Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/336,385 and amendments filed on 3/10/2026.
3. Claims 1-12, 49-60, and 144-155 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/28/2023, 2/14/2024, 6/18/2025, and 3/10/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
5. The Applicant has submitted four information disclosure statements (IDSs), comprising 47 pre-grant publications, 79 patents, 50 foreign patent documents, and 122 non-patent literature (NPL) references, totaling 298 documents, which is excessive for any Examiner to have to consider at any level beyond a cursory review. In accord with dicta from Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995), stating that forcing the Examiner to find "a needle
in a haystack" is "probative of bad faith." Id. [The Molins] case presented a situation where the
disclosure was in excess of 700 pages and contained more than fifty references. Likewise, the
instant application’s IDSs include more references than even the Molins case, and these
particularly long IDSs do not include any concise explanation of the relevance of any of the
listed references nor cite any pages, columns, and lines (or paragraph numbers) where relevant
passages or relevant figures appear. According to MPEP Section 2004 “Aids to Compliance With
Duty of Disclosure [R-08.2012]”, “It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative
information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically
brought to Applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance.” Additionally, per
MPEP Section 609.04(a)(III): “applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability.” See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v.Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). As such, even though these IDSs have been placed in the application file with the lists of references marked as considered, and the compilation of those listed PG Publications and Patent references have at least been key-word searched and/or classification searched for relevant prior art, the information referred to therein for each individual reference has admittedly not been fully considered beyond a cursory review. If Applicant wishes to have one or more references fully considered, the Examiner requests resubmitting the IDSs with a reasonable number of references that are known to be pertinent for the determination of patentability as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, along with the concise explanations as to relevance and citations explaining the locations of relevant passages or figures, as per 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) and 37 CFR § 1.105.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-12, 49-60, and 144-155 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner agrees that the combination of US 20240378846 A1 to Tsuzaki and JP 2015080832 A to Ogawa fails to teach all of the amended limitations of the claim. However, in light of the amendments and the Applicant’s remarks, an updated search was conducted, and a new ground of rejection concerning claim 1 has been determined, in which will be described later.
Regarding independent claims 49 and 144, as both of these claims contain similar limitations to claim 1, are still rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 is, in which will be described later.
Regarding dependent claims 2-12, 50-60, and 145-155, as all of these claims depend from claims 1, 49, or 144, respectively, are still rejected, in which will be described later.
7. The Examiner notes that dependent claims 2, 50, and 145 incorporate the terms “temporal distance” and “spatial distance” throughout these claims. While these exact terms are not found throughout the originally filed disclosure and drawings, the Examiner interprets the “temporal distance” as a time threshold for when the robot must decide to adjust its gait relative to the first region, as described within paragraph [0084] of the specification, and the “spatial distance” as a distance threshold between the robot and the first region for the robot to decide to adjust its gait, as described within paragraph [0085] of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 49, 51, 52, 54, 144, 146, 147, and 149 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (JP 2015080832 A hereinafter Ogawa) in view of Noonan et al. (US 5204814 A hereinafter Noonan).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogawa teaches a method, comprising: receiving, by data processing hardware, from one or more sensors of a legged robot (Page 2 ‘DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS (Robot configuration)’ paragraph 2 via “A robot 1 shown in FIG. 1 is a legged mobile robot (humanoid robot).”), (Page 2 ‘(Control system configuration)’ paragraph 4 via “The external state sensor group 202 includes a motion capture system (not shown) that is independent from the robot 1 and a stereo mounted on the head 11 for measuring the position trajectory of an object related to task execution such as a ball. An image sensor and an active sensor using infrared light mounted on the substrate 10 are included.”), data corresponding to a first traversal of an environment by the legged robot (Page 3 paragraphs 6-8 via “The waypoint setting element 22 acquires the information of the waypoint Pn from the map information stored in the ROM, for example, and as shown in FIG. 3, from the movement start point PS (for example, the current point of the robot 1) to the destination point. A target route R passing through one or a plurality of via points Pn (n = 1, 2,...) Is set in the robot 1. … When the target route R includes the flat floor surface space S1 and the ascending staircase space S2 adjacent to the flat floor surface space S1, the preliminary section setting element 22a has a predetermined first point PR1 in the flat floor surface space S1. And the second point PR2, which is a point on the back side (the destination point SG side) with respect to the first point PR1, is configured to be set as the waypoint Pn.”), (Page 4 paragraph 11 – Page 5 paragraph 1 via “The landmark recognition element 24a has a function of controlling the operation of the infrared camera provided on the waist, and is controlled so that the imaging operation of the infrared camera is performed at a required timing (a timing of a predetermined control processing cycle). To do. … The landmark recognition element 24a recognizes the position of the landmark existing in the surrounding environment of the robot 1 in the global coordinate system or the local coordinate system by a known image analysis process.”); and
determining, by the data processing hardware, based on the data, that one or more stairs are located in a first region of the environment (Page 4 paragraphs 8-9 via “More specifically, the preliminary movement element 24 recognizes that the current position of the robot 1 is in the vicinity of the second point PR2 based on, for example, the landmark LM2 recognized by the landmark recognition element 24a. Whether or not the landmark LM2 is near the second point PR2 is determined by matching the ID given by the landmark LM2 with the map information. From the map information, it is grasped that the ascending staircase space S2 exists in the vicinity of the second point PR2 (landmark LM2), and the spatial arrangement position of the surrounding environment is recognized by a camera and a projector (not shown). . The preliminary movement element 24 corrects the position and posture of the robot 1 based on the recognized spatial arrangement position.”).
Ogawa is silent on generating, by the data processing hardware, using a path generator, a planned path of the legged robot from a second region of the environment to a destination, the planned path corresponding to a second traversal of the environment by the legged robot; predicting, by the data processing hardware, according to the planned path, an entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region; and controlling, by the data processing hardware, the legged robot to automatically enter a stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode in response to determining that the one or more stairs are located in the first region and predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region.
However, Noonan teaches generating, by the data processing hardware, using a path generator, a planned path of the legged robot from a second region of the environment to a destination (Col. 8 lines 36-43, where “The map database 33 is created by the autonomous lawn mower after a cutting route is planned and underground metallic references are installed. The autonomous lawn mower is placed into a learning operation by instructing the microcontroller 12 from the operator pendant 24. During the learning mode, the autonomous lawn mower is manually driven through the desired cutting path.”), the planned path corresponding to a second traversal of the environment by the legged robot (Col. 9 lines 6-18, where “After the autonomous lawn mower has learned a lawn surface it can cut a lawn autonomously. During autonomous operation, the autonomous lawn mower's path segment planner 34 uses the path segment data (vectors and arcs) to control the rotation of the drive wheels to follow the desired cutting route. … From the map database, the path segment planner 34 knows when to expect turns or the presence and type of underground metallic reference so it can adjust its speed accordingly.”);
predicting, by the data processing hardware, according to the planned path, an entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region (Col. 3 line 59 – Col. 4 line 12, where “The autonomous lawn mower uses three principle navigation systems: 1) navigating from a preestablished stored map, 2) following an underground guide path, and 3) navigating by sensing actual underground path references. The stored map is maintained in the autonomous lawn mower's computer memory as a collection of path segments represented as vectors and arcs that describe the cutting route. Also stored therein is terrain and navigation information related to each path segment. This information includes: the grade of lawn surface, the presence of any underground references, the type of reference (if present), and information controlling the operation of the ultrasonic system. … By referencing the map database, the autonomous lawn mower obtains knowledge of the approaching terrain so that it can slow down before negotiating difficult cutting areas (i.e. hills, sharp turns, etc.).”), (Col. 8 line 61 – Col. 9 line 5, where “During the learning mode, the autonomous lawn mower also collects data from the tilt sensor 21 and ultrasonic sensors 19 via the ultrasonic computer 20. The navigation controller relates the data from these sensors to specific path segment data (i.e. vectors and arcs) in the map database. In this manner, the autonomous lawn mower's database at the completion of the learning operation contains path segments (vector and arcs) describing the entire cutting route of the vehicle, the type and position of underground metallic references or guide paths, the anticipated slope of the terrain, and the distance to the nearest fixed ultrasonic target for all stored position vectors.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the terrain of Noonan containing sloped/graded terrain as equivalent to the first region.); and
controlling, by the data processing hardware, the legged robot to automatically enter a stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode in response to determining that the one or more stairs are located in the first region and predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region (Col. 3 line 59 – Col. 4 line 12, where “The autonomous lawn mower uses three principle navigation systems: 1) navigating from a preestablished stored map, 2) following an underground guide path, and 3) navigating by sensing actual underground path references. The stored map is maintained in the autonomous lawn mower's computer memory as a collection of path segments represented as vectors and arcs that describe the cutting route. Also stored therein is terrain and navigation information related to each path segment. This information includes: the grade of lawn surface, the presence of any underground references, the type of reference (if present), and information controlling the operation of the ultrasonic system. … By referencing the map database, the autonomous lawn mower obtains knowledge of the approaching terrain so that it can slow down before negotiating difficult cutting areas (i.e. hills, sharp turns, etc.).”), (Col. 9 lines 6-15, where “After the autonomous lawn mower has learned a lawn surface it can cut a lawn autonomously. During autonomous operation, the autonomous lawn mower's path segment planner 34 uses the path segment data (vectors and arcs) to control the rotation of the drive wheels to follow the desired cutting route. This is accomplished by processing the path segment data with the coordinate transformation processor to generate wheel rotation angles and velocities to control the drive wheels 41E.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Noonan wherein the method comprises: generating, by the data processing hardware, using a path generator, a planned path of the legged robot from a second region of the environment to a destination, the planned path corresponding to a second traversal of the environment by the legged robot; predicting, by the data processing hardware, according to the planned path, an entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region; and controlling, by the data processing hardware, the legged robot to automatically enter a stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode in response to determining that the one or more stairs are located in the first region and predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region. Doing so controls the robot to enter the stairs mode prior to actually being located in the first region, as the robot anticipates the change in terrain from retaining previous knowledge of the terrain, as stated above by Noonan in Col. 3 line 59 – Col. 4 line 12 and Col. 8 line 61 – Col. 9 line 5.).
