DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on November 28, 2025. Claims 1-5 and 7-17 have been amended. Claims 6 and 18 are filed as originally presented. Claims 19 and 20 are new. Applicant amended the specification to comply with objections previously presented by Examiner, and as such those objections have been withdrawn. Applicant additionally amended claims 1, 3, 5, 7-13, 15, and 17 to obviate the claim objections and as such those objections have been withdrawn. Amendments to claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-11, 13, and 16-17 obviate the 112a and 112b rejections previously presented, and as such those rejections have been withdrawn. Arguments regarding the prior art have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant first argues that Lee ‘182 does not and cannot contemplate concepts of imbalance recovery (see Remarks Pages 18-24). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., imbalance recovery) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Per Applicant’s arguments, it appears as though the recovery which is referred to in arguing the reference is based on external forces exerting unexpected disturbances on the robot (see Remarks Page 19). No such requirement of an external disturbance has been required by the claim, merely an analysis of whether or not the robot is balanced. As noted by Applicant, Lee ‘182 contemplates such balances by determining stability in a walking gait when wobbles occur (see Remarks Page 23) and maintaining stability during walking (see Remarks Page 24). Although such wobbles and other instabilities are minor disturbances, the compensations required to maintain the COM within the support base (see Remarks Page 19) are methods for recovering the walking stability, i.e., balance, of the robot so that it does not topple. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that determine Lee ‘182 does not contemplate imbalances or imbalance recovery of the robot would be inaccurate and are therefore NOT PERSUASIVE. Applicant is recommended to include details in the amendment which would clearly identify the extent to which imbalance must occur in order to distinguish over the prior art.
Applicant additionally argues that Lee ‘182 does not reflect any algorithms, calculations, or variables that are pertinent to the Applicant’s inventions (see Remarks Pages 20-24). Although Lee ‘182 does not explicitly describe the exact equations contemplated by Applicant, Lee ‘182 shares both explicit and implicit descriptions of calculations and algorithms which contemplate the same end results. Applicant’s arguments largely hinge on the fact that Lee ‘182 measures angles of the trajectory rather than linear “spatial distances”. Where necessary, Examiner has sought to explain where conversions by means of circular dynamic principles would render the variable features obvious (such as the arguments for frequency and leg length as stated in the direction below). Given that the COM deviations are measures of a spatial distance from the centerline of the COM to the ankle, such pitch and roll distances are determined by these measurements. The robot’s leg swings through space and therefore, whether contemplated as an angle or a linear measure, both such measurements embody a ”spatial distance”. Applicant further identifies that some variables, such as frequency, are dynamic, but has not made any such suggestions in the rejected limitations. The prior art is descriptive in nature, and thus where necessary, Examiner has explained passage relevancy and explanation to provide the necessary measurements and results which are contemplated by Applicant’s claimed invention.
Examiner additionally notes, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for deriving stable robot step lengths and trajectories, as shown by both Lee ‘182 and Lee ‘684 upon which the rejection relies. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. In addition, because each of Lee ‘182, Lee ‘684, and Applicant’s disclosure are directed to motion trajectories and compensations that lead to robot stability, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have substituted the specific equations contemplated by Applicant to achieve predictable result of balanced landing points for robotic walking patterns based on angular or linear spatial measurements and dynamics. Thus, Applicant’s arguments regarding the use of specific formulae are NOT PERSUASIVE, as such arguments are on the basis of explicit rationale, rather than the implicitly obvious reasonings disclosed in the U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims such that any feature which they wish to distinguish over the prior art is accurately claimed. Examiner directs Applicant to refer to MPEP 2111.01 regarding “Plain Meaning” for Broadest Reasonable Interpretations. Claims have been treated at their broadest reasonable interpretations and any such scope that Applicant wishes to limit as it pertains to the specification should be amended in the claim to narrow the designated features.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 which illustrate the equations described in [0040-0046] and claimed in newly added claim 19 appear to be incomplete, and thus render confusion. The drawings do not include a sole length or a sole width which are pertinent to the equations/measurements which are illustrated in the drawings. Additionally, it is unclear if the line which connects the L and L’ values in each is an illustration of the robot foot or the third axis. Additionally, the final product which is the target velocity has not been clearly depicted in the drawings. Examiner finds that these details should be corrected such that the visual provides clearer context for the determined measurements and calculations which are described to be portrayed by the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 is generally unclear, as Examiner cannot appropriate ascertain the meets and bounds of the limitations and an appropriate scope to apply art to. The claim determines step lengths to be obtained in the pitch and roll directions of the robot relative to a horizontal plane via a constraining of a target velocity. The claim then provides what appears to be the landing capture point algorithm as the constraint requirement, without explicitly defining the equation as such. Provided that Paragraph [0040-0046] seems to teach the content of the limitations, Examiner is then left to assume that the target velocity in the pitch direction v1 is the same differential of a change of the center of mass in the pitch direction x’ defined in claim 1. A similar assumption is made for the target velocity in the roll direction v2 which is assumed to be the same as the differential of a change of the center of mass in the roll direction y’ also defined in claim 1. Applicant has provided no such limitation in the claim which links these variables, and as such Examiner is left to read the specification into the limitations of the claim.
Additionally, when deriving the equations for v1 and v2, Applicant relies on several variables, some of which are merely derived from other such variables. Examiner cannot ascertain which of the variables Applicant desires as measurements made directly by user or sensor inputs, versus those which are calculated. It is assumed that those variables which are measured are the variables included in the condensed equations of Paragraphs [0043] and [0046]. Thus, Examiner cannot ascertain an appropriate scope for which to apply art, as there is no clear indication in the claim of what should or should not be explicitly included in determining the final result of the limitation.
