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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the non-final rejected dated 2 May 2025.
The objections to the drawings, specification, and claims from the prior office action have been updated below. Any objection not listed below is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of Claims 6 and 7 from the prior office action have been fully considered. One of ordinary skill would understand the labeling of “W” as a unitless weighting term to balance the equation, therefore, the rejection for written description is withdrawn. Note: the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is not withdrawn as no terms are defined in the claim language.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior office action have been updated below. Any rejection not listed below is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of Claims 1-5 and 8-14, are moot. The rejections of Claims 1-5 and 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn (see reasoning below).
Applicant's arguments filed 31 October 2025 regarding the rejection of Claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Whitman does not disclose slicing strategies, this argument is not persuasive. Related to slicing strategies, Claim 15 recites “wherein said point cloud is paired with a slicing strategy to mitigate an impact of said legged robot’s legs on the depth point cloud such that the field of view is captured instead of said legged robot’s anatomy” and Whitman discloses “a reliance on a single detection from a snapshot of sensor data 134 may cause inaccuracy as to the actual location of features of the stairs 20. For example, a robot 100 may move or change its pose P between a first time and a second time generating sensor data 134 for areas of the stairs 20 that were previously occluded, partially occluded, or poorly captured in general. Here, a system that only performed a single detection at the first time may suffer from incomplete sensor data 134 and inaccurately detect a feature.”; in summary, multiple time segments are sliced together to mitigate impact of occlusions on the point cloud (see at least [0037] and [0056]).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., downward facing depth camera, stair fitting algorithm) are 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).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Burl is only used to teach “calculating a gradient map, calculated using a 1D convolution operation and said heightmap”, and Applicant’s arguments do not address why one of ordinary skill would not find a reason to combine this limitation nor how combining this limitation would “frustrate the principle of operations of the cited references”, so the arguments are not persuasive.
Joint Inventors
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
An inertial memory unit in Claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
No structure for “an inertial memory unit” was found.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Specification / Drawings
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The current abstract includes “is detailed herein” and should be modified to meet the requirements listed above.
The amendment filed 31 October 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the amendments to the specification (“…overcome sensor noise and create a larger heightmap that can be used for terrain traversal”, “does not jump to different locations easily”) and the amendments to the drawings (FIG. 4 added callouts of dimensions and angles that have no support in the original disclosure). Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 1: “a legged robot's central chassis” should be “a of said legged robot”.
Claims 1 and 14: “said legged robot’s chassis” should be “said central chassis of said legged robot”.
Claim 4: “said legged robot’s central chassis” should be “said chassis of said legged robot”.
Claim 8: “said heightmap’s range” should be “ of said heightmap”.
Claim 11: “a surrounding environment” should be “said
Claim 15: “back” should be “a back”.
Claim 15: “said legged robot's environment” should be “an environment of said legged robot”.
Claim 15: “said legged robot’s legs” should be “legs of said legged robot
Claim 15: “the depth point cloud” should be “the [[depth]] point cloud”.
Claim 17 and Claim 18: “…said legged robot is tilted down…” should be “…said legged robot and is tilted down…”.