Regarding Claim 3, modified reference Ogawa teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: subsequent to controlling the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode, predicting the legged robot may not enter the first region (Page 3 paragraph 6 via “The waypoint setting element 22 acquires the information of the waypoint Pn from the map information stored in the ROM, for example, and as shown in FIG. 3, from the movement start point PS (for example, the current point of the robot 1) to the destination point. A target route R passing through one or a plurality of via points Pn (n = 1, 2,...) Is set in the robot 1.”), (Page 4 paragraph 7 via “The preliminary movement element 24 is based on each landmark recognized through a landmark recognition element 24a described later and map information, and the position of the robot 1 in the relative coordinate system and the first point PR1 and the second point in the absolute coordinate system.”); and
controlling the legged robot to automatically enter non-stairs mode and operate in the non-stairs mode based on predicting the legged robot may not enter the first region (Page 6 final paragraph – Page 7 first paragraph via “When the preliminary movement element 24 recognizes that the robot 1 has arrived at the landing space S3 based on the landmark LM3 installed at the landing on the stairs by the landmark recognition element 24a, the “upward staircase gait generation method” Is switched to the “flat floor gait generation method” (FIG. 5 / STEP 124).”).
Regarding Claim 4, modified reference Ogawa teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: controlling the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode prior to predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region (Page 3 paragraph 9 via “In the present embodiment, the flat floor space S1 is a space in which the robot 1 moves according to the gait generated by the flat floor gait generation method, and the ascending staircase space S2 is generated by the robot 1 as a flat floor gait. It is a space that moves according to the gait generated by the stairs generation method different from the method.”), (Page 3 paragraph 10 via “The “flat floor gait generation method” is a gait that determines the posture, landing position, stride, foot gap, etc. of the robot according to the flat floor surface in order to walk or run on the flat floor surface. It is a method of generating.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the flat floor gait generation method of Ogawa as the non-stairs mode.),
wherein predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region is based on one or more of a first criterion or a first threshold (Page 6 paragraphs 4-5 via “The landmark recognition element 24a determines whether or not the landmark LM2 has been recognized (FIG. 4 / STEP 12). If the determination result is affirmative (FIG. 4 / STEP12... YES), the preliminary movement element 24 determines the position of the second point PR2 and its surrounding environment (ascending staircase space) based on the recognized landmark LM2 and map information. The spatial arrangement position of S2 is recognized. Then, the preliminary movement element 24 ascends the position and posture of the robot 1 to a position and posture suitable for entering the staircase space S2 based on the recognized position of the second point PR2 and its surrounding environment ( FIG. 4 / STEP 14).”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the recognition of the landmark LM2 as the first criterion.).
Regarding Claim 6, modified reference Ogawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode comprises: adjusting one or more values of one or more settings associated with one or more systems of the legged robot (Page 4 paragraph 7 via “Further, the preliminary motion element 24 changes the flat floor surface gait generation method to the ascending stairs gait generation method or the down stairs gait generation method according to the recognized positional relationship of the via point Pn and the surrounding environment thereof. It is configured to change the movement mode of the robot 1 for switching (for example, adjustment of an approach angle for entering the ascending stair space S2 or the descending stair space S4 by adjusting the posture when the robot 1 moves).”).
Regarding Claim 49, Ogawa teaches a system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one computer-readable medium encoded with instructions which (Page 2 ‘(Control system configuration)’ paragraph 5 via “Each of the destination point setting element 21, the waypoint setting element 22, and the movement control element 23 includes a CPU (arithmetic processing unit) and a memory (software and data necessary for executing the arithmetic processing in charge).”), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to (Page 3 paragraph 2 via “Each control element is “configured” means that an arithmetic processing unit that constitutes the control element reads out necessary software and data from storage means such as a memory, and performs arithmetic processing according to the software for the data. Execution means that a control command signal is generated as a result of the arithmetic processing and the signal is output to a control target, thereby achieving an object such as behavior control of the robot 1.”):
receive from one or more sensors of a legged robot (Page 2 ‘DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS (Robot configuration)’ paragraph 2 via “A robot 1 shown in FIG. 1 is a legged mobile robot (humanoid robot).”), (Page 2 ‘(Control system configuration)’ paragraph 4 via “The external state sensor group 202 includes a motion capture system (not shown) that is independent from the robot 1 and a stereo mounted on the head 11 for measuring the position trajectory of an object related to task execution such as a ball. An image sensor and an active sensor using infrared light mounted on the substrate 10 are included.”), data corresponding to a first traversal of an environment by the legged robot (Page 3 paragraphs 6-8 via “The waypoint setting element 22 acquires the information of the waypoint Pn from the map information stored in the ROM, for example, and as shown in FIG. 3, from the movement start point PS (for example, the current point of the robot 1) to the destination point. A target route R passing through one or a plurality of via points Pn (n = 1, 2,...) Is set in the robot 1. … When the target route R includes the flat floor surface space S1 and the ascending staircase space S2 adjacent to the flat floor surface space S1, the preliminary section setting element 22a has a predetermined first point PR1 in the flat floor surface space S1. And the second point PR2, which is a point on the back side (the destination point SG side) with respect to the first point PR1, is configured to be set as the waypoint Pn.”), (Page 4 paragraph 11 – Page 5 paragraph 1 via “The landmark recognition element 24a has a function of controlling the operation of the infrared camera provided on the waist, and is controlled so that the imaging operation of the infrared camera is performed at a required timing (a timing of a predetermined control processing cycle). To do. … The landmark recognition element 24a recognizes the position of the landmark existing in the surrounding environment of the robot 1 in the global coordinate system or the local coordinate system by a known image analysis process.”); and
determine, based on the data, that one or more stairs are located in a first region of the environment (Page 4 paragraphs 8-9 via “More specifically, the preliminary movement element 24 recognizes that the current position of the robot 1 is in the vicinity of the second point PR2 based on, for example, the landmark LM2 recognized by the landmark recognition element 24a. Whether or not the landmark LM2 is near the second point PR2 is determined by matching the ID given by the landmark LM2 with the map information. From the map information, it is grasped that the ascending staircase space S2 exists in the vicinity of the second point PR2 (landmark LM2), and the spatial arrangement position of the surrounding environment is recognized by a camera and a projector (not shown). . The preliminary movement element 24 corrects the position and posture of the robot 1 based on the recognized spatial arrangement position.”).
Ogawa is silent on the system configured to: generate, using a path generator, a planned path of the legged robot from a second region of the environment to a destination, the planned path corresponding to a second traversal of the environment by the legged robot; predict, according to the planned path, an entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region; and control the legged robot to automatically enter a stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode in response to determining that the one or more stairs are located in the first region and predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region.
However, Noonan teaches to generate, using a path generator, a planned path of the legged robot from a second region of the environment to a destination (Col. 8 lines 36-43, where “The map database 33 is created by the autonomous lawn mower after a cutting route is planned and underground metallic references are installed. The autonomous lawn mower is placed into a learning operation by instructing the microcontroller 12 from the operator pendant 24. During the learning mode, the autonomous lawn mower is manually driven through the desired cutting path.”), the planned path corresponding to a second traversal of the environment by the legged robot (Col. 9 lines 6-18, where “After the autonomous lawn mower has learned a lawn surface it can cut a lawn autonomously. During autonomous operation, the autonomous lawn mower's path segment planner 34 uses the path segment data (vectors and arcs) to control the rotation of the drive wheels to follow the desired cutting route. … From the map database, the path segment planner 34 knows when to expect turns or the presence and type of underground metallic reference so it can adjust its speed accordingly.”);
predict, according to the planned path, an entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region (Col. 3 line 59 – Col. 4 line 12, where “The autonomous lawn mower uses three principle navigation systems: 1) navigating from a preestablished stored map, 2) following an underground guide path, and 3) navigating by sensing actual underground path references. The stored map is maintained in the autonomous lawn mower's computer memory as a collection of path segments represented as vectors and arcs that describe the cutting route. Also stored therein is terrain and navigation information related to each path segment. This information includes: the grade of lawn surface, the presence of any underground references, the type of reference (if present), and information controlling the operation of the ultrasonic system. … By referencing the map database, the autonomous lawn mower obtains knowledge of the approaching terrain so that it can slow down before negotiating difficult cutting areas (i.e. hills, sharp turns, etc.).”), (Col. 8 line 61 – Col. 9 line 5, where “During the learning mode, the autonomous lawn mower also collects data from the tilt sensor 21 and ultrasonic sensors 19 via the ultrasonic computer 20. The navigation controller relates the data from these sensors to specific path segment data (i.e. vectors and arcs) in the map database. In this manner, the autonomous lawn mower's database at the completion of the learning operation contains path segments (vector and arcs) describing the entire cutting route of the vehicle, the type and position of underground metallic references or guide paths, the anticipated slope of the terrain, and the distance to the nearest fixed ultrasonic target for all stored position vectors.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the terrain of Noonan containing sloped/graded terrain as equivalent to the first region.); and
control the legged robot to automatically enter a stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode in response to determining that the one or more stairs are located in the first region and predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region (Col. 3 line 59 – Col. 4 line 12, where “The autonomous lawn mower uses three principle navigation systems: 1) navigating from a preestablished stored map, 2) following an underground guide path, and 3) navigating by sensing actual underground path references. The stored map is maintained in the autonomous lawn mower's computer memory as a collection of path segments represented as vectors and arcs that describe the cutting route. Also stored therein is terrain and navigation information related to each path segment. This information includes: the grade of lawn surface, the presence of any underground references, the type of reference (if present), and information controlling the operation of the ultrasonic system. … By referencing the map database, the autonomous lawn mower obtains knowledge of the approaching terrain so that it can slow down before negotiating difficult cutting areas (i.e. hills, sharp turns, etc.).”), (Col. 9 lines 6-15, where “After the autonomous lawn mower has learned a lawn surface it can cut a lawn autonomously. During autonomous operation, the autonomous lawn mower's path segment planner 34 uses the path segment data (vectors and arcs) to control the rotation of the drive wheels to follow the desired cutting route. This is accomplished by processing the path segment data with the coordinate transformation processor to generate wheel rotation angles and velocities to control the drive wheels 41E.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Noonan wherein the system is configured to: generate, using a path generator, a planned path of the legged robot from a second region of the environment to a destination, the planned path corresponding to a second traversal of the environment by the legged robot; predict, according to the planned path, an entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region; and control the legged robot to automatically enter a stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode in response to determining that the one or more stairs are located in the first region and predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region. Doing so controls the robot to enter the stairs mode prior to actually being located in the first region, as the robot anticipates the change in terrain from retaining previous knowledge of the terrain, as stated above by Noonan in Col. 3 line 59 – Col. 4 line 12 and Col. 8 line 61 – Col. 9 line 5.).