Given that Examiner is left to assume various aspects of the claim without a clear scope to interpret the limitations at their broadest in light of the specification, Examiner will not be mapping art to this claim until the amendments to the limitations have been filed. Examiner does however note that the same rationale which was applied to the previous equation limitations likely applies to those of claim 19 as well. That is, provided that Lee ‘182 determines the differential of a change of the center of mass in the pitch and roll directions and provided the modifying features of Lee ‘684, these equations are a matter of mere design choice and no such reason for preference of Applicant’s design of such equations over that of the prior art has been determined by the Applicant. Applicant should consider such arguments when amending the limitations of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2012/0158182 A1; hereinafter “Lee ‘182”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2012/0316684 A1; hereinafter “Lee ‘684”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘182 teaches a computer-implemented step length control method (“walking control method”; Fig. 9) for a humanoid robot having two legs (“robot 100” with “legs 160R and 160L”; [0058] and Fig. 1), comprising:
detecting whether the humanoid robot is in a balanced state at a current time (“In accordance with another aspect of an embodiment, a walking control method of a robot includes confirming a swing leg and a support leg of the robot by judging a walking state of the robot when a walking velocity of the robot and a walking command are received by the robot” [0030]. “Here, variations Px and Py of the COM are distances between a position of the vertical line of the COM of the robot and a position of an ankle of a foot contacting the ground in the X-axis direction and in the Y-axis direction. That is, the robot keeps its balance only if the vertical line of the COM of the robot coincides with the position of the ankle of the support leg during walking of the robot, and for this purpose, the distances between the position of the vertical line of the COM of the robot and the position of the ankle of the support leg need to be detected” [0092]. Thus, the robot detects which leg is a swing leg and which leg is a support leg at the time a walking velocity and walking command are received. The support leg is then evaluated for its position by detecting variations in the roll and pitch directions compared to the center of mass to determine whether the robot is balanced.), based on a motion state of a the humanoid robot obtained through sensors installed on the humanoid robot, wherein the sensors comprise a force sensor and a posture sensor (“The pose detection unit 220 includes an inclination detection unit 221 to detect an inclination of the torso of the robot, a force/torque (F/T) detection unit 222 to detect whether or not the robot lands and a support leg and a swing leg corresponding to whether or not the robot lands, and a COM detection unit 223 to detect a variation of the COM of the robot” [0085]. Thus, the pose which determines an inclination of a robot, the determination of landing based on a support or swing leg, and the COM which are each described above as determining a the robot establishes a balanced walking gait are obtained through an IMU, i.e., posture sensor, and multi-axis F/T sensors, i.e., force sensors. See additional details regarding sensor measurements in [0086-0090].);
obtaining a torso deflection posture parameter (“The inclination detection unit 221 is provided on the torso 130 and detects an inclination of the torso with respect to the vertical line, i.e., rotating angles of three axes including pitch, roll and yaw axes, and angular velocities thereof” [0086]. Thus, an inclination of the torso, i.e., torso deflection posture parameter, is obtained.), a lower limb parameter (There is a “hip angle” which corresponds to “knot points” referred to throughout the specification ([0023]). Additionally, there is an input velocity which corresponds to a derived step length and step time ([0156]).) and a leg swing frequency of the legs of the humanoid robot at the current time (The measured “step time” may be considered as a frequency at which the steps are taken; see Fig. 10-15 which shows the periodic cycle of steps taken by the robot. An additional explanation of obviousness regarding the frequency is also detailed below.), in response to detecting the humanoid robot being not in the balanced state at the current time (“The COM detection unit 223 detects the COM of the robot based on torso inclination data detected by the inclination detection unit 221 and rotating angles of the respective joint units 131, 143, 144, 163, 164 and 165 corresponding to a current pose of the robot, calculates a variation of the detected COM, and transmits the calculated variation of the COM to the knot point compensation value calculation unit 240” [0089]. Thus, the COM based on the obtained inclination and rotating angles of the robot’s torso allows the robot to detect variations indicative of the unbalanced state and then transmits said variations to obtain the compensation values, which are implemented with the “step time” (frequency), hip angles/knot points (lower limb parameter), and velocity (lower limb parameter) in determining the length of each step. See Fig. 15 for step time versus hip angle adjusted for compensation, in which amplitude indicates a step length ([0028]).) …;
calculating, using a swinging leg capture point algorithm, a calculated step length of the humanoid robot that meets a posture balance requirement of the humanoid robot at the current time based on the torso deflection posture parameter, the lower limb parameter, and the leg swing frequency (“In more detail, the robot 100 determines a step length of the next step and a step time for which the next step is performed based on the walking velocity received from a user. Here, the step length corresponds to a pitch rotating angle of the hip joint unit 163. That is, the robot 100 determines the pitch rotating angle of the hip joint unit 163 based on the walking velocity” [0156]. “Thereafter, the robot 100 generates reference pitch knot points of the hip joint unit 163 based on the pitch rotating angle, the step time, and the offset angle of the hip joint unit 163” [0158]. Reference pitch knot points mark the hip angle of the swing leg when the foot of the swing leg makes contact with the ground, completing the step (see [0023]). The amplitude of this reference angle corresponds to the calculated step length of the robot (see [0028]). The reference angle is adjusted for the knot point compensation values which account for the variation from the center of mass, i.e., balance requirement (see [0193-0194]). Thus, there is a step length calculated which meets a balance requirement (compensation) based on the torso deflection posture parameter (torso inclination), lower limb parameters (hip angle/knot points/velocity), and the leg swing frequency (step time).); and
controlling the swinging leg among the legs of the humanoid robot at the current time to move based on the calculated step length (“Thereafter, the robot 100 respectively calculates torques to track the target pitch angles and the target roll angles of the hip joint units 163 and the target pitch angles of the ankle joint units 165 of the respective legs” [0177]. “Thereafter, the robot 100 controls PWMs corresponding to the calculated torques, and then outputs the torques to the motors (not shown) provided at the hip joint units 163 and the ankle joint units 165, thereby rotating the motors” [0178]. Thus, the target pitch angles and target roll angles which contribute to the control of the swing leg are calculated based on the reference knot points which correspond to the calculated step length.); …
It is noted above that Lee ‘182 teaches a “step time” rather than explicitly determining a leg swing frequency. However, the step time, given the periodic determination of walking states as shown in Fig. 10-15, may be used to derive a frequency which is known to one of ordinary skill in the art as correlating with the period (time of a cycle between walking states). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Lee ‘182 implicitly includes considerations for frequency, as such a measure is directly correlated to that of the determined step time by known methods to one of ordinary skill.
However, Lee ‘182 does not explicitly teach … wherein the lower limb parameter comprises: a leg length, a sole length, and a sole width of the humanoid robot.
Regarding a leg length, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a leg length is implicitly included in the lower limb parameter. Given that there is a measure of the hip angle over time and a walking velocity of the robot, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the leg length based on ordinary principles of circular motion. Such teachings combine well-known methods to one of ordinary skill in the art which could determine that a leg length is included (implicitly) in the lower limb parameter (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).
Regarding a sole length and a sole width, Lee ‘684, in the same field of endeavor, discloses “First, the CoP is constrained in that it cannot be located outside the robot's support base. In the single support case (i.e., the robot's feet are positioned such that they provide a single support), the support base is identical to the foot contact area, whereas in the double support case on level ground, the support base is equivalent to the convex hull of the support areas of the two feet” ([0043]). The CoP (Center of Pressure) is to be included in a balance requirement such that it must remain within the robot’s support base. Given that such support base is equivalent to a foot contact area or the convex hull of the support area of the two feet, the CoP would be dependent on the length of the foot (sole) in a pitch direction and the width of the foot (sole) in a roll direction, as such areas are a product of these measurements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the measurements and calculations of Lee ‘182 to include the measure of sole length and sole width as taught by Lee ‘684 with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because in the transfer of one foot to the next, when the pressure of the sole transfers to a landing point (in which the pressure is described as detected loads by Lee ‘182 in Paragraph [0093]) it would be deemed necessary in determining the balance of the robot not to topple a foot (Lee ‘684, [0006]). As such, a consideration for sole width and sole length included in the lower limb parameter when determining the landing position of the swing leg would be feasible given that such teachings are a combination of known methods which yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).
Additionally, Lee ‘182 does not explicitly teach … wherein, the swinging leg capture point algorithm is represented as, for the posture balance requirement, equations of:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
174
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…
However, Lee ‘182 teaches variables …where, ξ1 represents a captured landing point of the humanoid robot in a pitch direction (“reference pitch knot point” is the contact point, i.e., landing point, of the robot in a pitch direction; [0038]), x represents a distance component of the distance from a center of mass of an inverted pendulum of the humanoid robot to a support point of the humanoid robot on a pitch plane (“Px is an actual distance between the position of the vertical line of the COM of the robot and the position of the ankle of the support leg in the X-axis direction” [0091]. In this case the X-direction is representative of the pitch plane, so Px is the distance component of the distance from the center of mass.), x’ represents a differential of a change of the center of mass of the inverted pendulum in the pitch direction (“Px' is an actual velocity obtained by taking the derivative of the actual distance Px” [0091]. Thus, Px’ is the derivative, i.e., differential, of the change of the center of mass, i.e., variation, in a pitch direction.), ξ2 represents a captured landing point of the humanoid robot in a roll direction (“reference roll knot point” is the contact point, i.e., landing point, of the robot in a roll direction; [0039]), y represents a distance component of a distance from the center of mass of the inverted pendulum to the support point of the robot on a roll plane (“Py is an actual distance between the position of the vertical line of the COM of the robot and the position of the ankle of the support leg in the Y-axis direction” [0091]. In this case, the Y-axis direction is representative of the roll plane, so Py is the distance component of the distance from the center of mass.), y’ represents a differential of a change of the center of mass of the inverted pendulum in the roll direction (“Py' is an actual velocity obtained by taking the derivative of the actual distance Py” [0091]. Thus, Py’ is the derivative, i.e., differential, of the change of the center of mass, i.e., variation, in a roll direction.), and ω represents the leg swing frequency (Conversion of “step time” as noted above.).