Claim 19: “said legged robot’s chassis” should be “said central chassis of said legged robot
Claim 20: “a field of view” should be “[[a]] said field of view”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “an embedded autonomous navigation system”, no support was found in the original disclosure for this system. Additionally, Claim 1 was amended to recite “filling missing regions of said heightmap with error data acquired” [emphasis added], no support was found in the original disclosure for filling missing regions with error data. Claims 2-7 are rejected for being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim 4 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 4 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 4 has been amended to recite “10 degrees vertically downward”, no support was found in the original disclosure for this limitation. The specification states “There are also cameras located in the robot's belly, facing directly downward with an inclination of 10 degrees relative to the horizontal line”; which one of ordinary skill would not interpret to be equivalent to “vertically downward”.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 8 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 8 has been amended to recite “positioning said downward facing depth and visual sensors according to their respective placements either on said front, back, or underside of said central chassis on said legged robot at an angle to prevent an obscured view, wherein said obscured view is defined as a view with one or more objects preventing a field of view perception” [emphasis added]. The specification instead teaches slicing the point cloud to remove the legs of the legged robot, so therefore, there are objects (the legs) preventing a field of view perception. Additionally, Claim 8 has been amended to recite “providing a consistent view of said environment being navigated” [emphasis added], there is no support for a view being consistent in the original disclosure. Claims 9-14 are rejected for being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 15 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 15 has been amended to recite “wherein said point cloud is paired with a slicing strategy to mitigate an impact of said legged robot’s legs on the depth point cloud such that the field of view is captured instead of said legged robot’s anatomy” [emphasis added], no support was found in the original disclosure for this limitation. The specification states “slicing strategy is implemented to mitigate the impact of the legs on the depth pointcloud” [emphasis added], which does not change what is captured. Claims 16-20 are rejected for being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claims 5 and 16 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 5 and 16 contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 5 and 16 have been amended to recite “flat terrain, determined by consistent stair model height and run” and “uneven terrain, determined by inconsistent stair model height and run” [emphasis added], no support was found in the original disclosure. The specification states “with the gradient map, the robot should prefer to step in more flat areas than uneven areas”, one of ordinary skill would not conclude from that statement “flat terrain, determined by consistent stair model height and run” and “uneven terrain, determined by inconsistent stair model height and run”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b): the Claim 1 limitation “inertial memory unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification only mentions “internal memory unit” once: “This heightmap processing is typically relayed by way of a computing box stationed inside of the legged robot that features a microprocessor and inertial memory unit”, which provides no structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because “an embedded autonomous navigation system comprising:…a point cloud,…a heightmap,…a gradient map,…a foothold selection” are data without the necessary structure to be part of a system claim (in view of the specification which is silent to the structure). One of ordinary skill would not know what structure is required to infringe. Claims 2-7 are further rejected for being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim 6 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite since the definition of equation terms J, wnom, wgrad, and wdamp are missing. Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6, and accordingly also rejected.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because “said gradient map prefers” is indefinite. One of ordinary skill would not know the preferences of a gradient map. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner has interpreted this according to the amendments to the similar Claim 5 “wherein said legged robot is programmed to prioritize stepping in flat terrain, determined by consistent stair model height and run, over uneven terrain, determined by inconsistent stair model height and run”.
See below for a list of relative language found in the claims. As independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 each include at least one relative term, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 112(b) for use of relative terms. Use of any of the relative terms listed below render the claim or claims containing it indefinite. The relative terms are not defined by the claim or claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, see MPEP 2173.05(b).
“viable” (Claims 1 and 15)
“safe” (Claim 1)
“consistent” (Claims 5, 8, and 16)
“inconsistent” (Claims 5 and 16)
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0331754 (hereinafter, Whitman) in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,162,056 (Burl et al., hereinafter, Burl).
Regarding Claim 15, Whitman discloses A method for using depth sensors on the bottom of a legged robot for stair climbing (see at least [0037], FIG. 1A, and FIG. 5), the method comprising
positioning a plurality of depth and visual sensors at a front, back, and/or attached to a central chassis of said legged robot to provide a field of view of said legged robot's environment (see at least [0037] and FIG. 1A: “the robot 100 includes two stereo cameras as sensors 132 at a front end of the body 110 of the robot 100 (i.e., a head of the robot 100 adjacent the front legs 120a-b of the robot 100) and one stereo camera as a sensor 132 at a back end of the body 110 of the robot 100 adjacent rear legs 120c-d of the robot 100”),