Regarding Claim 51, modified reference Ogawa teaches the system of claim 49, wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: subsequent to controlling the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode, predict the legged robot may not enter the first region (Page 3 paragraph 6 via “The waypoint setting element 22 acquires the information of the waypoint Pn from the map information stored in the ROM, for example, and as shown in FIG. 3, from the movement start point PS (for example, the current point of the robot 1) to the destination point. A target route R passing through one or a plurality of via points Pn (n = 1, 2,...) Is set in the robot 1.”), (Page 4 paragraph 7 via “The preliminary movement element 24 is based on each landmark recognized through a landmark recognition element 24a described later and map information, and the position of the robot 1 in the relative coordinate system and the first point PR1 and the second point in the absolute coordinate system.”); and
control the legged robot to automatically enter non-stairs mode and operate in the non-stairs mode based on predicting the legged robot may not enter the first region (Page 6 final paragraph – Page 7 first paragraph via “When the preliminary movement element 24 recognizes that the robot 1 has arrived at the landing space S3 based on the landmark LM3 installed at the landing on the stairs by the landmark recognition element 24a, the “upward staircase gait generation method” Is switched to the “flat floor gait generation method” (FIG. 5 / STEP 124).”).
Regarding Claim 52, modified reference Ogawa teaches the system of claim 49, wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: control the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode prior to predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region (Page 3 paragraph 9 via “In the present embodiment, the flat floor space S1 is a space in which the robot 1 moves according to the gait generated by the flat floor gait generation method, and the ascending staircase space S2 is generated by the robot 1 as a flat floor gait. It is a space that moves according to the gait generated by the stairs generation method different from the method.”), (Page 3 paragraph 10 via “The “flat floor gait generation method” is a gait that determines the posture, landing position, stride, foot gap, etc. of the robot according to the flat floor surface in order to walk or run on the flat floor surface. It is a method of generating.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the flat floor gait generation method of Ogawa as the non-stairs mode.),
wherein predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region is based on one or more of a first criterion or a first threshold (Page 6 paragraphs 4-5 via “The landmark recognition element 24a determines whether or not the landmark LM2 has been recognized (FIG. 4 / STEP 12). If the determination result is affirmative (FIG. 4 / STEP12... YES), the preliminary movement element 24 determines the position of the second point PR2 and its surrounding environment (ascending staircase space) based on the recognized landmark LM2 and map information. The spatial arrangement position of S2 is recognized. Then, the preliminary movement element 24 ascends the position and posture of the robot 1 to a position and posture suitable for entering the staircase space S2 based on the recognized position of the second point PR2 and its surrounding environment ( FIG. 4 / STEP 14).”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the recognition of the landmark LM2 as the first criterion.).
Regarding Claim 54, modified reference Ogawa teaches the system of claim 49, wherein to control the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode, execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: adjust one or more values of one or more settings associated with one or more systems of the legged robot (Page 4 paragraph 7 via “Further, the preliminary motion element 24 changes the flat floor surface gait generation method to the ascending stairs gait generation method or the down stairs gait generation method according to the recognized positional relationship of the via point Pn and the surrounding environment thereof. It is configured to change the movement mode of the robot 1 for switching (for example, adjustment of an approach angle for entering the ascending stair space S2 or the descending stair space S4 by adjusting the posture when the robot 1 moves).”).
Regarding Claim 144, Ogawa teaches a legged robot, comprising: a body; two or more legs coupled to the body (Page 2 ‘DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS (Robot configuration)’ paragraph 2 via “A robot 1 shown in FIG. 1 is a legged mobile robot (humanoid robot). Like a human, the robot 1 extends from the base 10, …, the left and right leg bodies 14 extending downward from the lower portion of the base body 10, and the distal end portion of the leg body 14 And a foot portion 15 attached thereto.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the base 10 of Ogawa as the body.) and configured to move the legged robot about an environment (Page 2 ‘DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS (Robot configuration)’ paragraph 4 via “The robot 1 can move autonomously by the movement of the left and right legs 14 that repeats leaving and landing.”);
one or more sensors configured to output sensor data associated with the environment (Page 2 ‘(Control system configuration)’ paragraph 4 via “The external state sensor group 202 includes a motion capture system (not shown) that is independent from the robot 1 and a stereo mounted on the head 11 for measuring the position trajectory of an object related to task execution such as a ball. An image sensor and an active sensor using infrared light mounted on the substrate 10 are included.”);
at least one processor; and at least one computer-readable medium encoded with instructions which (Page 2 ‘(Control system configuration)’ paragraph 5 via “Each of the destination point setting element 21, the waypoint setting element 22, and the movement control element 23 includes a CPU (arithmetic processing unit) and a memory (software and data necessary for executing the arithmetic processing in charge).”), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the legged robot to (Page 3 paragraph 2 via “Each control element is “configured” means that an arithmetic processing unit that constitutes the control element reads out necessary software and data from storage means such as a memory, and performs arithmetic processing according to the software for the data. Execution means that a control command signal is generated as a result of the arithmetic processing and the signal is output to a control target, thereby achieving an object such as behavior control of the robot 1.”):
receive, from the one or more sensors (Page 2 ‘(Control system configuration)’ paragraph 4 via “The external state sensor group 202 includes a motion capture system (not shown) that is independent from the robot 1 and a stereo mounted on the head 11 for measuring the position trajectory of an object related to task execution such as a ball. An image sensor and an active sensor using infrared light mounted on the substrate 10 are included.”), data corresponding to a first traversal of the environment by the legged robot (Page 3 paragraphs 6-8 via “The waypoint setting element 22 acquires the information of the waypoint Pn from the map information stored in the ROM, for example, and as shown in FIG. 3, from the movement start point PS (for example, the current point of the robot 1) to the destination point. A target route R passing through one or a plurality of via points Pn (n = 1, 2,...) Is set in the robot 1. … When the target route R includes the flat floor surface space S1 and the ascending staircase space S2 adjacent to the flat floor surface space S1, the preliminary section setting element 22a has a predetermined first point PR1 in the flat floor surface space S1. And the second point PR2, which is a point on the back side (the destination point SG side) with respect to the first point PR1, is configured to be set as the waypoint Pn.”), (Page 4 paragraph 11 – Page 5 paragraph 1 via “The landmark recognition element 24a has a function of controlling the operation of the infrared camera provided on the waist, and is controlled so that the imaging operation of the infrared camera is performed at a required timing (a timing of a predetermined control processing cycle). To do. … The landmark recognition element 24a recognizes the position of the landmark existing in the surrounding environment of the robot 1 in the global coordinate system or the local coordinate system by a known image analysis process.”); and
determine, based on the data, that one or more stairs are located in a first region of the environment (Page 4 paragraphs 8-9 via “More specifically, the preliminary movement element 24 recognizes that the current position of the robot 1 is in the vicinity of the second point PR2 based on, for example, the landmark LM2 recognized by the landmark recognition element 24a. Whether or not the landmark LM2 is near the second point PR2 is determined by matching the ID given by the landmark LM2 with the map information. From the map information, it is grasped that the ascending staircase space S2 exists in the vicinity of the second point PR2 (landmark LM2), and the spatial arrangement position of the surrounding environment is recognized by a camera and a projector (not shown). . The preliminary movement element 24 corrects the position and posture of the robot 1 based on the recognized spatial arrangement position.”).
Ogawa is silent on the legged robot caused to: generate, using a path generator, a planned path of the legged robot from a second region of the environment to a destination, the planned path corresponding to a second traversal of the environment by the legged robot; predict, according to the planned path, an entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region; and control the legged robot to automatically enter a stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode in response to determining that the one or more stairs are located in the first region and predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region.