Given that Lee ‘182 teaches the variables, each of which is used for the purpose of satisfying a balance requirement, i.e., compensating for variations deviating from the center of mass of the humanoid robot, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the balance requirement of Lee ‘182 to include the swinging leg capture point algorithm in determining a balanced step length as disclosed by the applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as design incentives may prompt variations in the equation which is used in the field of endeavor (balanced walking states for humanoid robots) with predictable results outcome from the above variations (see MPEP 2143.I(F)). Lee ‘182 provides the same outcome for the applicable balance problem, using the same required variables, and as such this modification is a mere design choice which yields a predictable balance requirement for both inventions.
Regarding claim 2, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the method of claim 1, with Lee ‘182 further teaching …wherein the torso deflection posture parameter includes a pitch angular velocity of a torso of the humanoid robot that is coupled to the two legs in a pitch direction and a roll angular velocity of the torso of the humanoid robot in a roll direction (“The inclination detection unit 221 is provided on the torso 130 and detects an inclination of the torso with respect to the vertical line, i.e., rotating angles of three axes including pitch, roll and yaw axes, and angular velocities thereof” [0086]. Thus, the inclination of the torso, i.e., torso deflection posture parameter, is inclusive of a pitch and roll angular velocity.), and
calculating, using the swinging leg capture point algorithm, the calculated step length of the humanoid robot that meets the posture balance requirement of the humanoid robot at the current time based on the torso deflection posture parameter, the lower limb parameter, and the leg swing frequency (see rejection of claim 1) comprises:
calculating a first step length of the humanoid robot in the pitch direction that is relative to a horizontal plane by substituting each of the pitch angular velocity, the leg swing frequency, and the leg length included in the lower limb parameter into a first step length quick calculation equation, wherein the first step length quick calculation equation corresponds to the swinging leg capture point algorithm and meets the posture balance requirement (As cited above, the step length is calculated by determining a reference pitch knot point. The reference pitch knot point takes into consideration the pitch angular velocity (inclination of the torso which determines CoM and associated rotating angles/velocities; see [0086] and [0089]), the leg swing frequency (“step time” which indicates the time it takes to complete a step, which as noted above corresponds directly to the measure of frequency), and a lower limb parameter (hip angle/velocity which implicitly determine a leg length (see implicit argument as described in the rejection of claim 1); see [0028] and [0156]). All such calculations correspond to the compensation values as determined by the balance requirement, i.e., swinging leg capture point algorithm as rejected in claim 1.); …
However, Lee ‘182 as modified does not explicitly teach …calculating a second step length of the humanoid robot in the roll direction that is relative to the horizontal plane by substituting each of the roll angular velocity, the leg swing frequency, and the leg length included in the lower limb parameter into a second step length quick calculation equation, wherein the second step length quick calculation equation corresponds to the swinging leg capture point algorithm and meets the posture balance requirement.
Lee ‘182 only directly teaches the step length corresponding to a pitch rotating angle which determines the reference hip pitch knot point used to determine the landing point of the heel of the swinging leg in a pitch direction. However, given that such measurements and calculations for a reference hip roll knot point are described using the same variables as described above measured with respect to the roll plane/roll direction, one of ordinary skill in the art may reasonably determine that, although not explicitly stated, Lee ‘182 subsequently determines a second step length in the roll direction. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it necessary to determine both the step length in the pitch direction as well as the roll direction such that the balance requirement for pitch and roll compensation values may each be met. Evidence for such a remarks may be found in Fig. 15, wherein the amplitude indicative of a step length (see Paragraph [0028]) is adjusted for roll knot point compensation value.
Regarding claim 3, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the method of claim 2…
However, Lee ‘182 as modified does not explicitly teach … wherein the first step length quick calculation equation is represented as an equation of
∆
x
=
-
L
θ
˙
ω
and the second step length quick calculation equation is represented as an equation of
∆
y
=
-
L
γ
˙
ω
…
However, Lee ‘182 teaches the variables …where Δx represents the first step length (Step length measured from the reference pitch knot point.), Δy represents the second step length (Step length measured from the reference roll knot point.), L represents the leg length of the humanoid robot (Leg length implicitly determined by the relation between an angular velocity and a walking velocity, or determined by a relation between a walking velocity and a frequency.), and ω represents the leg swing frequency of the humanoid robot (“step time” t converted to the frequency may be noted as ω.),
θ
˙
represents the pitch angular velocity (Pitch angular velocity measured by the inclination detection unit ([0086]).), and
γ
˙
represents the roll angular velocity (Roll angular velocity measured by the inclination detection unit ([0086]).).
Given that Lee ‘182 teaches the variables, each of which is used for the purpose of calculating a step length (as cited above in the rejection of claim 2) it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculation for step length as taught by Lee ‘182 to include the first and second step length quick calculation equations in determining a step length as disclosed by the Applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as design incentives may prompt variations in the equation which is used in the field of endeavor (determining step lengths for humanoid robot control) with predictable results outcome from the above variations (see MPEP 2143.I(F)). Lee ‘182 provides the same outcome for the applicable step length problem, using the same required variables, and as such this modification is a mere design choice which yields a predictable results for both inventions.
Regarding claim 6, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the method of claim 1, with Lee ‘182 further teaching …wherein controlling the swinging leg among the legs of the humanoid robot at the current time to move based on the calculated step length (See rejection of claim 1.) comprises:
determining an expected position of a swinging leg among the two legs of the humanoid robot at the current time with the calculated step length (Reference pitch knot point and reference roll knot point are used to determine target pitch and roll knot points which are the target, i.e., expected, trajectories (inclusive of step length) at the current time when compensation values are considered [0038-0039].); and
controlling the swinging leg of the humanoid robot to move according to the expected position of the swinging leg (“a torque calculation unit to calculate torques tracking the target angle trajectories, and a control unit to output the torques to the hip joint unit to control the walking velocity of the robot” [0022]. Both the pitch and roll target angle trajectories are delivered to the torque calculation unit for controlling the swinging leg of the robot to move by output values from the control unit (see [0132-0133]).).
