented method that when executed by data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising (Deyle [0164] Examiner Note: Deyle discloses hardware such as processors and memory for use of controlling a robot):
instructing adjustment of a field of view of a sensor of a…robot in response to determining that a door is located in an environment of the…robot such that the…robot has an adjusted field of view (Deyle [0196]-[0198] & Fig. 11, Examiner Note: Deyle discloses a method of a robot identifying a door, and a robot moving toward the door. Used in combination with the camera sensor on the robot, would result in an adjusted field of view as the robot gets closer to the door);
receiving, from the sensor of the…robot having the adjusted field of view, sensor data associated with at least a portion of a door (Deyle [0124], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses a robot using sensors to detect a door, which includes a camera);
determining, using a trained machine learning model, one or more properties of the door based on the sensor data received from the sensor of the legged robot having the adjusted field of view (Deyle [0182], [0196]-[0198] & Fig. 11, Examiner Note: Deyle discloses a robot using sensors to detect “features associated with a door” (i.e. properties) such as identifying a door knob, 1130, which can be recognized using a machine learning algorithm);
generating, using the one or more properties, a door opening operation of a set of door opening operations, wherein each door opening operation of the set of door opening operations indicates a respective set of actions, for an arm of the…robot and at least two legs of the…robot that are coupled to the…robot and configured to contact a ground surface, to open and traverse a respective door; and instructing execution of the door opening operation by the…robot to open and traverse the door (Deyle [0179]-[0180] & Figs. 10A-10D, Examiner Note: Deyle discloses a robot opening a door using an arm and flippers 915 (i.e. legs) and then traveling through (i.e. traversing) through the door).
However, Deyle does not specifically disclose …wherein the at least two legs contact the ground surface at one or more footstep locations to traverse the door.
Berard, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …legged…wherein the at least two legs contact the ground surface at one or more footstep locations to traverse the door (Berard Col. 8 Rows 26-31 & Fig. 3, Examiner Note: Berard teaches a robot with two legs (i.e. footsteps while moving) where, Col. 9 Rows 33-41 teach the robot being able to accomplish a goal of moving through the door (i.e. traverse the door), therefore the robot would inherently use one or more footsteps to traverse a door.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the door opening robot of Deyle with the capability to traverse through a door with footsteps of Berard in order for the robotic system to be more efficient with respect to its movement (Berard Col. 1 Rows 5-17).
Regarding Claim 2, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1,
Deyle further discloses wherein the legged robot adjusts a stance of the legged robot in response to instructing the adjustment of the field of view of the sensor of the legged robot (Deyle [0198] & Fig. 11, Examiner Note: Deyle discloses a robot moving their arm (i.e. stance) to open the door after moving to the door (i.e. adjusting field of view)).
Regarding Claim 3, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1,
Deyle further discloses wherein the sensor data comprises image data associated with at least one of a door frame, a door handle, a door hinge, a door knob, or a door pushbar associated with the door (Deyle [0180]-[0182], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses using a camera (i.e. image data) in order to determine a door has handles (e.g. lever, crashpad, handleset, etc.)).
Regarding Claim 4, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1,
Deyle further discloses further comprising: identifying one or more features of the door, wherein the one or more features comprise at least one of a door frame, a door handle, a door hinge, a door knob, or a door pushbar associated with the door Deyle [0180]-[0182], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses using a camera (i.e. image data) in order to determine a door has handles (e.g. lever, crashpad, handleset, etc.), wherein determining the one or more properties comprises predicting the one or more properties based on the one or more features (Deyle [0182], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses using machine learning to determine (i.e. predict) features associated with a door (e.g. type of door, location of handle, and direction it rotates)), wherein the one or more properties comprise at least one of a door width, a grasp search ray, a grasp type, a swing direction, or a door handedness associated with the door (Deyle [0182], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses using machine learning to determine (i.e. predict) features associated with a door (e.g. type of door, location of handle, and direction it rotates)).
Regarding Claim 5, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
Deyle further discloses the sensor data is associated with at least a portion of a door frame of the door (Deyle [0190], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the robot moving towards the doorway (i.e. frame of the door), therefore there must be sensor data associated with the doorway);
the one or more properties comprise an estimated door width associated with the door (Deyle [0185], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the robot able to determine the door size, which would include the door width); and
instructing execution of the door opening operation comprises instructing positioning of a distal end of the at least two legs in a placement location (Deyle [0168], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses positioning the flippers (i.e. legs) at the distal end when opening the door).
Regarding Claim 6, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
Deyle further discloses the sensor data is associated with at least a portion of a door frame of the door (Deyle [0190], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the robot moving towards the doorway (i.e. frame of the door), therefore there must be sensor data associated with the doorway);
the one or more properties comprise an estimated door width associated with the door (Deyle [0185], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the robot able to determine the door size, which would include the door width);
instructing execution of the door opening operation comprises instructing positioning of an end-effector of the arm at a location; and instructing positioning of the end-effector at the location comprises instructions hooking of the end-effector around an edge of the door (Deyle [0191] & Fig. 10C, Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the mechanical hand (i.e. end-effector) be on the opposite side of the robot than the door. Further, figure 10C discloses the hooking the hand around the edge of the door while passing through).
Regarding Claim 7, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
Deyle further discloses the sensor data is associated with at least a portion of a door frame of the door (Deyle [0190], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the robot moving towards the doorway (i.e. frame of the door), therefore there must be sensor data associated with the doorway);
the one or more properties comprise an estimated door width associated with the door (Deyle [0185], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the robot able to determine the door size, which would include the door width); and
instructing execution of the door opening operation comprises instructing positioning of an end-effector of the arm at a location and exertion of a push force at the location (Deyle [0091], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses applying force to open a door using the robot’s hand. The force is determined using a pressure sensor).
Regarding Claim 8, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
Deyle further discloses the sensor data is associated with at least a portion of a door handle of the door (Deyle [0180]-[0182], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses using a camera (i.e. image data) in order to determine a door has handles (e.g. lever, crashpad, handleset, etc.));
the one or more properties comprise a grasping ray indicating a location of the door handle relative to an end-effector of the arm (Deyle [0197], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the robot being able to go within a threshold distance of a door which is determined based on the range of motion of the robot’s arm and hand (i.e. end-effector) and the door handle); and
instructing execution of the door opening operation comprises instructing grasping of the door handle with the end-effector at the location. (Deyle [0183] & Claim 7, Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the robot being able to grab the door handle).
Regarding Claim 9, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
Deyle further discloses the sensor data is associated with at least a portion of a door handle of the door (Deyle [0180]-[0182], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses using a camera (i.e. image data) in order to determine a door has handles (e.g. lever, crashpad, handleset, etc.));
the one or more properties comprise a classification of the door handle (Deyle [0180]-[0182], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses using a camera (i.e. image data) in order to determine the type of handle (i.e. classification) (e.g. lever, crashpad, handleset, etc.); and
instructing execution of the door opening operation comprises instructing grasping of the door handle with an end-effector of the arm based on the classification of the door handle (Deyle [0180], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the robot being able to open many different types (i.e. classifications) of doors (e.g. lever handle, crashpad, handleset, etc.)).
Regarding Claim 10, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
Deyle further discloses the sensor data is associated with at least a portion of a door handle of the door (Deyle [0180]-[0182], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses using a camera (i.e. image data) in order to determine a door has handles (e.g. lever, crashpad, handleset, etc.));
the one or more properties comprise a classification of the door handle (Deyle [0180]-[0182], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses using a camera (i.e. image data) in order to determine the type of handle (i.e. classification) (e.g. lever, crashpad, handleset, etc.); and
instructing execution of the door opening operation comprises instructing grasping of the door handle with an end-effector of the arm based on the classification of the door handle, wherein the classification of the door handle indicates the door handle comprises at least one of a pushbar, a handle, or a knob (Deyle [0180], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the robot being able to open many different types (i.e. classifications) of doors (e.g. lever handle, crashpad, handleset, etc.)).
Regarding Claims 11, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
Deyle further discloses the sensor data is associated with at least a portion of a door hinge of the door (Deyle [0179] & Figs. 10A-10D, Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the robot being able to open hinged doors, therefore the robot can detect, through sensors, door hinges);
the one or more properties indicate that the door opens by swinging in a particular direction (Deyle [0186], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses that the robot can determine the position of the doorknob as well as the force at which to open it. Therefore, the robot would know which direction the door swings); and
instructing execution of the door opening operation comprises instructing exerting of a pull force with an end- effector of the arm based on determining that the one or more properties indicate that the door opens by swinging in a direction towards the legged robot (Deyle [0186]-[0189] & Figs. 10A-10D, Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the robot being able to determine the position of the doorknob, as well as being able to apply a force to pull the door open).
Regarding Claim 12, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
Deyle further discloses the sensor data is associated with at least a portion of a door hinge of the door (Deyle [0179] & Figs. 10A-10D, Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the robot being able to open hinged doors, therefore the robot can detect, through sensors, door hinges);
the one or more properties indicate that the door opens by swinging in a particular direction (Deyle [0186], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses that the robot can determine the position of the doorknob as well as the force at which to open it. Therefore, the robot would know which direction the door swings); and
instructing execution of the door opening operation comprises instructing exerting of a push force with an end- effector of the arm based on determining that the one or more properties indicate that the door opens by swinging in a direction away from the legged robot (Deyle [0091], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the robot being able to push open a door using force from its arm).
Regarding Claim 13, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
Deyle further discloses the arm includes an end- effector (Deyle [0191], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the mechanical hand (i.e. end-effector)); and the sensor of the legged robot is located on the end-effector (Deyle [0177], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses a camera, 900, being on the robot’s hand).
Regarding Claim 14, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1,
Deyle further discloses wherein the sensor of the legged robot is located on a body of the legged robot (Deyle [0067], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses a sensor 610 and sensor array 612 on the robot’s body).
Regarding Claim 16, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1,
Deyle further discloses wherein the one or more properties identify a state of the door as a fully open state, a partially open state, or a closed state (Deyle [0124], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses identify via sensors whether the door is open or closed).
Regarding Claim 17, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1,
Deyle further discloses wherein instructing execution of the door opening operation comprises providing instructions associated with the door opening operation to the legged robot, wherein the operations further include executing the instructions (Deyle [0189] & Figs. 10A-10D, Examiner Note: Deyle discloses going through a series of steps (i.e. instructions) in order to open, traverse, and close a door).
Regarding Claim 18, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1,
Deyle further discloses wherein the door opening operation is executed by the legged robot without human intervention (Deyle [0103], Examiner Note: Deyle disclose that the robot receives and executes instructions autonomously (i.e. without human intervention)).
Regarding Claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations, aside from where outlined below, in view of claim 1; Therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Deyle also discloses a body (Deyle Figs. 6A, Examiner Note: Deyle discloses a robot with a body, 604);
Regarding Claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 2. Therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 21, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 21 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 3. Therefore, claim 21 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 22, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 22 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 4. Therefore, claim 22is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 23, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 23 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 5. Therefore, claim 23 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 24, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 24 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 6. Therefore, claim 24 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 25, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 7, and it has been determined that claim 25 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 7. Therefore, claim 25 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 26, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claim 26 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 8. Therefore, claim 26 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 27, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 9, and it has been determined that claim 27 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 9. Therefore, claim 27 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 9.
Regarding Claim 28, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 10, and it has been determined that claim 28 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 10. Therefore, claim 28 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 10.
Regarding Claim 29, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 11, and it has been determined that claim 29 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 11. Therefore, claim 29 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 11.
Regarding Claim 30, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 12, and it has been determined that claim 30 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 12. Therefore, claim 30 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 12.
Regarding Claim 31, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 13, and it has been determined that claim 31 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 13. Therefore, claim 31 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 13.
Regarding Claim 32, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 14, and it has been determined that claim 32 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 14. Therefore, claim 32 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 14.
Regarding Claim 34, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 16, and it has been determined that claim 34 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 16. Therefore, claim 34 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 16.
Regarding Claim 35, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 17, and it has been determined that claim 35 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 17. Therefore, claim 35 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 17.
Regarding Claim 36, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 18, and it has been determined that claim 36 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 18. Therefore, claim 36 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 18.
Claims 15 & 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0248016 A1, to Deyle et al. hereafter Deyle (previously of record). as applied to claims 1 & 19 above, and further in view of US 2020/0361101 A1 (previously of record), to Zhang et al. hereafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 15, as shown above, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The method of claim 1,
However, Deyle does not specifically disclose wherein the legged robot comprises four legs, each of the four legs coupled to a body of the legged robot.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the robot comprises four legs, each of the four legs coupled to a body of the robot (Zhang [0012] & Fig. 8, Examiner Note: Zhang discloses a robot having four legs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the door opening robot of Deyle in view of Berard with the four-legged design of Zhang in order to provide the robot with greater mobility (Zhang [0025]).
Regarding Claim 33, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 14, and it has been determined that claim 33 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 14. Therefore, claim 33is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 14.
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 MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MICHAEL DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666