However, Noonan teaches to generate, using a path generator, a planned path of the legged robot from a second region of the environment to a destination (Col. 8 lines 36-43, where “The map database 33 is created by the autonomous lawn mower after a cutting route is planned and underground metallic references are installed. The autonomous lawn mower is placed into a learning operation by instructing the microcontroller 12 from the operator pendant 24. During the learning mode, the autonomous lawn mower is manually driven through the desired cutting path.”), the planned path corresponding to a second traversal of the environment by the legged robot (Col. 9 lines 6-18, where “After the autonomous lawn mower has learned a lawn surface it can cut a lawn autonomously. During autonomous operation, the autonomous lawn mower's path segment planner 34 uses the path segment data (vectors and arcs) to control the rotation of the drive wheels to follow the desired cutting route. … From the map database, the path segment planner 34 knows when to expect turns or the presence and type of underground metallic reference so it can adjust its speed accordingly.”);
predict, according to the planned path, an entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region (Col. 3 line 59 – Col. 4 line 12, where “The autonomous lawn mower uses three principle navigation systems: 1) navigating from a preestablished stored map, 2) following an underground guide path, and 3) navigating by sensing actual underground path references. The stored map is maintained in the autonomous lawn mower's computer memory as a collection of path segments represented as vectors and arcs that describe the cutting route. Also stored therein is terrain and navigation information related to each path segment. This information includes: the grade of lawn surface, the presence of any underground references, the type of reference (if present), and information controlling the operation of the ultrasonic system. … By referencing the map database, the autonomous lawn mower obtains knowledge of the approaching terrain so that it can slow down before negotiating difficult cutting areas (i.e. hills, sharp turns, etc.).”), (Col. 8 line 61 – Col. 9 line 5, where “During the learning mode, the autonomous lawn mower also collects data from the tilt sensor 21 and ultrasonic sensors 19 via the ultrasonic computer 20. The navigation controller relates the data from these sensors to specific path segment data (i.e. vectors and arcs) in the map database. In this manner, the autonomous lawn mower's database at the completion of the learning operation contains path segments (vector and arcs) describing the entire cutting route of the vehicle, the type and position of underground metallic references or guide paths, the anticipated slope of the terrain, and the distance to the nearest fixed ultrasonic target for all stored position vectors.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the terrain of Noonan containing sloped/graded terrain as equivalent to the first region.); and
control the legged robot to automatically enter a stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode in response to determining that the one or more stairs are located in the first region and predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region (Col. 3 line 59 – Col. 4 line 12, where “The autonomous lawn mower uses three principle navigation systems: 1) navigating from a preestablished stored map, 2) following an underground guide path, and 3) navigating by sensing actual underground path references. The stored map is maintained in the autonomous lawn mower's computer memory as a collection of path segments represented as vectors and arcs that describe the cutting route. Also stored therein is terrain and navigation information related to each path segment. This information includes: the grade of lawn surface, the presence of any underground references, the type of reference (if present), and information controlling the operation of the ultrasonic system. … By referencing the map database, the autonomous lawn mower obtains knowledge of the approaching terrain so that it can slow down before negotiating difficult cutting areas (i.e. hills, sharp turns, etc.).”), (Col. 9 lines 6-15, where “After the autonomous lawn mower has learned a lawn surface it can cut a lawn autonomously. During autonomous operation, the autonomous lawn mower's path segment planner 34 uses the path segment data (vectors and arcs) to control the rotation of the drive wheels to follow the desired cutting route. This is accomplished by processing the path segment data with the coordinate transformation processor to generate wheel rotation angles and velocities to control the drive wheels 41E.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Noonan wherein the legged robot is caused to: generate, using a path generator, a planned path of the legged robot from a second region of the environment to a destination, the planned path corresponding to a second traversal of the environment by the legged robot; predict, according to the planned path, an entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region; and control the legged robot to automatically enter a stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode in response to determining that the one or more stairs are located in the first region and predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region. Doing so controls the robot to enter the stairs mode prior to actually being located in the first region, as the robot anticipates the change in terrain from retaining previous knowledge of the terrain, as stated above by Noonan in Col. 3 line 59 – Col. 4 line 12 and Col. 8 line 61 – Col. 9 line 5.).
Regarding Claim 146, modified reference Ogawa teaches the legged robot of claim 144, wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: subsequent to controlling the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode, predict the legged robot may not enter the first region (Page 3 paragraph 6 via “The waypoint setting element 22 acquires the information of the waypoint Pn from the map information stored in the ROM, for example, and as shown in FIG. 3, from the movement start point PS (for example, the current point of the robot 1) to the destination point. A target route R passing through one or a plurality of via points Pn (n = 1, 2,...) Is set in the robot 1.”), (Page 4 paragraph 7 via “The preliminary movement element 24 is based on each landmark recognized through a landmark recognition element 24a described later and map information, and the position of the robot 1 in the relative coordinate system and the first point PR1 and the second point in the absolute coordinate system.”); and
control the legged robot to automatically enter non-stairs mode and operate in the non-stairs mode based on predicting the legged robot may not enter the first region (Page 6 final paragraph – Page 7 first paragraph via “When the preliminary movement element 24 recognizes that the robot 1 has arrived at the landing space S3 based on the landmark LM3 installed at the landing on the stairs by the landmark recognition element 24a, the “upward staircase gait generation method” Is switched to the “flat floor gait generation method” (FIG. 5 / STEP 124).”).
Regarding Claim 147, modified reference Ogawa teaches the legged robot of claim 144, wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: control the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode prior to predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region (Page 3 paragraph 9 via “In the present embodiment, the flat floor space S1 is a space in which the robot 1 moves according to the gait generated by the flat floor gait generation method, and the ascending staircase space S2 is generated by the robot 1 as a flat floor gait. It is a space that moves according to the gait generated by the stairs generation method different from the method.”), (Page 3 paragraph 10 via “The “flat floor gait generation method” is a gait that determines the posture, landing position, stride, foot gap, etc. of the robot according to the flat floor surface in order to walk or run on the flat floor surface. It is a method of generating.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the flat floor gait generation method of Ogawa as the non-stairs mode.),
wherein predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region is based on one or more of a first criterion or a first threshold (Page 6 paragraphs 4-5 via “The landmark recognition element 24a determines whether or not the landmark LM2 has been recognized (FIG. 4 / STEP 12). If the determination result is affirmative (FIG. 4 / STEP12... YES), the preliminary movement element 24 determines the position of the second point PR2 and its surrounding environment (ascending staircase space) based on the recognized landmark LM2 and map information. The spatial arrangement position of S2 is recognized. Then, the preliminary movement element 24 ascends the position and posture of the robot 1 to a position and posture suitable for entering the staircase space S2 based on the recognized position of the second point PR2 and its surrounding environment ( FIG. 4 / STEP 14).”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the recognition of the landmark LM2 as the first criterion.).
Regarding Claim 149, modified reference Ogawa teaches the legged robot of claim 144, wherein to control the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode, execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: adjust one or more values of one or more settings associated with one or more systems of the legged robot (Page 4 paragraph 7 via “Further, the preliminary motion element 24 changes the flat floor surface gait generation method to the ascending stairs gait generation method or the down stairs gait generation method according to the recognized positional relationship of the via point Pn and the surrounding environment thereof. It is configured to change the movement mode of the robot 1 for switching (for example, adjustment of an approach angle for entering the ascending stair space S2 or the descending stair space S4 by adjusting the posture when the robot 1 moves).”).
11. Claim(s) 2, 50, and 145 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (JP 2015080832 A hereinafter Ogawa) in view of Noonan et al. (US 5204814 A hereinafter Noonan), and further in view of JP H08372 B2 (hereinafter JP H08372 B2).
Regarding Claim 2, modified reference Ogawa teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region comprises: determining, based on a gait of the legged robot, at least one of a temporal distance or a spatial distance, wherein the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance is adjusted in response to an adjustment of the gait of the legged robot; and determining that the planned path, if followed by the legged robot for the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance, will intersect the first region.
However, JP H08372 B2 teaches determining, based on a gait of the legged robot, at least one of a temporal distance or a spatial distance, wherein the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance is adjusted in response to an adjustment of the gait of the legged robot (Page 3 paragraph 4 via “The control device 8 selects the walking pattern based on the sensor signal processing unit 8a that processes the signals of the front distance sensor 4,5, the posture sensor 6, and the side distance sensor 7, and the sensor information obtained from the sensor signal processing unit 8a. Walking pattern selection / switching section”), (Page 3 paragraph 8 via “When the moving robot walks in a passage and approaches an obstacle such as stairs, the front distance sensors 4 and 5 detect the distance to an object in front (step). When the distance d to an obstacle, for example, a staircase, is larger than the step length So of walking on a level ground, the attitude sensor 6 calculates the inclination θ .sub.j in the traveling direction by the sensor signal processing unit 8a. When the inclination θ .sub.j in the traveling direction is larger than the deviation allowable value θ in the traveling direction, the walking pattern selection / switching unit 8b issues a command to the walking pattern output unit 8d, and the walking pattern output unit 8d causes the walking pattern storage unit 8c to operate.”); and
determining that the planned path, if followed by the legged robot for the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance, will intersect the first region (Page 3 paragraph 8 via “When the moving robot walks in a passage and approaches an obstacle such as stairs, the front distance sensors 4 and 5 detect the distance to an object in front (step). When the distance d to an obstacle, for example, a staircase, is larger than the step length So of walking on a level ground, the attitude sensor 6 calculates the inclination θ .sub.j in the traveling direction by the sensor signal processing unit 8a.”), (Page 4 paragraph 5 via “When it becomes smaller than .sub.a , the distance d to the stairs is detected (step). When the distance d is greater than the allowable value d .sub.f, the step is slightly advanced on the stairs (step), and when the distance d is less than the allowable value d .sub.n , the step is slightly backward on the stairs (step). When d is greater than d .sub.n, the stairs are walked (step) to proceed to the next floor.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of JP H08372 B2 wherein predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region comprises: determining, based on a gait of the legged robot, at least one of a temporal distance or a spatial distance, wherein the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance is adjusted in response to an adjustment of the gait of the legged robot; and determining that the planned path, if followed by the legged robot for the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance, will intersect the first region. Doing so selects and executes the most appropriate walking pattern of the robot whether obstacles, such as stairs, are present near the robot or not, as stated by JP H08372 B2 (Page 2 [Means for solving the problem] paragraph 1 via “From the initial position of the running leg that should be set before the avoidance motion consisting of overcoming and crossing over the obstacle, based on the information from the walking pattern storage unit that stores the corrected walking pattern Deviation Means for selecting the correction walking pattern required to correct, in which a means for outputting the correction walking pattern.”).
Regarding Claim 50, modified reference Ogawa teaches the system of claim 49, but is silent on wherein to predict, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region, execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: determine, based on a gait of the legged robot, at least one of a temporal distance or a spatial distance, wherein the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance is adjusted in response to an adjustment of the gait of the legged robot; and determine that the planned path, if followed by the legged robot for the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance, will intersect the first region.
