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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt of the preliminary amendment filed 04/19/2023 is acknowledged. This amendment amended claims 1-10 and added claims 11-15.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5 “at least said limb” should be “said at least one limb”; line 6 “at least said motor” should be “said at least one motor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “contact area” should be “said contact area”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 3-6 “said robot comprises a first said supplementary sensor … and a second said supplementary sensor” should be “said supplementary sensor comprises a first supplementary sensor … and a second supplementary sensor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7 “said_supplementary” should be “said supplementary”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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, line 10 states “a joint block of said contact organ to said attachment comprising …”. This phrase is unclear and grammatically incorrect. First it states the joint block is part of the contact organ with “a joint block of said contact organ”, however that is contrary to the specification which states on US PG publication paragraph 63 “(t)he joint block 4 can comprise a first arm 41 subtended between the first end of the chain 3 and attachment 2” and the drawings which show elements (2), (3) and (4) are separate. Next the claim states “to the attachment”. It is unclear what the connection of the ”joint block” or “contact organ” is to the “attachment, the phrase is grammatically incorrect and is unclear whether the attempt is the position of the elements in relation to one another or how they are connected to one another.
Claim 1, lines 19-20 describe “measuring … a first rotation around said first axis of rotation”. The claim is unclear because it is unclear which element’s rotation is being measured.
Claim 1, lines 19-21 describe “measuring … a second rotation around said second axis of rotation”. The claim is unclear because it is unclear which element’s rotation is being measured. Numerous references to “said first rotation” and “said second rotation” are made throughout the rest of the claims, these need to be amended to state “said first rotation of (insert element)” and “said second rotation of (insert element)”.
Claim 1, lines 22-23 describe “measuring … the supplementary rotation around said supplementary rotation axis”. The claim is unclear because it is unclear which element’s rotation is being measured.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the supplementary rotation" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said support area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 15 recites the limitation "the support area" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 is verbatim claim 7 and both claims directly depend from claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneko et al. (JP 2020-015119 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claim 1, Kaneko et al. discloses a robot (10) comprising at least one limb (15) comprising at least one robotic foot (15) defining a contact area (bottom surface of 15; seen in figs. 2-6) to a support surface (floor; MTD paragraph 86) of said robot (10) and an anchoring body (14) of said robotic foot (15); at least one motor (46, 66; MTD paragraph 49) for moving of at least said limb (15; MTD paragraph 49); a control unit (100) for at least said motor (46, 66) (MTD paragraph 80-82, 86); wherein each of said robotic foot (15) comprises an attachment (31) of said robotic foot (15) to said anchoring body (14); a contact organ (15s; fig. 12) defining said contact area (MTD paragraph 86); a joint block (23) of said contact organ (15s) to said attachment (31) comprising a first hinge (61r2) defining a first axis of rotation (portion of 25s within 61r2; MTD paragraphs 43-46) between said contact organ (15s) and said attachment (31), a second hinge (61r3) defining a second axis of rotation (portion of 25s within 61r3; MTD paragraphs 43-46) between said contact organ (15s) and said attachment (31), said first hinge (61r2) and said second hinge (61r3) being placed on opposite (see fig. 6 on opposite sides) in correspondence of said contact area (bottom surface of 15; seen in figs. 2-6) and a supplementary hinge (41) defining between (fig. 3) said attachment (31) and said joint block (23) and supplementary axis of rotation (24s) transversal to said first axis of rotation (portion of 25s within 61r2; MTD paragraphs 43-46) and to said second axis of rotation (portion of 25s within 61r3; MTD paragraphs 43-46); at least one sensor (72) in data connection with said control unit (100; MTD paragraphs 86-88) and measuring at least one between a first rotation around said first axis of rotation (portion of 25s within 61r2; MTD paragraphs 43-46) and a second rotation around said second axis of rotation (portion of 25s within 61r3; MTD paragraphs 43-46); and at least one supplementary sensor (52) for measuring the supplementary rotation (MTD paragraph 88) around said supplementary rotation axis (24s) in data connection with said control unit (100; MTD paragraphs 86-88); and by that wherein according to the measure of said supplementary rotation and one of between said first rotation and second rotation said control unit (100; MTD paragraphs 86-88) is configured to command said motor (46, 66; MTD paragraph 49) the movement of said limb (15) and therefore the movements of said robot (10) on said support surface. (Figs. 1-17, MTD paragraphs 33-98.)
With respect to claim 4, Kaneko et al. discloses a second sensor(51 or 71) for measuring of the second rotation around said second rotation axis (portion of 25s within 61r3; MTD paragraphs 43-46) in data connection with said control unit (100) is configured to drive said motor (46, 66; MTD paragraph 49) in accordance with the measure of said first rotation and said second rotation. (Figs. 1-17, MTD paragraphs 33-98.)
With respect to claims 7 and 15, Kaneko et al. discloses said supplementary rotation axis (24s) is substantially parallel to said support area (bottom surface of 15; seen in figs. 2-6). (Figs. 1-17, MTD paragraphs 33-98.)
With respect to claim 8, Kaneko et al. discloses said sensors (52, 72) are inertial sensors (MTD paragraphs 72-73). (Figs. 1-17, MTD paragraphs 33-98.)
With respect to claim 10, Kaneko et al. discloses a plurality of said at least one limb (15) each of which comprising at least one of said robotic foot (15) each of which defining one of said contact area (bottom surface of 15; seen in figs. 2-6); and wherein said control unit (100) is configured to command the movement of at least one of said limbs (15) in accordance with said contact areas (bottom surface of 15; seen in figs. 2-6). (Figs. 1-17, MTD paragraphs 33-98.)
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 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. in view of Kim (KR 2006-0031245 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’).
With respect to claim 9, Kaneko et al. is silent regarding a chain defining a contact area. Kim teaches of using at least one chain (220) defining a contact area (figs. 1-2). (Figs. 1-2, MTD pages 5-6.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Kim into the invention of Kaneko et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reliably transport the robot. (MTD page 5.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6 and 11-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 2 includes the limitations of said contact organ (3) is configured to change the profile of contact area (1a); and wherein said first hinge (43) and said second hinge (44) are independent and therefore configured to allow distinct rotations around said first axis of rotation (1b) and said second axis of rotation (1c) determining a change of the said contact area (1a). (Fig. 6.) The closest prior art (Kaneko et al. JP 2020-015119 A) does not disclose the first and second hinges being independent and configured to allow distinct rotations around said first and second axis of rotation to change the contact area. Claim 3 includes the limitations of a first arm (41) joined to said contact organ (3) by the use of said first hinge (43) and to said attachment (2) by the use of said supplementary hinge (45) and a second joined arm (42) joined to said contact organ (3) by the use of said second hinge (44) and to said attachment (2) by the use of said supplementary hinge (45); wherein said second joined arm (42) constrained to said contact organ (3) on the opposite side to said first arm (41) with respect to said first hinge. (Figs. 2-3.) The closest prior art (Kaneko et al. JP 2020-015119 A) does not disclose first and second arms on opposite sides of one another that are attached between the attachment and contact organ. Claim 5 includes the limitations of said first axis of rotation (1b) is substantially transverse to said support area
(1a) defining with respect to said support area (1a) a first angle of tilt range substantially between 10° and 3°. The closest prior art (Kaneko et al. JP 2020-015119 A) discloses a first axis of rotation parallel not perpendicular to the support area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on 571-270-5985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614