processing and storing depth data deriving from said plurality of depth and visual sensors using a microprocessor situated within a computing unit of said legged robot, and wherein said computing unit generates a point cloud by way of said depth data (see at least [0039]-[0041], [0105]-[0106], and [0113]: “the sensor data 134 is image data that corresponds to a three-dimensional volumetric point cloud generated by a three-dimensional volumetric image sensor 132”; “the computing system 140 may be centralized (i.e., in a single location/area on the robot 100, for example, the body 110 of the robot 100)”; “Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors, and any one or more processors of any kind of digital computer.”),
leveraging data regarding said legged robot's stair climbing (see at least [0041] and FIG. 5),
creating a heightmap by way of said point cloud and depth data (see at least [0039], [0047]-[0048], and FIG. 5: ground height map 182a), wherein said point cloud is paired with a slicing strategy to mitigate an impact of said legged robot’s legs on the depth point cloud such that the field of view is captured instead of said legged robot’s anatomy (see at least [0037] and [0056]: “a reliance on a single detection from a snapshot of sensor data 134 may cause inaccuracy as to the actual location of features of the stairs 20. For example, a robot 100 may move or change its pose P between a first time and a second time generating sensor data 134 for areas of the stairs 20 that were previously occluded, partially occluded, or poorly captured in general. Here, a system that only performed a single detection at the first time may suffer from incomplete sensor data 134 and inaccurately detect a feature.”; multiple time segments are sliced together to mitigate impact of occlusions on the point cloud),
assessing terrain height information and performing a 1D stair model fitting and estimating a stair's height and run dimensions and calculating fitting errors for each combination of said height and run dimensions by changing said stair model fitting parameters (see at least [0053]-[0056] and [0082]-[0084]: “the stair tracker 200 is configured to receive sensor data 134 and output a stair model 202. The model 202 may include some form of a floor height and a series of stairs 20. Here, a stair 20 is a line segment with a direction, a location, and an extent in either direction. The model 202 may generally assume the stairs 20 are horizontally constrained and include a minimum/maximum rise and a minimum/maximum run. Alternatively, the slope may be constrained to a minimum/maximum value.”),
filling, using a stair mode that yields an optimal height and run, missing regions in a heightmap to continue to detail a view captured by said depth and visual sensors (see at least [0052]-[0054], [0058], [0073], and [0082]-[0084]: “Unfortunately, the sensor data 134 may often have gaps or sections missing from the sensor data 134 due to how the environment 10 is sensed or the capabilities of a sensor 132. To aid further processing by the detector 210b, the detector 210b may perform a morphological expand to fill in gaps within the sensor data 134. For example, a dilate process identifies gaps within the sensor data 134 and fills the identified gaps by expanding sensor data 134 adjacent to the identified gaps.”),
…utilizing depth data from said plurality of depth and visual sensors to allow for perception and decision-making to assist with a foothold selection process, and determine viable locations for said legged robot to place its feet on (see at least [0047]-[0049] and [0092]-[0095]: no step map 182b and modified no step map 332), and;
executing a multi-objective optimization search equation for determining a distance between a current location of said legged robot and a nominal foothold location based on dynamics of said legged robot, and to provide stability of said legged robot during a foothold selection (see at least [0014], [0045]-[0046], and [0098]-[0104]: “the step-planner constraints correspond to a soft constraint that tries to prevent the robot 100 from stepping up or down more than one stair 20 at a time relative to a contralateral leg 120”).
Whitman does not explicitly disclose that utilizing depth data from said depth and visual sensors to enhance perception and decision-making and to assist with a foothold selection process, and determine suitable locations for said legged robot to place its feet on is from calculating a gradient map, calculated using a 1D convolution operation and said heightmap.
Burl, in the same field of analyzing data from a camera mounted on a mobile robot traversing an environment with obstacles, and therefore analogous art, teaches calculating a gradient map, calculated using a 1D convolution operation and said heightmap (see at least column 10 lines 32-65, column 12 lines 21-27, column 14 lines 44-50, FIG. 4A, FIG. 4C, FIG. 5A, FIG. 5C, FIG. 6A, and FIG. 6C: a recent image is retrieved, one-dimensional convolution filters are applied, results of the binary mapping of the gradient magnitude are visually presented with “black” for gradient magnitude above a threshold and “white” for low gradient magnitude; in FIG. 4A, FIG. 5A, and FIG. 6A, a “Normal” image is shown including obstacles robot’s environment).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the robot stair climbing of Whitman with the gradient map calculated using a 1D convolution operation of Burl. One would have been motivated to combined these inventions because relatively autonomous behavior from the mobile robot is desirable without an excessive amount of human interaction (see at least Burl column 1 lines 30-36).
Regarding Claim 16, the Whitman and Burl combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 15. Furthermore, Whitman further discloses wherein said gradient map prefers said legged robot to step on flat terrain, determined by consistent stair model height and run, as opposed to uneven terrain, determined by inconsistent stair model height and run (see at least [0047]-[0049]: “When the perception system 180 generates the no-step map 182b, the perception system 180 may generate a Boolean value map where the Boolean value map identifies no step regions and step regions. A no step region refers to a region of one or more cells where an obstacle exists while a step region refers to a region of one or more cells where an obstacle is not perceived to exist. The perception system 180 further processes the Boolean value map such that the no step map 182b includes a signed-distance field. Here, the signed-distance field for the no step map 182b includes a distance to a boundary of an obstacle (e.g., a distance to a boundary of the no step region 244) and a vector v (e.g., defining nearest direction to the boundary of the no step region 244) to the boundary of an obstacle.”).