However, JP H08372 B2 teaches to determine, based on a gait of the legged robot, at least one of a temporal distance or a spatial distance, wherein the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance is adjusted in response to an adjustment of the gait of the legged robot (Page 3 paragraph 4 via “The control device 8 selects the walking pattern based on the sensor signal processing unit 8a that processes the signals of the front distance sensor 4,5, the posture sensor 6, and the side distance sensor 7, and the sensor information obtained from the sensor signal processing unit 8a. Walking pattern selection / switching section”), (Page 3 paragraph 8 via “When the moving robot walks in a passage and approaches an obstacle such as stairs, the front distance sensors 4 and 5 detect the distance to an object in front (step). When the distance d to an obstacle, for example, a staircase, is larger than the step length So of walking on a level ground, the attitude sensor 6 calculates the inclination θ .sub.j in the traveling direction by the sensor signal processing unit 8a. When the inclination θ .sub.j in the traveling direction is larger than the deviation allowable value θ in the traveling direction, the walking pattern selection / switching unit 8b issues a command to the walking pattern output unit 8d, and the walking pattern output unit 8d causes the walking pattern storage unit 8c to operate.”); and
determine that the planned path, if followed by the legged robot for the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance, will intersect the first region (Page 3 paragraph 8 via “When the moving robot walks in a passage and approaches an obstacle such as stairs, the front distance sensors 4 and 5 detect the distance to an object in front (step). When the distance d to an obstacle, for example, a staircase, is larger than the step length So of walking on a level ground, the attitude sensor 6 calculates the inclination θ .sub.j in the traveling direction by the sensor signal processing unit 8a.”), (Page 4 paragraph 5 via “When it becomes smaller than .sub.a , the distance d to the stairs is detected (step). When the distance d is greater than the allowable value d .sub.f, the step is slightly advanced on the stairs (step), and when the distance d is less than the allowable value d .sub.n , the step is slightly backward on the stairs (step). When d is greater than d .sub.n, the stairs are walked (step) to proceed to the next floor.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of JP H08372 B2 wherein to predict, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region, execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: determine, based on a gait of the legged robot, at least one of a temporal distance or a spatial distance, wherein the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance is adjusted in response to an adjustment of the gait of the legged robot; and determine that the planned path, if followed by the legged robot for the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance, will intersect the first region. Doing so selects and executes the most appropriate walking pattern of the robot whether obstacles, such as stairs, are present near the robot or not, as stated by JP H08372 B2 (Page 2 [Means for solving the problem] paragraph 1 via “From the initial position of the running leg that should be set before the avoidance motion consisting of overcoming and crossing over the obstacle, based on the information from the walking pattern storage unit that stores the corrected walking pattern Deviation Means for selecting the correction walking pattern required to correct, in which a means for outputting the correction walking pattern.”).
Regarding Claim 145, modified reference Ogawa teaches the legged robot of claim 144, but is silent on wherein to predict, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region, execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: determine, based on a gait of the legged robot, at least one of a temporal distance or a spatial distance, wherein the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance is adjusted in response to an adjustment of the gait of the legged robot; and determine that the planned path, if followed by the legged robot for the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance, will intersect the first region.
However, JP H08372 B2 teaches to determine, based on a gait of the legged robot, at least one of a temporal distance or a spatial distance, wherein the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance is adjusted in response to an adjustment of the gait of the legged robot (Page 3 paragraph 4 via “The control device 8 selects the walking pattern based on the sensor signal processing unit 8a that processes the signals of the front distance sensor 4,5, the posture sensor 6, and the side distance sensor 7, and the sensor information obtained from the sensor signal processing unit 8a. Walking pattern selection / switching section”), (Page 3 paragraph 8 via “When the moving robot walks in a passage and approaches an obstacle such as stairs, the front distance sensors 4 and 5 detect the distance to an object in front (step). When the distance d to an obstacle, for example, a staircase, is larger than the step length So of walking on a level ground, the attitude sensor 6 calculates the inclination θ .sub.j in the traveling direction by the sensor signal processing unit 8a. When the inclination θ .sub.j in the traveling direction is larger than the deviation allowable value θ in the traveling direction, the walking pattern selection / switching unit 8b issues a command to the walking pattern output unit 8d, and the walking pattern output unit 8d causes the walking pattern storage unit 8c to operate.”); and
determine that the planned path, if followed by the legged robot for the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance, will intersect the first region (Page 3 paragraph 8 via “When the moving robot walks in a passage and approaches an obstacle such as stairs, the front distance sensors 4 and 5 detect the distance to an object in front (step). When the distance d to an obstacle, for example, a staircase, is larger than the step length So of walking on a level ground, the attitude sensor 6 calculates the inclination θ .sub.j in the traveling direction by the sensor signal processing unit 8a.”), (Page 4 paragraph 5 via “When it becomes smaller than .sub.a , the distance d to the stairs is detected (step). When the distance d is greater than the allowable value d .sub.f, the step is slightly advanced on the stairs (step), and when the distance d is less than the allowable value d .sub.n , the step is slightly backward on the stairs (step). When d is greater than d .sub.n, the stairs are walked (step) to proceed to the next floor.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of JP H08372 B2 wherein to predict, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region, execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: determine, based on a gait of the legged robot, at least one of a temporal distance or a spatial distance, wherein the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance is adjusted in response to an adjustment of the gait of the legged robot; and determine that the planned path, if followed by the legged robot for the at least one of the temporal distance or the spatial distance, will intersect the first region. Doing so selects and executes the most appropriate walking pattern of the robot whether obstacles, such as stairs, are present near the robot or not, as stated by JP H08372 B2 (Page 2 [Means for solving the problem] paragraph 1 via “From the initial position of the running leg that should be set before the avoidance motion consisting of overcoming and crossing over the obstacle, based on the information from the walking pattern storage unit that stores the corrected walking pattern Deviation Means for selecting the correction walking pattern required to correct, in which a means for outputting the correction walking pattern.”).
12. Claim(s) 5, 53, and 148 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (JP 2015080832 A hereinafter Ogawa) in view of Noonan et al. (US 5204814 A hereinafter Noonan), and further in view of Whitman (US 9868210 B1 hereinafter Whitman).
Regarding Claim 5, modified reference Ogawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein predicting entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot operating in a non-stairs mode is based on one or more of a first criterion or a first threshold (Page 6 paragraphs 4-5 via “The landmark recognition element 24a determines whether or not the landmark LM2 has been recognized (FIG. 4 / STEP 12). If the determination result is affirmative (FIG. 4 / STEP12... YES), the preliminary movement element 24 determines the position of the second point PR2 and its surrounding environment (ascending staircase space) based on the recognized landmark LM2 and map information. The spatial arrangement position of S2 is recognized. Then, the preliminary movement element 24 ascends the position and posture of the robot 1 to a position and posture suitable for entering the staircase space S2 based on the recognized position of the second point PR2 and its surrounding environment ( FIG. 4 / STEP 14).”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the recognition of the landmark LM2 of Ogawa as the first criterion.).
Ogawa is silent on wherein predicting entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot operating in the stairs mode is based on one or more of a second criterion or a second threshold.
However, Whitman teaches wherein predicting entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot operating in the stairs mode is based on one or more of a second criterion or a second threshold (Col. 22 lines 1-8, where “As shown by block 420, the method 400 also includes determining a new height and a new pitch for a robotic device body (“the body”) that reduces a height acceleration and pitch acceleration of the body based on at least the reference step path described in block 405. In at least one illustration, the new height and new pitch of the body occur when an end component of the robotic device moves along the reference step path described in block 405.”), (Col. 24 lines 21-30, where “As shown by block 425, the method 400 also includes instructing the robotic device to actuate an appendage(s) to achieve the determined new height and new pitch when an end component moves along the reference step path. In certain examples, the appendages may actuate to lift the body to a new height that is higher than a previous height, while in certain examples the appendages may actuate to lower the body to a new height that is lower than a previous height. Similarly, the robotic device body may be more or less pitched in a direction when it achieves the new pitch.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the reference step path as the second criterion. Further, the Examiner interprets the robot of Whitman going from a previous pitch and height to a new pitch and a new height as already being in a stairs mode.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Whitman wherein predicting entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot operating in the stairs mode is based on one or more of a second criterion or a second threshold. Doing so improves the balance and results in a smoother motion of the robot when it predicts entry into the first region, as stated by Whitman (Col. 26 lines 38-47, where “By increasing the height 530 of the body 505 and the pitch 535 of the body 505, robotic device 500 may achieve smoother motion, minimal or reduced height and/or pitch of the body accelerations, improved balance and/or more control if robotic device 500 begins to climb on the staircase. The improved balance or control may come from determining the new height and new pitch after optimizing the cost function and then solving for variables in a trajectory vector as described in blocks 415 and 420 of FIG. 4 above.”).
Regarding Claim 53, modified reference Ogawa teaches the system of claim 49, wherein predicting entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot operating in a non-stairs mode is based on one or more of a first criterion or a first threshold (Page 6 paragraphs 4-5 via “The landmark recognition element 24a determines whether or not the landmark LM2 has been recognized (FIG. 4 / STEP 12). If the determination result is affirmative (FIG. 4 / STEP12... YES), the preliminary movement element 24 determines the position of the second point PR2 and its surrounding environment (ascending staircase space) based on the recognized landmark LM2 and map information. The spatial arrangement position of S2 is recognized. Then, the preliminary movement element 24 ascends the position and posture of the robot 1 to a position and posture suitable for entering the staircase space S2 based on the recognized position of the second point PR2 and its surrounding environment ( FIG. 4 / STEP 14).”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the recognition of the landmark LM2 of Ogawa as the first criterion.).
Ogawa is silent on wherein predicting entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot operating in the stairs mode is based on one or more of a second criterion or a second threshold.
However, Whitman teaches wherein predicting entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot operating in the stairs mode is based on one or more of a second criterion or a second threshold (Col. 22 lines 1-8, where “As shown by block 420, the method 400 also includes determining a new height and a new pitch for a robotic device body (“the body”) that reduces a height acceleration and pitch acceleration of the body based on at least the reference step path described in block 405. In at least one illustration, the new height and new pitch of the body occur when an end component of the robotic device moves along the reference step path described in block 405.”), (Col. 24 lines 21-30, where “As shown by block 425, the method 400 also includes instructing the robotic device to actuate an appendage(s) to achieve the determined new height and new pitch when an end component moves along the reference step path. In certain examples, the appendages may actuate to lift the body to a new height that is higher than a previous height, while in certain examples the appendages may actuate to lower the body to a new height that is lower than a previous height. Similarly, the robotic device body may be more or less pitched in a direction when it achieves the new pitch.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the reference step path as the second criterion. Further, the Examiner interprets the robot of Whitman going from a previous pitch and height to a new pitch and a new height as already being in a stairs mode.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Whitman wherein predicting entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot operating in the stairs mode is based on one or more of a second criterion or a second threshold. Doing so improves the balance and results in a smoother motion of the robot when it predicts entry into the first region, as stated by Whitman (Col. 26 lines 38-47, where “By increasing the height 530 of the body 505 and the pitch 535 of the body 505, robotic device 500 may achieve smoother motion, minimal or reduced height and/or pitch of the body accelerations, improved balance and/or more control if robotic device 500 begins to climb on the staircase. The improved balance or control may come from determining the new height and new pitch after optimizing the cost function and then solving for variables in a trajectory vector as described in blocks 415 and 420 of FIG. 4 above.”).
Regarding Claim 148, modified reference Ogawa teaches the legged robot of claim 144, wherein predicting entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot operating in a non-stairs mode is based on one or more of a first criterion or a first threshold (Page 6 paragraphs 4-5 via “The landmark recognition element 24a determines whether or not the landmark LM2 has been recognized (FIG. 4 / STEP 12). If the determination result is affirmative (FIG. 4 / STEP12... YES), the preliminary movement element 24 determines the position of the second point PR2 and its surrounding environment (ascending staircase space) based on the recognized landmark LM2 and map information. The spatial arrangement position of S2 is recognized. Then, the preliminary movement element 24 ascends the position and posture of the robot 1 to a position and posture suitable for entering the staircase space S2 based on the recognized position of the second point PR2 and its surrounding environment ( FIG. 4 / STEP 14).”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the recognition of the landmark LM2 of Ogawa as the first criterion.).
Ogawa is silent on wherein predicting entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot operating in the stairs mode is based on one or more of a second criterion or a second threshold.
However, Whitman teaches wherein predicting entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot operating in the stairs mode is based on one or more of a second criterion or a second threshold (Col. 22 lines 1-8, where “As shown by block 420, the method 400 also includes determining a new height and a new pitch for a robotic device body (“the body”) that reduces a height acceleration and pitch acceleration of the body based on at least the reference step path described in block 405. In at least one illustration, the new height and new pitch of the body occur when an end component of the robotic device moves along the reference step path described in block 405.”), (Col. 24 lines 21-30, where “As shown by block 425, the method 400 also includes instructing the robotic device to actuate an appendage(s) to achieve the determined new height and new pitch when an end component moves along the reference step path. In certain examples, the appendages may actuate to lift the body to a new height that is higher than a previous height, while in certain examples the appendages may actuate to lower the body to a new height that is lower than a previous height. Similarly, the robotic device body may be more or less pitched in a direction when it achieves the new pitch.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the reference step path as the second criterion. Further, the Examiner interprets the robot of Whitman going from a previous pitch and height to a new pitch and a new height as already being in a stairs mode.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Whitman wherein predicting entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot operating in the stairs mode is based on one or more of a second criterion or a second threshold. Doing so improves the balance and results in a smoother motion of the robot when it predicts entry into the first region, as stated by Whitman (Col. 26 lines 38-47, where “By increasing the height 530 of the body 505 and the pitch 535 of the body 505, robotic device 500 may achieve smoother motion, minimal or reduced height and/or pitch of the body accelerations, improved balance and/or more control if robotic device 500 begins to climb on the staircase. The improved balance or control may come from determining the new height and new pitch after optimizing the cost function and then solving for variables in a trajectory vector as described in blocks 415 and 420 of FIG. 4 above.”).
13. Claim(s) 7, 55, and 150 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (JP 2015080832 A hereinafter Ogawa) in view of Noonan et al. (US 5204814 A hereinafter Noonan), and further in view of Mailey et al. (US 20160362147 A1 hereinafter Mailey).
Regarding Claim 7, modified reference Ogawa teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein controlling the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode comprises: adjusting one or more values of one or more settings associated with one or more systems of the legged robot, the method further comprising: identifying the one or more stairs based on adjusting the one or more values of the one or more settings.
However, Mailey teaches wherein controlling the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode comprises: adjusting one or more values of one or more settings associated with one or more systems of the legged robot, the method further comprising: identifying the one or more stairs based on adjusting the one or more values of the one or more settings ([0049] via “To climb a series of stairs, the robot transitions between five configurations of the center of mass and legs (see FIGS. 11A-11D for a single stair, FIGS. 12A-12F & 20 for multiple stairs). The robot starts with both front legs point forward and rear legs pointing forward, parallel to the ground plane (FIG. 12A). The front legs lift to an angle sufficient to touch the top edge of the stair and the robot drives forward so that the front legs are touching the top stair (FIGS. 11A & 12B & 2001). The upper body moves forward until the center of mass of the robot is in between the point where the front legs are touching the stair and the front tip of the back legs (2002).”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the robot reaching an angle such to touch the stair of Mailey as the at least one setting.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mailey wherein controlling the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode comprises: adjusting one or more values of one or more settings associated with one or more systems of the legged robot, the method further comprising: identifying the one or more stairs based on adjusting the one or more values of the one or more settings. Doing so provides the robot with a mechanism to identify stairs and how to climb them appropriately while first operating in the stairs mode, as stated above by Mailey.
Regarding Claim 55, modified reference Ogawa teaches the system of claim 49, but is silent on wherein to control the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode, execution of the instructions further causes the system to: adjust one or more values of one or more settings associated with one or more systems of the legged robot, wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: identify the one or more stairs based on adjusting the one or more values of the one or more settings.
However, Mailey teaches wherein to control the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode, execution of the instructions further causes the system to: adjust one or more values of one or more settings associated with one or more systems of the legged robot, wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: identify the one or more stairs based on adjusting the one or more values of the one or more settings ([0049] via “To climb a series of stairs, the robot transitions between five configurations of the center of mass and legs (see FIGS. 11A-11D for a single stair, FIGS. 12A-12F & 20 for multiple stairs). The robot starts with both front legs point forward and rear legs pointing forward, parallel to the ground plane (FIG. 12A). The front legs lift to an angle sufficient to touch the top edge of the stair and the robot drives forward so that the front legs are touching the top stair (FIGS. 11A & 12B & 2001). The upper body moves forward until the center of mass of the robot is in between the point where the front legs are touching the stair and the front tip of the back legs (2002).”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the robot reaching an angle such to touch the stair of Mailey as the at least one setting.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mailey wherein to control the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode, execution of the instructions further causes the system to: adjust one or more values of one or more settings associated with one or more systems of the legged robot, wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: identify the one or more stairs based on adjusting the one or more values of the one or more settings. Doing so provides the robot with a mechanism to identify stairs and how to climb them appropriately while first operating in the stairs mode, as stated above by Mailey.
Regarding Claim 150, modified reference Ogawa teaches the legged robot of claim 144, but is silent on wherein to control the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode, execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: adjust one or more values of one or more settings associated with one or more systems of the legged robot, wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: identify the one or more stairs based on adjusting the one or more values of the one or more settings.
However, Mailey teaches wherein to control the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode, execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: adjust one or more values of one or more settings associated with one or more systems of the legged robot, wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: identify the one or more stairs based on adjusting the one or more values of the one or more settings ([0049] via “To climb a series of stairs, the robot transitions between five configurations of the center of mass and legs (see FIGS. 11A-11D for a single stair, FIGS. 12A-12F & 20 for multiple stairs). The robot starts with both front legs point forward and rear legs pointing forward, parallel to the ground plane (FIG. 12A). The front legs lift to an angle sufficient to touch the top edge of the stair and the robot drives forward so that the front legs are touching the top stair (FIGS. 11A & 12B & 2001). The upper body moves forward until the center of mass of the robot is in between the point where the front legs are touching the stair and the front tip of the back legs (2002).”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the robot reaching an angle such to touch the stair of Mailey as the at least one setting.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mailey wherein to control the legged robot to automatically enter the stairs mode in the second region and operate in the stairs mode, execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: adjust one or more values of one or more settings associated with one or more systems of the legged robot, wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: identify the one or more stairs based on adjusting the one or more values of the one or more settings. Doing so provides the robot with a mechanism to identify stairs and how to climb them appropriately while first operating in the stairs mode, as stated above by Mailey.
14. Claim(s) 8, 56, and 151 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (JP 2015080832 A hereinafter Ogawa) in view of Noonan et al. (US 5204814 A hereinafter Noonan), and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 20200246978 A1 hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding Claim 8, modified reference Ogawa teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on the method further comprising: updating, for each cycle of a plurality of cycles, the planned path, wherein the planned path comprises a planned path of the legged robot for a first time period, and wherein each cycle of the plurality of cycles corresponds to a second time period that is different from the first time period.
However, Johnson teaches updating, for each cycle of a plurality of cycles, the planned path, wherein the planned path comprises a planned path of the legged robot for a first time period, and wherein each cycle of the plurality of cycles corresponds to a second time period that is different from the first time period ([0050] via “The preferred approach involves setting an initial route to the fiducial marker pose given the knowledge of the open space 112 in the warehouse 10 and the walls 114, shelves (such as shelf 12) and other obstacles 116. As the robot begins to traverse the warehouse using its laser radar 26, it determines if there are any obstacles in its path, either fixed or dynamic, such as other robots 18 and/or operators 50, and iteratively updates its path to the pose of the fiducial marker. The robot re-plans its route about once every 50 milliseconds, constantly searching for the most efficient and effective path while avoiding obstacles.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Johnson wherein the method further comprises: updating, for each cycle of a plurality of cycles, the planned path, wherein the planned path comprises a planned path of the legged robot for a first time period, and wherein each cycle of the plurality of cycles corresponds to a second time period that is different from the first time period. Doing so constantly plans the most efficient path for the robot as the robot’s environment changes as well, as stated above by Johnson.
Regarding Claim 56, modified reference Ogawa teaches the system of claim 49, but is silent on wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: update, for each cycle of a plurality of cycles, the planned path, wherein the planned path comprises a planned path of the legged robot for a first time period, and wherein each cycle of the plurality of cycles corresponds to a second time period that is different from the first time period.
