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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/05/2026, has been received and made of record. In response to the Non-Final Office Action, dated on 11/28/2025. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-19 and 22-25 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/05/2026 have been fully considered.
In the Arguments/Remarks:
Re: Amendments to the Drawings and Specification
Examiner notes that the amendments to the drawings and specification have been received and fully considered, however the amendments raise new issues (see rejection below). Examiner has augmented the rejections and objections below to better depict the issues that are currently present.
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “LP1” has been used to designate both a common landing point, an actual landing point and an original desired landing point. 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. 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.
Examiner further notes that the loose arrow depicted in Fig.6B in between the lines depicted as ST1 and ST2 has no labeling and it is unclear what is being illustrated by the loose/floating arrow. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is earnestly solicited.
Specification
The amendment filed 02/05/2026 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:
Applicant’s specification page 8 line 22-page 9 line 5 recites “Figure 6B shows a case where multiple re-swings can be used to robustly clear a taller obstacle, curb C. The first swing trajectory STl (solid line) impacts the obstacle, then the second trajectory ST2 (dashed) retracts and impacts the obstacle at a higher point. Finally - as the height of the desired trajectory is increased after each impact and re-swing - the third swing trajectory ST3 (dotted and dashed) clears the obstacle. First swing trajectory ST1, second swing trajectory ST2, and third swing trajectory ST3 may share a common landing point LP1. In the case shown in Figure 6B, the actual landing point of the third swing trajectory ST3 is LP1.”. However, based on Fig.6B it does not appear that the second swing trajectory ST2 shares a common landing point with ST1 and ST3.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 5, 11, 14 and 22 lack antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is earnestly solicited.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-19 and 22-25 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.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 recites “wherein said second swing path comprises retracting a distal end of said leg and said second swing path has a second desired touchdown location for said leg that is substantially the same as said first desired touchdown location, and wherein an actual touchdown location for said leg is different from said second desired touchdown location.”. These limitations contain new matter not previously disclosed within applicant’s specification. For example, the applicant’s specification does not disclose “a second desired touchdown location for said leg that is substantially the same as said first desired touchdown location” or “wherein an actual touchdown location for said leg is different from said second desired touchdown location”. Applicant’s specification fails to clearly disclose the underlined limitations. Examiner submits that it appears paragraphs 31-34 of applicant’s specification and Figs. 6A-6C disclose the swing and re-swing process but do not disclose the underlined limitations. Figs. 6A-6C do not cure these deficiencies. Examiner notes that the applicant’s specification does not make any reference or mention of the touchdown location being “substantially the same” or an actual touchdown location the leg being “different from said second desired touchdown location”. Applicant’s specification does not mention the term “actual touchdown location”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 3-6, 8-11 and 23-25, Claims 3-6, 8-11 and 23-25 are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 12, Claim 12 recites “wherein said second swing path comprises retracting a distal end of said leg and said second swing path has a second desired touchdown location for said leg that is substantially the same as said first desired touchdown location, and wherein an actual touchdown location for said leg is different from said second desired touchdown location.”. These limitations contain new matter not previously disclosed within applicant’s specification. For example, the applicant’s specification does not disclose “a second desired touchdown location for said leg that is substantially the same as said first desired touchdown location” or “wherein an actual touchdown location for said leg is different from said second desired touchdown location”. Applicant’s specification fails to clearly disclose the underlined limitations. Examiner submits that it appears paragraphs 31-34 of applicant’s specification and Figs. 6A-6C disclose the swing and re-swing process but do not disclose the underlined limitations. Figs. 6A-6C do not cure these deficiencies. Examiner notes that the applicant’s specification does not make any reference or mention of the touchdown location being “substantially the same” or an actual touchdown location the leg being “different from said second desired touchdown location”. Applicant’s specification does not mention the term “actual touchdown location”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 13-18, Claims 13-18 are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 19, Claim 19 recites “wherein said second swing path comprises retracting a distal end of said leg and said second swing path has a second desired touchdown location for said leg that is substantially the same as said first desired touchdown location, and wherein an actual touchdown location for said leg is different from said second desired touchdown location.” These limitations contain new matter not previously disclosed within applicant’s specification. For example, the applicant’s specification does not disclose “a second desired touchdown location for said leg that is substantially the same as said first desired touchdown location” or “wherein an actual touchdown location for said leg is different from said second desired touchdown location”. Applicant’s specification fails to clearly disclose the underlined limitations. Examiner submits that it appears paragraphs 31-34 of applicant’s specification and Figs. 6A-6C disclose the swing and re-swing process but do not disclose the underlined limitations. Figs. 6A-6C do not cure these deficiencies. Examiner notes that the applicant’s specification does not make any reference or mention of the touchdown location being “substantially the same” or an actual touchdown location the leg being “different from said second desired touchdown location”. Applicant’s specification does not mention the term “actual touchdown location”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 24-25, Claim 24 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein said actual touchdown location is located along the second swing path before said second desired touchdown location.”. Claim 25 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein said actual touchdown location is located along the second swing path after said second desired touchdown location.” Examiner submits that applicant’s specification supports different, above and below touchdown locations see paragraph 33 “By only allowing re-swings during a middle portion of the desired swing trajectory the re-swing algorithm can be robust to touching down on terrain above (or below) the original desired landing height.”. However, applicant’s specification makes no reference to “wherein said actual touchdown location is located along the second swing path after said second desired touchdown location.” Or “actual touchdown location is located along the second swing path before said second desired touchdown location.” Examiner also submits that the applicant’s specification does not refer to an “actual touchdown location”. Examiner notes that the elements from claims 24-25 are subject to new matter. These limitations are not disclosed within applicant’s specification. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is earnestly solicited.
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 MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA whose telephone number is (571)272-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 with flex.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656