Regarding Claim 17, the Whitman and Burl combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 15. Furthermore, Whitman further discloses wherein at least one of said plurality of depth and visual sensors is located at the front of said legged robot is tilted down (see at least [0037] and FIG. 1A: “the robot 100 includes two stereo cameras as sensors 132 at a front end of the body 110 of the robot 100”; “Each sensor 132 may be pivotable and/or rotatable such that the sensor 132 may, for example, change the field of view”).
Whitman does not explicitly disclose, the amount of tilt down of 25 degrees. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at least one of said plurality of depth and visual sensors be tilted down 25 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the specification does not include an advantage or unexpected result as to why the angle should be 25 degrees; in fact, the specification says this angle is “by way of example and not limitation”.
Regarding Claim 18, the Whitman and Burl combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 15. Furthermore, Whitman further discloses wherein at least one of said plurality of depth and visual sensor is located at the back of said legged robot is tilted down (see at least [0037]: “one stereo camera as a sensor 132 at a back end of the body 110 of the robot 100 adjacent rear legs 120c-d of the robot 100”; “Each sensor 132 may be pivotable and/or rotatable such that the sensor 132 may, for example, change the field of view”).
Whitman does not explicitly disclose, the amount of tilt down of 15 degrees. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at least one of said visual and depth sensors be tilted down 15 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the specification does not include an particular advantage or unexpected result as to why the angle should be exactly 15 degrees.
Regarding Claim 19, the Whitman and Burl combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 15. Furthermore, Whitman further discloses wherein at least one of said plurality of depth and visual sensors is located at a center of said legged robot's chassis and facing at an angle (see at least [0037] and FIG. 1A: in FIG. 1A, camera 132 is at a center (i.e., between the two front legs) of the legged robot and the field of view is shown facing at an angle).
Whitman does not explicitly disclose, the amount of facing at an angle of 10 degrees. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at least one of said visual and depth sensors be facing at an angle of 10 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the specification does not include an particular advantage or unexpected result as to why the angle should be exactly 10 degrees.
Regarding Claim 20, the Whitman and Burl combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 15. Furthermore, Whitman further discloses wherein said plurality of visual and depth sensors provide and capture a field of view with a number of frames per second and generate captures via said plurality of visual and depth sensors of said field of view which are converted into said point cloud (see at least [0056]: “the robot 100 constantly gathering sensor data 134 about itself (e.g., at a frequency of 15 Hz)”).
Whitman does not explicitly disclose, the capture frequency of at least 90 frames per second. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use at least 90 frames per second, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the specification does not include an particular advantage or unexpected result as to why the capture frequency should be at least 90 frames per second.
Claims without Prior Art Rejections
Claims 1-14 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 / 35 U.S.C. 103. Claim 1 recites “wherein said point cloud is paired with a slicing strategy to mitigate an impact of said legged robot’s legs on said point cloud such that kinematics of said legged robot’s legs are utilized to determine a width of a point cloud slice, whereby said utilization is performed by using toe positions, as determined by said kinematics, to dictate a y direction range with a minimum y position corresponding to a minimum y position of said toes of said front and back left legs and a maximum y position corresponding to a maximum y position of said toes of said front and back right legs”, which, in combination with the other limitations of Claim 1, is not disclosed, taught, suggested, or rendered obvious by the prior art without impermissible hindsight. Claims 2-7 are dependent on Claim 1, and do not have prior art rejections for at least the same reason as Claim 1. Claim 8 recites “slicing said point cloud to mitigate an impact of said legs on the depth point cloud, wherein kinematics of said legs are utilized to determine a width of the point cloud slice, whereby said utilization is performed by using toe positions, as determined by said kinematics, to dictate a y direction range with a minimum y position corresponding to a minimum y position of said toes of said front and back left legs and a maximum y position corresponding to a maximum y position of said toes of said front and back right leg”, which, in combination with the other limitations of Claim 8, is not disclosed, taught, suggested, or rendered obvious by the prior art without impermissible hindsight. Claims 9-14 are dependent on Claim 8 and do not have prior art rejections for at least he same reason as Claim 8.
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 ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658