However, Johnson teaches to update, for each cycle of a plurality of cycles, the planned path, wherein the planned path comprises a planned path of the legged robot for a first time period, and wherein each cycle of the plurality of cycles corresponds to a second time period that is different from the first time period ([0050] via “The preferred approach involves setting an initial route to the fiducial marker pose given the knowledge of the open space 112 in the warehouse 10 and the walls 114, shelves (such as shelf 12) and other obstacles 116. As the robot begins to traverse the warehouse using its laser radar 26, it determines if there are any obstacles in its path, either fixed or dynamic, such as other robots 18 and/or operators 50, and iteratively updates its path to the pose of the fiducial marker. The robot re-plans its route about once every 50 milliseconds, constantly searching for the most efficient and effective path while avoiding obstacles.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Johnson wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: update, for each cycle of a plurality of cycles, the planned path, wherein the planned path comprises a planned path of the legged robot for a first time period, and wherein each cycle of the plurality of cycles corresponds to a second time period that is different from the first time period. Doing so constantly plans the most efficient path for the robot as the robot’s environment changes as well, as stated above by Johnson.
Regarding Claim 151, modified reference Ogawa teaches the legged robot of claim 144, but is silent on wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: update, for each cycle of a plurality of cycles, the planned path, wherein the planned path comprises a planned path of the legged robot for a first time period, and wherein each cycle of the plurality of cycles corresponds to a second time period that is different from the first time period.
However, Johnson teaches to update, for each cycle of a plurality of cycles, the planned path, wherein the planned path comprises a planned path of the legged robot for a first time period, and wherein each cycle of the plurality of cycles corresponds to a second time period that is different from the first time period ([0050] via “The preferred approach involves setting an initial route to the fiducial marker pose given the knowledge of the open space 112 in the warehouse 10 and the walls 114, shelves (such as shelf 12) and other obstacles 116. As the robot begins to traverse the warehouse using its laser radar 26, it determines if there are any obstacles in its path, either fixed or dynamic, such as other robots 18 and/or operators 50, and iteratively updates its path to the pose of the fiducial marker. The robot re-plans its route about once every 50 milliseconds, constantly searching for the most efficient and effective path while avoiding obstacles.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Johnson wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: update, for each cycle of a plurality of cycles, the planned path, wherein the planned path comprises a planned path of the legged robot for a first time period, and wherein each cycle of the plurality of cycles corresponds to a second time period that is different from the first time period. Doing so constantly plans the most efficient path for the robot as the robot’s environment changes as well, as stated above by Johnson.
15. Claim(s) 9, 57, and 152 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (JP 2015080832 A hereinafter Ogawa) in view of Noonan et al. (US 5204814 A hereinafter Noonan), and further in view of Rivot et al. (US 20230356397 A1 hereinafter Rivot).
Regarding Claim 9, modified reference Ogawa teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on the method further comprising: predicting, according to a second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region; and controlling the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on predicting, according to the second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region.
However, Rivot teaches predicting, according to a second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region; and controlling the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on predicting, according to the second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region ([0107] via “As next illustrated in blocks 704-706 and described with reference to FIGS. 2-3, if the presence of the ground 202 is lost, the edge 204 of the cliff may be detected from the short distance range 220. Then, in response to detecting the edge 204 from the short distance range 220, the path of the mobile robot 100 is edited so that it changes its propulsion before it reaches the edge 204.”), ([0108] via “On the other hand, if the presence of the ground 202
is lost, the method proceeds to block 708 and the edge 204 is not detected from the short distance range 220. Thus, the mobile robot 100 may continue its propulsion along its current path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rivot wherein the method further comprises: predicting, according to a second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region; and controlling the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on predicting, according to the second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region. Doing so continues the robot along its current motion plan when a change in the motion plan is deemed unnecessary, as stated above by Rivot in paragraph [0108].
Regarding Claim 57, modified reference Ogawa teaches the system of claim 49, but is silent on wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: predict, according to a second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region; and control the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on predicting, according to the second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region.
However, Rivot teaches to predict, according to a second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region; and control the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on predicting, according to the second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region ([0107] via “As next illustrated in blocks 704-706 and described with reference to FIGS. 2-3, if the presence of the ground 202 is lost, the edge 204 of the cliff may be detected from the short distance range 220. Then, in response to detecting the edge 204 from the short distance range 220, the path of the mobile robot 100 is edited so that it changes its propulsion before it reaches the edge 204.”), ([0108] via “On the other hand, if the presence of the ground 202 is lost, the method proceeds to block 708 and the edge 204 is not detected from the short distance range 220. Thus, the mobile robot 100 may continue its propulsion along its current path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rivot wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: predict, according to a second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region; and control the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on predicting, according to the second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region. Doing so continues the robot along its current motion plan when a change in the motion plan is deemed unnecessary, as stated above by Rivot in paragraph [0108].
Regarding Claim 152, modified reference Ogawa teaches the legged robot of claim 144, but is silent on wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: predict, according to a second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region; and control the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on predicting, according to the second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region.
However, Rivot teaches to predict, according to a second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region; and control the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on predicting, according to the second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region ([0107] via “As next illustrated in blocks 704-706 and described with reference to FIGS. 2-3, if the presence of the ground 202 is lost, the edge 204 of the cliff may be detected from the short distance range 220. Then, in response to detecting the edge 204 from the short distance range 220, the path of the mobile robot 100 is edited so that it changes its propulsion before it reaches the edge 204.”), ([0108] via “On the other hand, if the presence of the ground 202 is lost, the method proceeds to block 708 and the edge 204 is not detected from the short distance range 220. Thus, the mobile robot 100 may continue its propulsion along its current path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rivot wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: predict, according to a second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region; and control the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on predicting, according to the second planned path, that the legged robot located in the second region will not enter the first region. Doing so continues the robot along its current motion plan when a change in the motion plan is deemed unnecessary, as stated above by Rivot in paragraph [0108].
16. Claim(s) 10, 58, and 153 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (JP 2015080832 A hereinafter Ogawa) in view of Noonan et al. (US 5204814 A hereinafter Noonan), and further in view of Dastous et al. (US 10926756 B2 hereinafter Dastous).
Regarding Claim 10, modified reference Ogawa teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on the method further comprising: receiving, from a user computing device, a command, wherein predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region is further based on receiving the command.
However, Dastous teaches receiving, from a user computing device, a command, wherein predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region is further based on receiving the command (Col. 105 line 61 – Col. 106 line 3, where “SLAM processor 609A can determine navigation information 653 based on, for example, but not limited to, UI data 633, environmental information 651 and movement commands 630. The MD can travel in a path at least in part set out by navigation information 653. Obstacle processor 607A can locate obstacles 623 and distances 621 to obstacles 623. Obstacles 623 can include, but are not limited to including, doors, stairs, automobiles, and miscellaneous features in the vicinity of the path of the MD.”), (Col. 109 lines 15-35, where “In conjunction with any automatic determination of a location of at least one staircase 643, UI data 633 can include the selection of stair mode 100-4 (FIG. 22B) which can invoke an automatic, semi-automatic, or semi-manual stair-climbing process. Either automatic location of at least one staircase 643 or reception of UI data 633 can invoke stair processor 605C for enhanced stair navigation functions. … Stair processor 605C can locate at least one staircase 643, and can either automatically or otherwise determine selected staircase 643A based on, for example, but not limited to, navigation information 653 and/or UI data 633 and/or MD geometry information 649.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dastous wherein the method further comprises: receiving, from a user computing device, a command, wherein predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region is further based on receiving the command. Doing so invokes the robot to appropriately traverse the environment, including the chosen staircase, as stated above by Dastous in Col. 109 lines 15-35.
Regarding Claim 58, modified reference Ogawa teaches the system of claim 49, but is silent on wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: receive, from a user computing device, a command, wherein predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region is further based on receiving the command.
However, Dastous teaches to receive, from a user computing device, a command, wherein predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region is further based on receiving the command (Col. 105 line 61 – Col. 106 line 3, where “SLAM processor 609A can determine navigation information 653 based on, for example, but not limited to, UI data 633, environmental information 651 and movement commands 630. The MD can travel in a path at least in part set out by navigation information 653. Obstacle processor 607A can locate obstacles 623 and distances 621 to obstacles 623. Obstacles 623 can include, but are not limited to including, doors, stairs, automobiles, and miscellaneous features in the vicinity of the path of the MD.”), (Col. 109 lines 15-35, where “In conjunction with any automatic determination of a location of at least one staircase 643, UI data 633 can include the selection of stair mode 100-4 (FIG. 22B) which can invoke an automatic, semi-automatic, or semi-manual stair-climbing process. Either automatic location of at least one staircase 643 or reception of UI data 633 can invoke stair processor 605C for enhanced stair navigation functions. … Stair processor 605C can locate at least one staircase 643, and can either automatically or otherwise determine selected staircase 643A based on, for example, but not limited to, navigation information 653 and/or UI data 633 and/or MD geometry information 649.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dastous wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: receive, from a user computing device, a command, wherein predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region is further based on receiving the command. Doing so invokes the robot to appropriately traverse the environment, including the chosen staircase, as stated above by Dastous in Col. 109 lines 15-35.
Regarding Claim 153, modified reference Ogawa teaches the legged robot of claim 144, but is silent on wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: receive, from a user computing device, a command, wherein predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region is further based on receiving the command.
However, Dastous teaches to receive, from a user computing device, a command, wherein predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region is further based on receiving the command (Col. 105 line 61 – Col. 106 line 3, where “SLAM processor 609A can determine navigation information 653 based on, for example, but not limited to, UI data 633, environmental information 651 and movement commands 630. The MD can travel in a path at least in part set out by navigation information 653. Obstacle processor 607A can locate obstacles 623 and distances 621 to obstacles 623. Obstacles 623 can include, but are not limited to including, doors, stairs, automobiles, and miscellaneous features in the vicinity of the path of the MD.”), (Col. 109 lines 15-35, where “In conjunction with any automatic determination of a location of at least one staircase 643, UI data 633 can include the selection of stair mode 100-4 (FIG. 22B) which can invoke an automatic, semi-automatic, or semi-manual stair-climbing process. Either automatic location of at least one staircase 643 or reception of UI data 633 can invoke stair processor 605C for enhanced stair navigation functions. … Stair processor 605C can locate at least one staircase 643, and can either automatically or otherwise determine selected staircase 643A based on, for example, but not limited to, navigation information 653 and/or UI data 633 and/or MD geometry information 649.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dastous wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: receive, from a user computing device, a command, wherein predicting, according to the planned path, the entry into the first region from the second region by the legged robot located in the second region is further based on receiving the command. Doing so invokes the robot to appropriately traverse the environment, including the chosen staircase, as stated above by Dastous in Col. 109 lines 15-35.
17. Claim(s) 11, 59, and 154 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (JP 2015080832 A hereinafter Ogawa) in view of Noonan et al. (US 5204814 A hereinafter Noonan), and further in view of Jacobsen et al. (US 20080281468 A1 hereinafter Jacobsen).
Regarding Claim 11, modified reference Ogawa teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on the method further comprising: receiving, from a user computing device, a command; and controlling the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on receiving the command.
However, Jacobsen teaches receiving, from a user computing device, a command; and controlling the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on receiving the command ([0024] via “Accordingly, the robotic crawler can automatically adapt the movement mode to a changing environment. Movement modes of the robotic crawler can be controlled using a hierarchical set of primitives. Low-level primitives can be defined for basic functions, such as turning tracks, rotating arms, etc. High-level primitives can be built up from the low-level primitives, to execute complex, coordinated movements and behavior, for example, tank movement, four-legged walk, etc. High-level primitives may correspond to operator input commands, for example, move forward, stop, navigate toward a particular point, etc. High-level primitives can be executed by executing the low-level primitives mapped to the high-level primitive. Executing the low-level primitives causes the robotic crawler to move.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets that by the robot of Jacobsen traversing changing environments to include environments that are not stairs.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jacobsen wherein the method further comprises: receiving, from a user computing device, a command; and controlling the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on receiving the command. Doing so enables the robot to be launched in its most advantageous environment traversal mode, depending on different environment terrains, as stated by Jacobsen ([0023] via “The most advantageous movement mode to use will vary depending on the terrain in which the robotic crawler is operating. Different movement modes may produce differing stability, traction, efficiency, and energy usage. Attempting to produce a wide variety of movement modes with a replica master, while possible, is tedious and slow. Conversely, while programming several different movement modes is possible, switching between movement modes, starting, stopping, and turning can be complex operations that vary depending on the various movement modes. For example, as noted above, forward movement in the train pose requires rotating the tracks in different directions than when in the tank pose. Moreover, control of the different movement modes is often different. For example, as noted above, when in the tank pose differential rates of rotation of the tracks causes the robotic crawler to turn, while in the train pose, actuation of the multi-degree of freedom linkage arm causes the robotic crawler to turn.”).
Regarding Claim 59, modified reference Ogawa teaches the system of claim 49, but is silent on wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: receive, from a user computing device, a command; and control the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on receiving the command.
However, Jacobsen teaches to receive, from a user computing device, a command; and control the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on receiving the command ([0024] via “Accordingly, the robotic crawler can automatically adapt the movement mode to a changing environment. Movement modes of the robotic crawler can be controlled using a hierarchical set of primitives. Low-level primitives can be defined for basic functions, such as turning tracks, rotating arms, etc. High-level primitives can be built up from the low-level primitives, to execute complex, coordinated movements and behavior, for example, tank movement, four-legged walk, etc. High-level primitives may correspond to operator input commands, for example, move forward, stop, navigate toward a particular point, etc. High-level primitives can be executed by executing the low-level primitives mapped to the high-level primitive. Executing the low-level primitives causes the robotic crawler to move.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets that by the robot of Jacobsen traversing changing environments to include environments that are not stairs.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jacobsen wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: receive, from a user computing device, a command; and control the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on receiving the command. Doing so enables the robot to be launched in its most advantageous environment traversal mode, depending on different environment terrains, as stated by Jacobsen ([0023] via “The most advantageous movement mode to use will vary depending on the terrain in which the robotic crawler is operating. Different movement modes may produce differing stability, traction, efficiency, and energy usage. Attempting to produce a wide variety of movement modes with a replica master, while possible, is tedious and slow. Conversely, while programming several different movement modes is possible, switching between movement modes, starting, stopping, and turning can be complex operations that vary depending on the various movement modes. For example, as noted above, forward movement in the train pose requires rotating the tracks in different directions than when in the tank pose. Moreover, control of the different movement modes is often different. For example, as noted above, when in the tank pose differential rates of rotation of the tracks causes the robotic crawler to turn, while in the train pose, actuation of the multi-degree of freedom linkage arm causes the robotic crawler to turn.”).
Regarding Claim 154, modified reference Ogawa teaches the legged robot of claim 144, but is silent on wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: receive, from a user computing device, a command; and control the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on receiving the command.
However, Jacobsen teaches to receive, from a user computing device, a command; and control the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on receiving the command ([0024] via “Accordingly, the robotic crawler can automatically adapt the movement mode to a changing environment. Movement modes of the robotic crawler can be controlled using a hierarchical set of primitives. Low-level primitives can be defined for basic functions, such as turning tracks, rotating arms, etc. High-level primitives can be built up from the low-level primitives, to execute complex, coordinated movements and behavior, for example, tank movement, four-legged walk, etc. High-level primitives may correspond to operator input commands, for example, move forward, stop, navigate toward a particular point, etc. High-level primitives can be executed by executing the low-level primitives mapped to the high-level primitive. Executing the low-level primitives causes the robotic crawler to move.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets that by the robot of Jacobsen traversing changing environments to include environments that are not stairs.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jacobsen wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: receive, from a user computing device, a command; and control the legged robot to operate in a non-stairs mode based on receiving the command. Doing so enables the robot to be launched in its most advantageous environment traversal mode, depending on different environment terrains, as stated by Jacobsen ([0023] via “The most advantageous movement mode to use will vary depending on the terrain in which the robotic crawler is operating. Different movement modes may produce differing stability, traction, efficiency, and energy usage. Attempting to produce a wide variety of movement modes with a replica master, while possible, is tedious and slow. Conversely, while programming several different movement modes is possible, switching between movement modes, starting, stopping, and turning can be complex operations that vary depending on the various movement modes. For example, as noted above, forward movement in the train pose requires rotating the tracks in different directions than when in the tank pose. Moreover, control of the different movement modes is often different. For example, as noted above, when in the tank pose differential rates of rotation of the tracks causes the robotic crawler to turn, while in the train pose, actuation of the multi-degree of freedom linkage arm causes the robotic crawler to turn.”).
18. Claim(s) 12, 60, and 155 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (JP 2015080832 A hereinafter Ogawa) in view of Noonan et al. (US 5204814 A hereinafter Noonan), and further in view of Xu (US 20220253060 A1 hereinafter Xu).
Regarding Claim 12, modified reference Ogawa teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein generating the planned path comprises: generating the planned path prior to the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot, wherein the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot are based on the planned path.
However, Xu teaches generating the planned path prior to the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot, wherein the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot are based on the planned path ([0016] via “It should be noted that, the robot in the embodiments of the disclosure may be a multi-degree-of-freedom foot robot, such as a biped robot, a quadruped robot and a tripod robot, which is not limited herein.”), ([0075] via “In an embodiment of the disclosure, before controlling the robot to move in the target work area based on the target operation action, the method further includes determining a target motion path between a current robot position and the target work area; and controlling the robot to move to the target work area through the target motion path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu wherein generating the planned path comprises: generating the planned path prior to the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot, wherein the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot are based on the planned path. Doing so creates a path through the environment that is known to meet the requirements of the robot prior to traversal within the environment, as stated by Xu ([0077] via “Specifically, after the current environment information and target operation action are obtained, the target motion path can be determined based on the current environment information and the target operation action. Since the target motion path is determined based on the current environment information and the target operation action, the target motion path can meet the moving requirements of the robot. Then, the robot can be controlled to move in the target working area based on the target operation action.”).
Regarding Claim 60, modified reference Ogawa teaches the system of claim 49, but is silent on wherein to generate the planned path, execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: generate the planned path prior to the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot, wherein the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot are based on the planned path.
However, Xu teaches to generate the planned path prior to the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot, wherein the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot are based on the planned path ([0016] via “It should be noted that, the robot in the embodiments of the disclosure may be a multi-degree-of-freedom foot robot, such as a biped robot, a quadruped robot and a tripod robot, which is not limited herein.”), ([0075] via “In an embodiment of the disclosure, before controlling the robot to move in the target work area based on the target operation action, the method further includes determining a target motion path between a current robot position and the target work area; and controlling the robot to move to the target work area through the target motion path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu wherein to generate the planned path, execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the system to: generate the planned path prior to the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot, wherein the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot are based on the planned path. Doing so creates a path through the environment that is known to meet the requirements of the robot prior to traversal within the environment, as stated by Xu ([0077] via “Specifically, after the current environment information and target operation action are obtained, the target motion path can be determined based on the current environment information and the target operation action. Since the target motion path is determined based on the current environment information and the target operation action, the target motion path can meet the moving requirements of the robot. Then, the robot can be controlled to move in the target working area based on the target operation action.”).
Regarding Claim 155, modified reference Ogawa teaches the legged robot of claim 144, but is silent on wherein to generate the planned path, execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: generate the planned path prior to the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot, wherein the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot are based on the planned path.
However, Xu teaches to generate the planned path prior to the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot, wherein the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot are based on the planned path ([0016] via “It should be noted that, the robot in the embodiments of the disclosure may be a multi-degree-of-freedom foot robot, such as a biped robot, a quadruped robot and a tripod robot, which is not limited herein.”), ([0075] via “In an embodiment of the disclosure, before controlling the robot to move in the target work area based on the target operation action, the method further includes determining a target motion path between a current robot position and the target work area; and controlling the robot to move to the target work area through the target motion path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu wherein to generate the planned path, execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, further causes the legged robot to: generate the planned path prior to the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot, wherein the first traversal of the environment by the legged robot and the second traversal of the environment by the legged robot are based on the planned path. Doing so creates a path through the environment that is known to meet the requirements of the robot prior to traversal within the environment, as stated by Xu ([0077] via “Specifically, after the current environment information and target operation action are obtained, the target motion path can be determined based on the current environment information and the target operation action. Since the target motion path is determined based on the current environment information and the target operation action, the target motion path can meet the moving requirements of the robot. Then, the robot can be controlled to move in the target working area based on the target operation action.”).
Examiner’s Note
19. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the
references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references
in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the
context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP
2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole,
including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
20. 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.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights