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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 8, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on April 8, 2026. 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 April 8, 2026 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 April 8, 2026 have overcome the prior art rejections. Therefore the examiner withdraws the prior art rejections made in the final rejection. However new prior art and 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are made below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 17-19, filed April 8, 2026, 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 (previously of record), Berard (previously of record), Zhang (previously of record), Wu (newly of record) and Tam (newly of record).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 & 19 recite …the legged robot adjusts a stance of a body of the legged robot as defined by an orientation of the at least two legs and a position of the at least two legs. which is considered new matter. The applicant has pointed out in the interview filed March 11, 2026 that when [0066] & [0097] are combined, the amended limitation is properly disclosed, however the examiner disagrees. While [0066] obtains information about a door, [0097] merely decides whether the detected door is similar to a door in the training data. Neither [0097] nor the rest of the specification recites detecting and opening a second or any additional doors. The specification paragraphs listed in page 17 of the applicant’s arguments also do not sufficiently disclose the amended limitation.
Claims 6, 9, 15, 24, 27 & 33 recite …classify…a non-obstacle which is considered new matter. While [0090] of the specification describes a cell being traversable, and [0093] describes classifying obstacles, the specification does not recite anything regarding non-obstacles.
Claim 12 recites providing, to an obstacle avoidance system that is separate and distance from the door movement system… however, the specification, particularly Figure 2E recites the Obstacle Avoider, 260, as a sub-system of the Door Movement system, 200. See paragraph [0090] for additional details. Therefore, the specification does not sufficiently consider the Door Movement System and Obstacle Avoider as separate and distinct. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected as new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites …providing, to an obstacle avoidance system that is separate and distance from the door movement system… however it is uncertain what …and distance… means in this limitation. For examination on its merits, the examiner will interpret it to mean “separate and distinct”.
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, 4, 11-13, 16-19, 22, 29-31, & 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 (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Deyle discloses A computer-implemented method 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);
identifying one or more physical features of the door based on the sensor data received from the sensor of the legged robot having the adjusted field of view (Deyle [0124] & [0183], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the location of a door knob or handle (i.e. physical features with the attached 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 [0125]-[0126], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses being able to detect object properties such as whether a door is open or closed);
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 generated 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), and wherein the generated door opening operation is obtained from a data store of the legged robot and executed to open and traverse an additional door based on predicting that the additional door and the door have a set of common properties (Deyle [0194], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses storing a motion plan to be accessed at a future time to be used when opening the same (i.e. similar) door. [0187] & [0228] further discloses being able to access historical data, such as force required to open (i.e. property), of actions performed by the mobile robot or other mobile robots with regards to doors).
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 in view of Berard 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 4, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Deyle further discloses wherein identifying the one or more physical features comprises: 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.), and wherein determining the one or more properties comprises determining 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 (i.e. property)).
Regarding Claims 11, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more physical features comprises:
Deyle further discloses identifying 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);
wherein determining the one or more properties comprises: determining that the door opens by swinging in a particular direction based on identifying the at least a portion of the door hinge (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
wherein instructing the execution of the generated door opening operation comprises: instructing exerting of a pull force with an end- effector of the arm based on determining that the door opens by swinging in the particular direction (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), wherein different door opening operations are generated based on whether the door is determined to open by swinging in a direction towards the legged robot or by swinging in a direction away from the legged robot (Deyle [0235], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses being able to push open a door with hinges based on the direction of which the door opens).
Regarding Claim 12, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein instructing the execution of the generated door opening operation comprises:
Deyle further discloses instructing the execution of the generated door opening operation by a door movement system (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),
the computer-implemented method further comprising: providing, to an obstacle avoidance system that is separate and distance from the door movement system, the generated door opening operation, wherein traversal of the door by the legged robot is coordinated by the door movement system and the obstacle avoidance system (Deyle [0179], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses a mechanical arm (i.e. door movement system) which is used to open, move, and closed through the hinged door. [0078]-[0079] Deyle further discloses a navigation system, 710, which is used in part to avoid obstacles (i.e. obstacle avoidance system)).
Regarding Claim 13, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:…
Deyle further discloses …wherein the arm is mounted to a top portion of the body, wherein a bottom portion of the body faces a ground surface of the environment when the legged robot is in a stable position, wherein the arm includes an end-effector, and (Deyle [0163] & Fig. 9A, Examiner Note: Deyle discloses a mechanical arm, 925, with a mechanical hand (i.e. end-effector), 930, mounted to the top half of the robot and the bottom portion faces the ground while in a stable, default position); and wherein the sensor of the legged robot is located on the end-effector (Deyle [0176], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses sensors being capable of being located on the mechanical hand, 930).
However, the modification does not specifically teach …the at least two legs are mounted to one or more side portions of a body of the legged robot,…
Berard further teaches …the at least two legs are mounted to one or more side portions of a body of the legged robot (Berard Fig. 9, Examiner Note: Berard teaches four legs attached to the side of the body of the robot),…
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 side-mounted legs of Berard in order to lower the center of gravity of the robot.
Regarding Claim 16, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: 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 further discloses instructing traversal of the environment by the legged robot according to a mission, (Deyle [0109], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the capability to instruct robots to perform tasks (i.e. missions) including patrolling a route (i.e. traversal of environment)),
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the mission is associated with one or more mission parameters; determining that the one or more mission parameters indicate that a state of the door is a first door state; and determining, using the one or more properties, that the state of the door is a second door state, wherein generating the door opening operation is in response to determining that the one or more mission parameters indicate that the state of the door is the first door state and determining that the state of the door is the second door state, and wherein the execution of the generated door opening operation transitions the state of the door from the second door state to the first door state.
Berard further teaches wherein the mission is associated with one or more mission parameters; determining that the one or more mission parameters indicate that a state of the door is a first door state; and determining, using the one or more properties, that the state of the door is a second door state, wherein generating the door opening operation is in response to determining that the one or more mission parameters indicate that the state of the door is the first door state and determining that the state of the door is the second door state, and wherein the execution of the generated door opening operation transitions the state of the door from the second door state to the first door state (Berard Col. 9, Rows 33-58, Examiner Note: Berard teaches the robot performing task-level goals which include moving through an open door (i.e. first door state) or opening the door if it is closed (i.e. second door state)).
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 task oriented functionality of Berard in order to carry out complex goals by splitting them up into smaller tasks (Berard Col. 5, Rows 10-13).
Regarding Claim 17, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Deyle further discloses …wherein instructing the execution of the generated door opening operation comprises: providing instructions associated with the generated door opening operation legged to the robot, the computer-implemented method further comprising: executing the instructions without human intervention (Deyle [0105], [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. [0105] Deyle further discloses functions from the central system which operates the robots can be done autonomously without a user (i.e. without human intervention)).
However, the modification does not specifically teach …wherein the legged robot comprises four legs, each of the four legs coupled to a body of the legged robot,…
Berard teaches…wherein the legged robot comprises four legs, each of the four legs coupled to a body of the legged robot (Berard Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Zhang teaches four legs on a robot),…
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 legs of Zhang in order to increase the range of motion of the robot’s body and therefore the manipulator arm (Berard Col. 3, Rows 37-51).
Regarding Claim 18, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Deyle further discloses wherein the one or more properties comprise one or more time-variable properties (Deyle [0040] & [0126], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses being able to detect the property of security credentials of a door wherein security credentials consist in part of permitted times of access (i.e. time-variable property)), and wherein the identified one or more physical features comprise one or more non-time-variable physical features (Deyle [0124] & [0183], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses the location (i.e. physical features with a non-time variable) of a door knob or handle).
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 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 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 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 2 & 20 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 (previously of record) as applied to claims 1 & 19 above, and further in view of OpenSHC: A Versatile Multilegged Robot Controller (newly of record), to Tam et al. hereafter Tam.
Regarding Claim 2, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The computer-implemented 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)),
However, the modification does not specifically disclose the legged robot adjusts a stance of a body of the legged robot as defined by an orientation of the at least two legs and a position of the at least two legs.
Tam, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the legged robot adjusts a stance of a body of the legged robot as defined by an orientation of the at least two legs and a position of the at least two legs (Tam IV. System Architecture, Section C Pose Controller, Examiner Note: Tam teaches that sensors mounted to the robot’s body have a limited field of view and they can be oriented towards an area of interest by changing the body pose. The manual pose generator performs this using the five components of the pose controller which uses changing of the leg position and stance to find a better field of view for the sensors).
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 capability to adjust robot legs for sensors in order to provide a better field of view (Tam IV. System Architecture, Section C Pose Controller)
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.
Claims 10 & 28 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 (previously of record) as applied to claims 1 & 19 above, and further in view of US 20220410391 A1 (previously of record), to Aparaicio Ojea et al. hereafter Aparaecio Ojea.
Regarding Claim 10, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more physical features comprises:
Deyle further discloses identifying 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.));
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein determining the one or more properties comprises: classifying of the door handle as at least one of a pushbar, a handle, or a knob and wherein instructing the execution of the generated door opening operation comprises: instructing grasping of the door handle with an end-effector of the arm based on classifying the door handle.
Aparaecio Ojea, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining the one or more properties comprises: classifying of the door handle as at least one of a pushbar, a handle, or a knob and wherein instructing the execution of the generated door opening operation comprises: instructing grasping of the door handle with an end-effector of the arm based on classifying the door handle (Aparaecio Ojea [0032]-[0033] & Fig 2, Examiner Note: Aparaecio Ojea discloses classifying a subcomponent such as a handle for a door. Further, Aparaecio Ojea discloses being able to perform an operation associated with a handle (i.e. grasping) based on its previous classification).
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 classification of handles of Aparaecio Ojea in order to allow the robot to operate and interact in various complex environments (Aparaecio Ojea [0003]-[0004).
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.
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) ) in view of US 9,987,745 B1, to Berard et al., hereafter Berard (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 and CN 112526993 A (newly of record), to Wu et al. hereafter Wu.
Regarding Claim 15, as shown above, Deyle in view of Berard teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising:
Deyle further discloses …generating an obstacle map based on the sensor data received from the sensor of the legged robot having the adjusted field of view (Deyle [0122]-[0123], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses using SLAM maps which contain identified obstacles (i.e. obstacle map)),…updating the obstacle map as the legged robot executes the generated door opening operation (Deyle [0122]-[0123], Examiner Note: Deyle discloses being able to update existing maps with obstacles while performing the tasks).
However, the modification does not specifically disclose wherein the legged robot comprises four legs, each of the four legs coupled to a body of the legged robot… wherein the obstacle map classifies a first portion of the environment as an obstacle and a second portion of the environment as a non-obstacle; and.
Zhang further teaches wherein the robot comprises four legs, each of the four legs coupled to a body of the robot (Zhang Fig. 9, Examiner Note: Zhang teaches four legs attached to the side of the body of the robot).
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 side-mounted legs of Zhang in order to lower the center of gravity of the robot.
Wu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches…wherein the obstacle map classifies a first portion of the environment as an obstacle and a second portion of the environment as a non-obstacle (Wu [0052]-[0053], Examiner Note: Wu teaches a first marking for non-obstacle voxels (i.e. second portion of the environment) and a second marking for obstacle voxels (i.e. first portion of the environment); and
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 classifying non-obstacles of Wu in order to ensure the environment of the robot is accurately modelled so the robot may navigate autonomously safely (Wu [0003]).
Regarding Claim 33, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 15, and it has been determined that claim 33 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 15. Therefore, claim 33is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-9, 14, 21, 23-27, & 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
It is encouraged for the applicant to request an interview with the examiner in order to discuss potential next steps for the allowable claims in view of the new matter rejections above.
Conclusion
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, ERIN PIATESKI can be reached on (571)-270-7429. 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 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights