DETAILED 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the two trunks, the pitching drive motor, the first multi-link mechanism and the second multi-link mechanism as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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 1 states that “the active spine 1 is able to drive the trunks to pitch, extend and retract” however, the spine 1 is just a frame member; examiner is unsure as to how the spine (which is a frame member) is able to drive the trunks to pitch, extend and roll.
Claims 4 and 13 (and therefore claims 5 and 14) recites the limitation "the mounting parts" in line 6, a mounting part is mentioned in line 2, however the plural was not mentioned. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9 and 18 are 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. The claim states “two drive cranks” in line 2, then in line 10, it states “a second end of the drive crank forms a moving revolving pair”, however the claim does not mention which one of the two drive cranks is being referred to, then in line 11-12, the claim states “the drive crank rotates unidirectionally to enable the elastic leg…”, however, the claim does not mention which one of the two drive cranks is being referred to or talked about. Examiner believes that applicant should state “a second end of both drive cranks” or “a second end of the first one of the drive cranks”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Potter (US 2018/0172121). Potter discloses a quadruped robot (see figure 2), comprising an active spine (chassis of the robot, see figure 2) and two trunks (204A to 204D), wherein the two trunks are a fore trunk (see figure 2) and a hind trunk (see figure 2), respectively; the two trunks are able to pitch (see Par. 0079 and 0080) and to be telescopically arranged (see Par. 0051 and 0052) on both ends of the active spine in a front-back direction (see figure 2), and the active spine is able to drive the trunks to pitch, extend and retract.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the active spine comprises a spine mounting frame (the body 208 or shell of the robot, see figure 2), two swing output members (403) and a pitching drive motor (402), the two swing output members are able to be mounted on a front end and a rear end of the spine mounting frame in a pitching manner (as they are able to move with the trunks/legs relative to the spine mounting frame or body of the robot), the trunks are movably arranged on the swing output members in directions away from and close to the swing output members (see figure 2 and 4A), the pitching drive motor is fixedly arranged in the spine mounting frame (see figure 4A) and is able to drive the swing output members to pitch, and the swing output members are able to drive the trunks to pitch (see figures 4A,8 and 11).
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.
Claim(s) 10,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter in view of Hurst (US 2022/0144358).
Regarding claim 10, Potter does not mention elastic legs that are able to store energy (or basically a leg that has a spring to store and release energy). However, Hurst discloses a robot with elastic leg (200) that is able to store and release energy. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Potter by including an elastic leg into the robot, in order to be able to store and release energy with the springs. Wherein the combination of Potter and Hurst ends with the method as claimed being performed to include “a method of a spline-leg-foot of elastic leg comprising: providing a plurality of elastic legs below each trunk of the quadruped robot, wherein an active spine comprises an elastic leg retraction drive device (or pitching drive motor, see rejection of claim 2 above), which is able to drive the elastic legs to compress for energy storage (energy storage would be the combination of Potter and Hurst), and is able to terminate a compressed state to enable the elastic legs to bounce; and simulating pitch and retraction states of a spine and an energy storage and release state of legs during the running of a quadruped by controlling a swing state of a swing output member (412, in Potter), an extension and retraction state of the trunk (see figures 8 and 9 in Potter) and an energy storage and release state of the elastic legs (when Potter is combined with Hurst)”.
Regarding claim 11, wherein the active spine comprises a spine mounting frame (the body 208 or shell of the robot, see figure 2), two swing output members (403) and a pitching drive motor (402), the two swing output members are able to be mounted on a front end and a rear end of the spine mounting frame in a pitching manner (as they are able to move with the trunks/legs relative to the spine mounting frame or body of the robot), the trunks are movably arranged on the swing output members in directions away from and close to the swing output members (see figure 2 and 4A), the pitching drive motor is fixedly arranged in the spine mounting frame (see figure 4A) and is able to drive the swing output members to pitch, and the swing output members are able to drive the trunks to pitch (see figures 4A,8 and 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 12-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the art of record did not include “a sliding chute is provided on the spine mounting frame, and the swing output member forms a movable revolving pair with the sliding chute through a sliding shaft; the swing output member reaches a limit pitching angle when the sliding shaft is moved to an end part of the sliding chute”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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 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.
/MARLON A ARCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611