Regarding claim 7, Lee ‘182 teaches a robot controller (“walking control apparatus 200”; [0080] and Fig. 3), comprising:
a processor; a memory coupled to the processor (“The embodiments can be implemented in computing hardware and/or software, such as (in a non-limiting example) any computer that can store, retrieve, process and/or output data and/or communicate with other computers” [0204]. Thus, there is a computer which requires a processor and a memory for implementing the embodiments of the disclosure.); and
one or more computer programs stored in the memory and executable on the processor (“A program/software implementing the embodiments may be recorded on non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-readable recording media” [0204]. Thus, embodiments which are implemented by the computing hardware are realized by a program/software stored in the memory. Such memory is non-transitory.);
wherein, the one or more computer programs comprise:
instructions for detecting whether a humanoid robot is in a balanced state at a current time (“In accordance with another aspect of an embodiment, a walking control method of a robot includes confirming a swing leg and a support leg of the robot by judging a walking state of the robot when a walking velocity of the robot and a walking command are received by the robot” [0030]. “Here, variations Px and Py of the COM are distances between a position of the vertical line of the COM of the robot and a position of an ankle of a foot contacting the ground in the X-axis direction and in the Y-axis direction. That is, the robot keeps its balance only if the vertical line of the COM of the robot coincides with the position of the ankle of the support leg during walking of the robot, and for this purpose, the distances between the position of the vertical line of the COM of the robot and the position of the ankle of the support leg need to be detected” [0092]. Thus, the robot detects which leg is a swing leg and which leg is a support leg at the time a walking velocity and walking command are received. The support leg is then evaluated for its position by detecting variations in the roll and pitch directions compared to the center of mass to determine whether the robot is balanced.), based on a motion state of a the humanoid robot obtained through sensors installed on the humanoid robot, wherein the sensors comprise a force sensor and a posture sensor (“The pose detection unit 220 includes an inclination detection unit 221 to detect an inclination of the torso of the robot, a force/torque (F/T) detection unit 222 to detect whether or not the robot lands and a support leg and a swing leg corresponding to whether or not the robot lands, and a COM detection unit 223 to detect a variation of the COM of the robot” [0085]. Thus, the pose which determines an inclination of a robot, the determination of landing based on a support or swing leg, and the COM which are each described above as determining a the robot establishes a balanced walking gait are obtained through an IMU, i.e., posture sensor, and multi-axis F/T sensors, i.e., force sensors. See additional details regarding sensor measurements in [0086-0090].);
instructions for obtaining a torso deflection posture parameter (“The inclination detection unit 221 is provided on the torso 130 and detects an inclination of the torso with respect to the vertical line, i.e., rotating angles of three axes including pitch, roll and yaw axes, and angular velocities thereof” [0086]. Thus, an inclination of the torso, i.e., torso deflection posture parameter, is obtained.), a lower limb parameter (There is a “hip angle” which corresponds to “knot points” referred to throughout the specification ([0023]). Additionally, there is an input velocity which corresponds to a derived step length and step time ([0156]).) and a leg swing frequency of the legs of the humanoid robot at the current time (The measured “step time” may be considered as a frequency at which the steps are taken; see Fig. 10-15 which shows the periodic cycle of steps taken by the robot. An additional explanation of obviousness regarding the frequency is also detailed below.), in response to detecting the humanoid robot being not in the balanced state at the current time (“The COM detection unit 223 detects the COM of the robot based on torso inclination data detected by the inclination detection unit 221 and rotating angles of the respective joint units 131, 143, 144, 163, 164 and 165 corresponding to a current pose of the robot, calculates a variation of the detected COM, and transmits the calculated variation of the COM to the knot point compensation value calculation unit 240” [0089]. Thus, the COM based on the obtained inclination and rotating angles of the robot’s torso allows the robot to detect variations indicative of the unbalanced state and then transmits said variations to obtain the compensation values, which are implemented with the “step time” (frequency), hip angles/knot points (lower limb parameter), and velocity (lower limb parameter) in determining the length of each step. See Fig. 15 for step time versus hip angle adjusted for compensation, in which amplitude indicates a step length ([0028]).) …;
instructions for calculating, using a swinging leg capture point algorithm, a calculated step length of the humanoid robot that meets a posture balance requirement of the humanoid robot at the current time based on the torso deflection posture parameter, the lower limb parameter, and the leg swing frequency (“In more detail, the robot 100 determines a step length of the next step and a step time for which the next step is performed based on the walking velocity received from a user. Here, the step length corresponds to a pitch rotating angle of the hip joint unit 163. That is, the robot 100 determines the pitch rotating angle of the hip joint unit 163 based on the walking velocity” [0156]. “Thereafter, the robot 100 generates reference pitch knot points of the hip joint unit 163 based on the pitch rotating angle, the step time, and the offset angle of the hip joint unit 163” [0158]. Reference pitch knot points mark the hip angle of the swing leg when the foot of the swing leg makes contact with the ground, completing the step (see [0023]). The amplitude of this reference angle corresponds to the calculated step length of the robot (see [0028]). The reference angle is adjusted for the knot point compensation values which account for the variation from the center of mass, i.e., balance requirement (see [0193-0194]). Thus, there is a step length calculated which meets a balance requirement (compensation) based on the torso deflection posture parameter (torso inclination), lower limb parameters (hip angle/knot points/velocity), and the leg swing frequency (step time).); and
instructions for controlling the swinging leg among the legs of the humanoid robot at the current time to move based on the calculated step length (“Thereafter, the robot 100 respectively calculates torques to track the target pitch angles and the target roll angles of the hip joint units 163 and the target pitch angles of the ankle joint units 165 of the respective legs” [0177]. “Thereafter, the robot 100 controls PWMs corresponding to the calculated torques, and then outputs the torques to the motors (not shown) provided at the hip joint units 163 and the ankle joint units 165, thereby rotating the motors” [0178]. Thus, the target pitch angles and target roll angles which contribute to the control of the swing leg are calculated based on the reference knot points which correspond to the calculated step length.); …
It is noted above that Lee ‘182 teaches a “step time” rather than explicitly determining a leg swing frequency. However, the step time, given the periodic determination of walking states as shown in Fig. 10-15, may be used to derive a frequency which is known to one of ordinary skill in the art as correlating with the period (time of a cycle between walking states). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Lee ‘182 implicitly includes considerations for frequency, as such a measure is directly correlated to that of the determined step time by known methods to one of ordinary skill.
However, Lee ‘182 does not explicitly teach … wherein the lower limb parameter comprises: a leg length, a sole length, and a sole width of the humanoid robot.
Regarding a leg length, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a leg length is implicitly included in the lower limb parameter. Given that there is a measure of the hip angle over time and a walking velocity of the robot, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the leg length based on ordinary principles of circular motion. Such teachings combine well-known methods to one of ordinary skill in the art which could determine that a leg length is included (implicitly) in the lower limb parameter (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).
Regarding a sole length and a sole width, Lee ‘684, in the same field of endeavor, discloses “First, the CoP is constrained in that it cannot be located outside the robot's support base. In the single support case (i.e., the robot's feet are positioned such that they provide a single support), the support base is identical to the foot contact area, whereas in the double support case on level ground, the support base is equivalent to the convex hull of the support areas of the two feet” ([0043]). The CoP (Center of Pressure) is to be included in a balance requirement such that it must remain within the robot’s support base. Given that such support base is equivalent to a foot contact area or the convex hull of the support area of the two feet, the CoP would be dependent on the length of the foot (sole) in a pitch direction and the width of the foot (sole) in a roll direction, as such areas are a product of these measurements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the measurements and calculations of Lee ‘182 to include the measure of sole length and sole width as taught by Lee ‘684 with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because in the transfer of one foot to the next, when the pressure of the sole transfers to a landing point (in which the pressure is described as detected loads by Lee ‘182 in Paragraph [0093]) it would be deemed necessary in determining the balance of the robot not to topple a foot (Lee ‘684, [0006]). As such, a consideration for sole width and sole length included in the lower limb parameter when determining the landing position of the swing leg would be feasible given that such teachings are a combination of known methods which yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).
Additionally, Lee ‘182 does not explicitly teach … wherein, the swinging leg capture point algorithm is represented as, for the posture balance requirement, equations of:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
174
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…
However, Lee ‘182 teaches variables …where, ξ1 represents a captured landing point of the humanoid robot in a pitch direction (“reference pitch knot point” is the contact point, i.e., landing point, of the robot in a pitch direction; [0038]), x represents a distance component of a distance from a center of mass of an inverted pendulum of the humanoid robot to a support point of the humanoid robot on a pitch plane (“Px is an actual distance between the position of the vertical line of the COM of the robot and the position of the ankle of the support leg in the X-axis direction” [0091]. In this case the X-direction is representative of the pitch plane, so Px is the distance component of the distance from the center of mass.), x’ represents a differential of a change of the center of mass of the inverted pendulum in the pitch direction (“Px' is an actual velocity obtained by taking the derivative of the actual distance Px” [0091]. Thus, Px’ is the derivative, i.e., differential, of the change of the center of mass, i.e., variation, in a pitch direction.), ξ2 represents a captured landing point of the humanoid robot in a roll direction (“reference roll knot point” is the contact point, i.e., landing point, of the robot in a roll direction; [0039]), y represents a distance component of a distance from the center of mass of the inverted pendulum to the support point of the robot on a roll plane (“Py is an actual distance between the position of the vertical line of the COM of the robot and the position of the ankle of the support leg in the Y-axis direction” [0091]. In this case, the Y-axis direction is representative of the roll plane, so Py is the distance component of the distance from the center of mass.), y’ represents a differential of a change of the center of mass of the inverted pendulum in the roll direction (“Py' is an actual velocity obtained by taking the derivative of the actual distance Py” [0091]. Thus, Py’ is the derivative, i.e., differential, of the change of the center of mass, i.e., variation, in a roll direction.), and ω represents the leg swing frequency (Conversion of “step time” as noted above.).
Given that Lee ‘182 teaches the variables, each of which is used for the purpose of satisfying a balance requirement, i.e., compensating for variations deviating from the center of mass of the humanoid robot, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the balance requirement of Lee ‘182 to include the swinging leg capture point algorithm in determining a balanced step length as disclosed by the applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as design incentives may prompt variations in the equation which is used in the field of endeavor (balanced walking states for humanoid robots) with predictable results outcome from the above variations (see MPEP 2143.I(F)). Lee ‘182 provides the same outcome for the applicable balance problem, using the same required variables, and as such this modification is a mere design choice which yields a predictable balance requirement for both inventions.
Regarding claim 8, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the robot controller of claim 7, with Lee ‘182 further teaching …wherein the torso deflection posture parameter includes a pitch angular velocity of a torso of the humanoid robot that is coupled to the two legs in a pitch direction and a roll angular velocity of the torso of the humanoid robot in a roll direction (“The inclination detection unit 221 is provided on the torso 130 and detects an inclination of the torso with respect to the vertical line, i.e., rotating angles of three axes including pitch, roll and yaw axes, and angular velocities thereof” [0086]. Thus, the inclination of the torso, i.e., torso deflection posture parameter, is inclusive of a pitch and roll angular velocity.), and
calculating, using the swinging leg capture point algorithm, the calculated step length of the humanoid robot that meets the posture balance requirement of the humanoid robot at the current time based on the torso deflection posture parameter, the lower limb parameter, and the leg swing frequency (see rejection of claim 7) comprises:
calculating a first step length of the humanoid robot in the pitch direction that is relative to a horizontal plane by substituting each of the pitch angular velocity, the leg swing frequency, and the leg length included in the lower limb parameter into a first step length quick calculation equation, wherein the first step length quick calculation equation corresponds to the swinging leg capture point algorithm and meets the posture balance requirement (As cited above, the step length is calculated by determining a reference pitch knot point. The reference pitch knot point takes into consideration the pitch angular velocity (inclination of the torso which determines CoM and associated rotating angles/velocities; see [0086] and [0089]), the leg swing frequency (“step time” which indicates the time it takes to complete a step, which as noted above corresponds directly to the measure of frequency), and a lower limb parameter lower limb parameter (hip angle/velocity which implicitly determine a leg length (see implicit argument as described in the rejection of claim 7); see [0028] and [0156]). All such calculations correspond to the compensation values as determined by the balance requirement, i.e., swinging leg capture point algorithm as rejected in claim 7.); …
However, Lee ‘182 as modified does not explicitly teach
calculating a second step length of the humanoid robot in the roll direction that is relative to the horizontal plane by substituting each of the roll angular velocity, the leg swing frequency, and the leg length included in the lower limb parameter into a second step length quick calculation equation, wherein the second step length quick calculation equation corresponds to the swinging leg capture point algorithm and meets the posture balance requirement.
Additionally, Lee ‘182 only directly teaches the step length corresponding to a pitch rotating angle which determines the reference hip pitch knot point used to determine the landing point of the heel of the swinging leg in a pitch direction. However, given that such measurements and calculations for a reference hip roll knot point are described using the same variables as described above measured with respect to the roll plane/roll direction, one of ordinary skill in the art may reasonably determine that, although not explicitly stated, Lee ‘182 subsequently determines a second step length in the roll direction. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it necessary to determine both the step length in the pitch direction as well as the roll direction such that the balance requirement for pitch and roll compensation values may each be met. Evidence for such a remarks may be found in Fig. 15, wherein the amplitude indicative of a step length (see Paragraph [0028]) is adjusted for roll knot point compensation value.
Regarding claim 9, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the robot controller of claim 8…
However, Lee ‘182 as modified does not explicitly teach … wherein the first step length quick calculation equation is represented as an equation of
∆
x
=
-
L
θ
˙
ω
and the second step length quick calculation equation is represented as an equation of
∆
y
=
-
L
γ
˙
ω
…
However, Lee ‘182 teaches the variables …where Δx represents the first step length (Step length measured from the reference pitch knot point.), Δy represents the second step length (Step length measured from the reference roll knot point.), L represents the leg length of the humanoid robot (Leg length implicitly determined by the relation between an angular velocity and a walking velocity, or determined by a relation between a walking velocity and a frequency.), and ω represents the leg swing frequency of the humanoid robot (“step time” t converted to the frequency may be noted as ω.),
θ
˙
represents the pitch angular velocity (Pitch angular velocity measured by the inclination detection unit ([0086]).), and
γ
˙
represents the roll angular velocity (Roll angular velocity measured by the inclination detection unit ([0086]).).
Given that Lee ‘182 teaches the variables, each of which is used for the purpose of calculating a step length (as cited above in the rejection of claim 8) it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculation for step length as taught by Lee ‘182 to include the first and second step length quick calculation equations in determining a step length as disclosed by the Applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as design incentives may prompt variations in the equation which is used in the field of endeavor (determining step lengths for humanoid robot control) with predictable results outcome from the above variations (see MPEP 2143.I(F)). Lee ‘182 provides the same outcome for the applicable step length problem, using the same required variables, and as such this modification is a mere design choice which yields a predictable results for both inventions.
Regarding claim 10, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the robot controller of claim 7,
wherein the torso deflection posture parameter includes a pitch angle and a pitch angular velocity of the torso of the humanoid robot in a pitch direction and a roll angle and a roll angular velocity of the torso of the humanoid robot in a roll direction (“The inclination detection unit 221 is provided on the torso 130 and detects an inclination of the torso with respect to the vertical line, i.e., rotating angles of three axes including pitch, roll and yaw axes, and angular velocities thereof” [0086]. Thus, the inclination of the torso, i.e., torso deflection posture parameter, is inclusive of a pitch and roll angular velocity and inclusive of a pitch and roll rotation angle.), and
calculating, using the swinging leg capture point algorithm, the calculated step length of the humanoid robot that meets the posture balance requirement of the robot at the current time based on the torso deflection posture parameter, the lower limb parameter, and the leg swing frequency (see rejection of claim 7) comprises:
calculating a first step length of the humanoid robot in the pitch direction that is relative to a horizontal plane by substituting each of the pitch angular velocity, the pitch angle, the leg swing frequency, and the leg length and the sole length included in the lower limb parameter into a first step length precise calculation equation, wherein the first step length precise calculation equation corresponds to the swinging leg capture point algorithm and meets the posture balance requirement (As cited above, the step length is calculated by determining a reference pitch knot point. The reference pitch knot point takes into consideration the pitch angular velocity and pitch angle (inclination of the torso which determines CoM and associated rotating angles/velocities; see [0086] and [0089]), the leg swing frequency (“step time” which indicates the time it takes to complete a step, which as noted above corresponds directly to the measure of frequency), and a lower limb parameter (hip angle/velocity with implicit determination of leg length as described in rejection of claim 7 and additionally associated sole length as reexplained below; see [0028] and [0156]). All such calculations correspond to the compensation values as determined by the balance requirement, i.e., swinging leg capture point algorithm as rejected in claim 7.);…
However, Lee ‘182 does not explicitly teach …calculating a second step length of the humanoid robot in the roll direction that is relative to the horizontal plane by substituting each of the roll angular velocity, the roll angle, the leg swing frequency, and the leg length and the sole width included in the lower limb parameter into a second step length precise calculation equation, wherein the second step length precise calculation equation corresponds to the swinging leg capture point algorithm and meets the posture balance requirement.
Lee ‘182 only directly teaches the step length corresponding to a pitch rotating angle which determines the reference hip pitch knot point used to determine the landing point of the heel of the swinging leg in a pitch direction. However, given that such measurements and calculations for a reference hip roll knot point are described using the same variables as described above measured with respect to the roll plane/roll direction, one of ordinary skill in the art may reasonably determine that, although not explicitly stated, Lee ‘182 subsequently determines a second step length in the roll direction. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it necessary to determine both the step length in the pitch direction as well as the roll direction such that the balance requirement for pitch and roll compensation values may each be met. Evidence for such a remarks may be found in Fig. 15, wherein the amplitude indicative of a step length (see Paragraph [0028]) is adjusted for roll knot point compensation value.
Additionally, with regard to the sole length and sole width as part of the lower limb parameter, teachings of Lee ‘684 as described in the rejection of claim 7 determine a sole length and sole width based on a sole center of pressure to be obvious measures of a lower limb parameter as the inclusion of such measurements would determine a balanced landing point for the swing leg in both the roll and pitch directions such that the foot does not topple upon impact. The same such logic is applied to this rejection of claim 10 which relies upon the sole length and sole width in respective roll and pitch step length calculations.
Regarding claim 11, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the robot controller of claim 10…
However, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 does not explicitly teach … wherein the first step length precise calculation equation is represented as an equation of
∆
x
=
L
2
+
(
l
/
2
)
2
θ
˙
sin
θ
ω
and the second step length precise calculation equation is represented as an equation of
∆
y
=
L
2
+
(
d
/
2
)
2
γ
˙
sin
γ
ω
…
However, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 (pertinent reference for rejection will be designated in each citation below) teaches the variables … where Δx represents the first step length (Step length measured from the reference pitch knot point (Lee ‘182).), Δy represent the second step length (Step length measured from the reference roll knot point (Lee ‘182).), L represents the leg length of the humanoid robot (Leg length implicitly determined by the relation between an angular velocity and a walking velocity, or determined by a relation between a walking velocity and a frequency (Lee ‘182).), and ω represents the leg swing frequency of the humanoid robot (“step time” t converted to the frequency may be noted as ω (Lee ‘182).),
θ
˙
represents the pitch angular velocity (Pitch angular velocity measured by the inclination detection unit (Lee ‘182, [0086]).), θ represents the pitch angle (Pitch rotating angle measured by the inclination detection unit (Lee ‘182, [0086]).),
γ
˙
represents the roll angular velocity (Roll angular velocity measured by the inclination detection unit (Lee ‘182, [0086]).), γ represents the roll angle (Roll rotating angle measured by the inclination detection unit (Lee ‘182, [0086]).), l represents the sole length (Length component of the support base area as determined in the rejection of claim 10 (Lee ‘684).), and d represents the sole width (Width component of the support base area as determined in the rejection of claim 10 (Lee ‘684).).
Given that Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the variables, each of which is used for the purpose of calculating a step length (as cited above in the rejection of claim 10) it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculation for step length as taught by Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 to include the first and second step length precise calculation equations in determining a step length as disclosed by the Applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as design incentives may prompt variations in the equation which is used in the field of endeavor (determining step lengths for humanoid robot control) with predictable results outcome from the above variations (see MPEP 2143.I(F)). Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 provides the same outcome for the applicable step length problem, using the same required variables, and as such this modification is a mere design choice which yields a predictable results for both inventions.
Regarding claim 12, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the robot controller of claim 7,
with Lee ‘182 further teaching wherein controlling the swinging leg among the legs of the humanoid robot at the current time to move based on the calculated step length (See rejection of claim 7.) comprises:
determining an expected position of a swinging leg among the two legs of the humanoid robot at the current time with the calculated step length (Reference pitch knot point and reference roll knot point are used to determine target pitch and roll knot points which are the target, i.e., expected, trajectories (inclusive of step length) at the current time when compensation values are considered [0038-0039].); and
controlling the swinging leg of the humanoid robot to move according to the expected position of the swinging leg (“a torque calculation unit to calculate torques tracking the target angle trajectories, and a control unit to output the torques to the hip joint unit to control the walking velocity of the robot” [0022]. Both the pitch and roll target angle trajectories are delivered to the torque calculation unit for controlling the swinging leg of the robot to move by output values from the control unit (see [0132-0133]).).
Regarding claim 13, Lee ‘182 teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing one or more computer programs (“A program/software implementing the embodiments may be recorded on non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-readable recording media” [0204]. Thus, embodiments of the disclosure are realized as computer programs stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.), wherein the one or more computer programs comprise:
instructions for detecting whether the humanoid robot is in a balanced state at a current time (“In accordance with another aspect of an embodiment, a walking control method of a robot includes confirming a swing leg and a support leg of the robot by judging a walking state of the robot when a walking velocity of the robot and a walking command are received by the robot” [0030]. “Here, variations Px and Py of the COM are distances between a position of the vertical line of the COM of the robot and a position of an ankle of a foot contacting the ground in the X-axis direction and in the Y-axis direction. That is, the robot keeps its balance only if the vertical line of the COM of the robot coincides with the position of the ankle of the support leg during walking of the robot, and for this purpose, the distances between the position of the vertical line of the COM of the robot and the position of the ankle of the support leg need to be detected” [0092]. Thus, the robot detects which leg is a swing leg and which leg is a support leg at the time a walking velocity and walking command are received. The support leg is then evaluated for its position by detecting variations in the roll and pitch directions compared to the center of mass to determine whether the robot is balanced.), based on a motion state of a the humanoid robot obtained through sensors installed on the humanoid robot, wherein the sensors comprise a force sensor and a posture sensor (“The pose detection unit 220 includes an inclination detection unit 221 to detect an inclination of the torso of the robot, a force/torque (F/T) detection unit 222 to detect whether or not the robot lands and a support leg and a swing leg corresponding to whether or not the robot lands, and a COM detection unit 223 to detect a variation of the COM of the robot” [0085]. Thus, the pose which determines an inclination of a robot, the determination of landing based on a support or swing leg, and the COM which are each described above as determining a the robot establishes a balanced walking gait are obtained through an IMU, i.e., posture sensor, and multi-axis F/T sensors, i.e., force sensors. See additional details regarding sensor measurements in [0086-0090].), and
wherein the humanoid robot has two legs (The robot of Fig. 1 is shown to have two legs.);
instructions for obtaining a torso deflection posture parameter(“The inclination detection unit 221 is provided on the torso 130 and detects an inclination of the torso with respect to the vertical line, i.e., rotating angles of three axes including pitch, roll and yaw axes, and angular velocities thereof” [0086]. Thus, an inclination of the torso, i.e., torso deflection posture parameter, is obtained.), a lower limb parameter (There is a “hip angle” which corresponds to “knot points” referred to throughout the specification ([0023]). Additionally, there is an input velocity which corresponds to a derived step length and step time ([0156]).) and a leg swing frequency of the legs of the humanoid robot at the current time (The measured “step time” may be considered as a frequency at which the steps are taken; see Fig. 10-15 which shows the periodic cycle of steps taken by the robot. An additional explanation of obviousness regarding the frequency is also detailed below.), in response to detecting the humanoid robot being not in the balanced state at the current time (“The COM detection unit 223 detects the COM of the robot based on torso inclination data detected by the inclination detection unit 221 and rotating angles of the respective joint units 131, 143, 144, 163, 164 and 165 corresponding to a current pose of the robot, calculates a variation of the detected COM, and transmits the calculated variation of the COM to the knot point compensation value calculation unit 240” [0089]. Thus, the COM based on the obtained inclination and rotating angles of the robot’s torso allows the robot to detect variations indicative of the unbalanced state and then transmits said variations to obtain the compensation values, which are implemented with the “step time” (frequency), hip angles/knot points (lower limb parameter), and velocity (lower limb parameter) in determining the length of each step. See Fig. 15 for step time versus hip angle adjusted for compensation, in which amplitude indicates a step length ([0028]).) …;
instructions for calculating, using a swinging leg capture point algorithm, a calculated step length of the humanoid robot that meets a posture balance requirement of the humanoid robot at the current time based on the torso deflection posture parameter, the lower limb parameter, and the leg swing frequency (“In more detail, the robot 100 determines a step length of the next step and a step time for which the next step is performed based on the walking velocity received from a user. Here, the step length corresponds to a pitch rotating angle of the hip joint unit 163. That is, the robot 100 determines the pitch rotating angle of the hip joint unit 163 based on the walking velocity” [0156]. “Thereafter, the robot 100 generates reference pitch knot points of the hip joint unit 163 based on the pitch rotating angle, the step time, and the offset angle of the hip joint unit 163” [0158]. Reference pitch knot points mark the hip angle of the swing leg when the foot of the swing leg makes contact with the ground, completing the step (see [0023]). The amplitude of this reference angle corresponds to the calculated step length of the robot (see [0028]). The reference angle is adjusted for the knot point compensation values which account for the variation from the center of mass, i.e., balance requirement (see [0193-0194]). Thus, there is a step length calculated which meets a balance requirement (compensation) based on the torso deflection posture parameter (torso inclination), lower limb parameters (hip angle/knot points/velocity), and the leg swing frequency (step time).); and
instructions for controlling the swinging leg among the legs of the humanoid robot at the current time to move based on the calculated step length (“Thereafter, the robot 100 respectively calculates torques to track the target pitch angles and the target roll angles of the hip joint units 163 and the target pitch angles of the ankle joint units 165 of the respective legs” [0177]. “Thereafter, the robot 100 controls PWMs corresponding to the calculated torques, and then outputs the torques to the motors (not shown) provided at the hip joint units 163 and the ankle joint units 165, thereby rotating the motors” [0178]. Thus, the target pitch angles and target roll angles which contribute to the control of the swing leg are calculated based on the reference knot points which correspond to the calculated step length.); …
It is noted above that Lee ‘182 teaches a “step time” rather than explicitly determining a leg swing frequency. However, the step time, given the periodic determination of walking states as shown in Fig. 10-15, may be used to derive a frequency which is known to one of ordinary skill in the art as correlating with the period (time of a cycle between walking states). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Lee ‘182 implicitly includes considerations for frequency, as such a measure is directly correlated to that of the determined step time by known methods to one of ordinary skill.
However, Lee ‘182 does not explicitly teach … wherein the lower limb parameter comprises: a leg length, a sole length, and a sole width of the humanoid robot.
Regarding a leg length, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a leg length is implicitly included in the lower limb parameter. Given that there is a measure of the hip angle over time and a walking velocity of the robot, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the leg length based on ordinary principles of circular motion. Such teachings combine well-known methods to one of ordinary skill in the art which could determine that a leg length is included (implicitly) in the lower limb parameter (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).
Regarding a sole length and a sole width, Lee ‘684, in the same field of endeavor, discloses “First, the CoP is constrained in that it cannot be located outside the robot's support base. In the single support case (i.e., the robot's feet are positioned such that they provide a single support), the support base is identical to the foot contact area, whereas in the double support case on level ground, the support base is equivalent to the convex hull of the support areas of the two feet” ([0043]). The CoP (Center of Pressure) is to be included in a balance requirement such that it must remain within the robot’s support base. Given that such support base is equivalent to a foot contact area or the convex hull of the support area of the two feet, the CoP would be dependent on the length of the foot (sole) in a pitch direction and the width of the foot (sole) in a roll direction, as such areas are a product of these measurements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the measurements and calculations of Lee ‘182 to include the measure of sole length and sole width as taught by Lee ‘684 with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because in the transfer of one foot to the next, when the pressure of the sole transfers to a landing point (in which the pressure is described as detected loads by Lee ‘182 in Paragraph [0093]) it would be deemed necessary in determining the balance of the robot not to topple a foot (Lee ‘684, [0006]). As such, a consideration for sole width and sole length included in the lower limb parameter when determining the landing position of the swing leg would be feasible given that such teachings are a combination of known methods which yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).
Additionally, Lee ‘182 does not explicitly teach … wherein, the swinging leg capture point algorithm is represented as, for the posture balance requirement, equations of:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
174
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…
However, Lee ‘182 teaches variables …where, ξ1 represents a captured landing point of the humanoid robot in a pitch direction (“reference pitch knot point” is the contact point, i.e., landing point, of the robot in a pitch direction; [0038]), x represents a distance component of a distance from a center of mass of an inverted pendulum of the humanoid robot to a support point of the humanoid robot on a pitch plane (“Px is an actual distance between the position of the vertical line of the COM of the robot and the position of the ankle of the support leg in the X-axis direction” [0091]. In this case the X-direction is representative of the pitch plane, so Px is the distance component of the distance from the center of mass.), x’ represents a differential of a change of the center of mass of the inverted pendulum in the pitch direction (“Px' is an actual velocity obtained by taking the derivative of the actual distance Px” [0091]. Thus, Px’ is the derivative, i.e., differential, of the change of the center of mass, i.e., variation, in a pitch direction.), ξ2 represents a captured landing point of the humanoid robot in a roll direction (“reference roll knot point” is the contact point, i.e., landing point, of the robot in a roll direction; [0039]), y represents a distance component of a distance from the center of mass of the inverted pendulum to the support point of the robot on a roll plane (“Py is an actual distance between the position of the vertical line of the COM of the robot and the position of the ankle of the support leg in the Y-axis direction” [0091]. In this case, the Y-axis direction is representative of the roll plane, so Py is the distance component of the distance from the center of mass.), y’ represents a differential of a change of the center of mass of the inverted pendulum in the roll direction (“Py' is an actual velocity obtained by taking the derivative of the actual distance Py” [0091]. Thus, Py’ is the derivative, i.e., differential, of the change of the center of mass, i.e., variation, in a roll direction.), and ω represents the leg swing frequency (Conversion of “step time” as noted above.).
Given that Lee ‘182 teaches the variables, each of which is used for the purpose of satisfying a balance requirement, i.e., compensating for variations deviating from the center of mass of the humanoid robot, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the balance requirement of Lee ‘182 to include the swinging leg capture point algorithm in determining a balanced step length as disclosed by the applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as design incentives may prompt variations in the equation which is used in the field of endeavor (balanced walking states for humanoid robots) with predictable results outcome from the above variations (see MPEP 2143.I(F)). Lee ‘182 provides the same outcome for the applicable balance problem, using the same required variables, and as such this modification is a mere design choice which yields a predictable balance requirement for both inventions.
Regarding claim 14, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the storage medium of claim 13,
with Lee ‘182 further teaching wherein the torso deflection posture parameter includes a pitch angular velocity of a torso of the humanoid robot that is coupled to the two legs in a pitch direction and a roll angular velocity of the torso of the humanoid robot in a roll direction (“The inclination detection unit 221 is provided on the torso 130 and detects an inclination of the torso with respect to the vertical line, i.e., rotating angles of three axes including pitch, roll and yaw axes, and angular velocities thereof” [0086]. Thus, the inclination of the torso, i.e., torso deflection posture parameter, is inclusive of a pitch and roll angular velocity.), and
calculating, using the swinging leg capture point algorithm, the calculated step length of the humanoid robot that meets the posture balance requirement of the humanoid robot at the current time based on the torso deflection posture parameter, the lower limb parameter, and the leg swing frequency (see rejection of claim 13) comprises:
calculating a first step length of the humanoid robot in the pitch direction that is relative to a horizontal plane by substituting each of the pitch angular velocity, the leg swing frequency, and the leg length included in the lower limb parameter into a first step length quick calculation equation, wherein the first step length quick calculation equation corresponds to the swinging leg capture point algorithm and meets the posture balance requirement (As cited above, the step length is calculated by determining a reference pitch knot point. The reference pitch knot point takes into consideration the pitch angular velocity (inclination of the torso which determines CoM and associated rotating angles/velocities; see [0086] and [0089]), the leg swing frequency (“step time” which indicates the time it takes to complete a step, which as noted above corresponds directly to the measure of frequency), and a lower limb parameter (hip angle/velocity which implicitly determines a leg length (see implicit argument as described in the rejection of claim 13); see [0028] and [0156]). All such calculations correspond to the compensation values as determined by the balance requirement, i.e., swinging leg capture point algorithm as rejected in claim 13.); …
However, Lee ‘182 as modified does not explicitly teach …calculating a second step length of the humanoid robot in the roll direction that is relative to the horizontal plane by substituting each of the roll angular velocity, the leg swing frequency, and the leg length included in the lower limb parameter into a second step length quick calculation equation, wherein the second step length quick calculation equation corresponds to the swinging leg capture point algorithm and meets the posture balance requirement.
Additionally, Lee ‘182 only directly teaches the step length corresponding to a pitch rotating angle which determines the reference hip pitch knot point used to determine the landing point of the heel of the swinging leg in a pitch direction. However, given that such measurements and calculations for a reference hip roll knot point are described using the same variables as described above measured with respect to the roll plane/roll direction, one of ordinary skill in the art may reasonably determine that, although not explicitly stated, Lee ‘182 subsequently determines a second step length in the roll direction. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it necessary to determine both the step length in the pitch direction as well as the roll direction such that the balance requirement for pitch and roll compensation values may each be met. Evidence for such a remarks may be found in Fig. 15, wherein the amplitude indicative of a step length (see Paragraph [0028]) is adjusted for roll knot point compensation value.
Regarding claim 15, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the storage medium of claim 14…
However, Lee ‘182 does not explicitly teach … wherein the first step length quick calculation equation is represented as an equation of
∆
x
=
-
L
θ
˙
ω
and the second step length quick calculation equation is represented as an equation of
∆
y
=
-
L
γ
˙
ω
…
However, Lee ‘182 teaches the variables …where Δx represents the first step length (Step length measured from the reference pitch knot point.), Δy represents the second step length (Step length measured from the reference roll knot point.), L represents the leg length of the humanoid robot (Leg length implicitly determined by the relation between an angular velocity and a walking velocity, or determined by a relation between a walking velocity and a frequency.), and ω represents the leg swing frequency of the humanoid robot (“step time” t converted to the frequency may be noted as ω.),
θ
˙
represents the pitch angular velocity (Pitch angular velocity measured by the inclination detection unit ([0086]).), and
γ
˙
represents the roll angular velocity (Roll angular velocity measured by the inclination detection unit ([0086]).).
Given that Lee ‘182 teaches the variables, each of which is used for the purpose of calculating a step length (as cited above in the rejection of claim 14) it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculation for step length as taught by Lee ‘182 to include the first and second step length quick calculation equations in determining a step length as disclosed by the Applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as design incentives may prompt variations in the equation which is used in the field of endeavor (determining step lengths for humanoid robot control) with predictable results outcome from the above variations (see MPEP 2143.I(F)). Lee ‘182 provides the same outcome for the applicable step length problem, using the same required variables, and as such this modification is a mere design choice which yields a predictable results for both inventions.
Regarding claim 16, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the storage medium of claim 13,
with Lee ‘182 further teaching wherein the torso deflection posture parameter includes a pitch angle and a pitch angular velocity of the torso of the humanoid robot in a pitch direction and a roll angle and a roll angular velocity of the torso of the humanoid robot in a roll direction (“The inclination detection unit 221 is provided on the torso 130 and detects an inclination of the torso with respect to the vertical line, i.e., rotating angles of three axes including pitch, roll and yaw axes, and angular velocities thereof” [0086]. Thus, the inclination of the torso, i.e., torso deflection posture parameter, is inclusive of a pitch and roll angular velocity and inclusive of a pitch and roll rotation angle.), and
calculating, using the swinging leg capture point algorithm, the calculated step length of the humanoid robot that meets the posture balance requirement of the robot at the current time based on the torso deflection posture parameter, the lower limb parameter, and the leg swing frequency (see rejection of claim 13) comprises:
calculating a first step length of the humanoid robot in the pitch direction that is relative to a horizontal plane by substituting each of the pitch angular velocity, the pitch angle, the leg swing frequency, and (As cited above, the step length is calculated by determining a reference pitch knot point. The reference pitch knot point takes into consideration the pitch angular velocity and pitch angle (inclination of the torso which determines CoM and associated rotating angles/velocities; see [0086] and [0089]), the leg swing frequency (“step time” which indicates the time it takes to complete a step, which as noted above corresponds directly to the measure of frequency), and a lower limb parameter (hip angle/velocity with implicit determination of leg length as described in rejection of claim 13 and additionally associated sole length as reexplained below; see [0028] and [0156]). All such calculations correspond to the compensation values as determined by the balance requirement, i.e., swinging leg capture point algorithm as rejected in claim 13.);…
However, Lee ‘182 does not explicitly teach …calculating a second step length of the humanoid robot in the roll direction that is relative to the horizontal plane by substituting each of the roll angular velocity, the roll angle, the leg swing frequency, and the leg length and a sole width included in the lower limb parameter into a second step length precise calculation equation, wherein the second step length precise calculation equation corresponds to the swinging leg capture point algorithm and meets the posture balance requirement.
Lee ‘182 only directly teaches the step length corresponding to a pitch rotating angle which determines the reference hip pitch knot point used to determine the landing point of the heel of the swinging leg in a pitch direction. However, given that such measurements and calculations for a reference hip roll knot point are described using the same variables as described above measured with respect to the roll plane/roll direction, one of ordinary skill in the art may reasonably determine that, although not explicitly stated, Lee ‘182 subsequently determines a second step length in the roll direction. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it necessary to determine both the step length in the pitch direction as well as the roll direction such that the balance requirement for pitch and roll compensation values may each be met. Evidence for such a remarks may be found in Fig. 15, wherein the amplitude indicative of a step length (see Paragraph [0028]) is adjusted for roll knot point compensation value.
Additionally, with regard to the sole length and sole width as part of the lower limb parameter, teachings of Lee ‘684 as described in the rejection of claim 13 determine a sole length and sole width based on a sole center of pressure to be obvious measures of a lower limb parameter as the inclusion of such measurements would determine a balanced landing point for the swing leg in both the roll and pitch directions such that the foot does not topple upon impact. The same such logic is applied to this rejection of claim 16 which relies upon the sole length and sole width in respective roll and pitch step length calculations.
Regarding claim 17, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the storage medium of claim 16…
However, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 does not explicitly teach … wherein the first step length precise calculation equation is represented as an equation of
∆
x
=
L
2
+
(
l
/
2
)
2
θ
˙
sin
θ
ω
and the second step length precise calculation equation is represented as an equation of
∆
y
=
L
2
+
(
d
/
2
)
2
γ
˙
sin
γ
ω
…
However, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 (pertinent reference for rejection will be designated in each citation below) teaches the variables … where Δx represents the first step length (Step length measured from the reference pitch knot point (Lee ‘182).), Δy represent the second step length (Step length measured from the reference roll knot point (Lee ‘182).), L represents the leg length of the humanoid robot(Leg length implicitly determined by the relation between an angular velocity and a walking velocity, or determined by a relation between a walking velocity and a frequency (Lee ‘182).), and ω represents the leg swing frequency of the humanoid robot (“step time” t converted to the frequency may be noted as ω (Lee ‘182).),
θ
˙
represents the pitch angular velocity (Pitch angular velocity measured by the inclination detection unit (Lee ‘182, [0086]).), θ represents the pitch angle (Pitch rotating angle measured by the inclination detection unit (Lee ‘182, [0086]).),
γ
˙
represents the roll angular velocity (Roll angular velocity measured by the inclination detection unit (Lee ‘182, [0086]).), γ represents the roll angle (Roll rotating angle measured by the inclination detection unit (Lee ‘182, [0086]).), l represents the sole length (Length component of the support base area as determined in the rejection of claim 16 (Lee ‘684).), and d represents the sole width (Width component of the support base area as determined in the rejection of claim 16 (Lee ‘684).).
Given that Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the variables, each of which is used for the purpose of calculating a step length (as cited above in the rejection of claim 16) it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculation for step length as taught by Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 to include the first and second step length precise calculation equations in determining a step length as disclosed by the Applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as design incentives may prompt variations in the equation which is used in the field of endeavor (determining step lengths for humanoid robot control) with predictable results outcome from the above variations (see MPEP 2143.I(F)). Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 provides the same outcome for the applicable step length problem, using the same required variables, and as such this modification is a mere design choice which yields a predictable results for both inventions.
Regarding claim 18, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the storage medium of claim 13,
with Lee ‘182 further teaching wherein controlling the swinging leg among the legs of the humanoid robot at the current time to move based on the calculated step length (See rejection of claim 13.) comprises:
determining an expected position of a swinging leg among the two legs of the humanoid robot at the current time with the calculated step length (Reference pitch knot point and reference roll knot point are used to determine target pitch and roll knot points which are the target, i.e., expected, trajectories (inclusive of step length) at the current time when compensation values are considered [0038-0039].); and
controlling the swinging leg of the humanoid robot to move according to the expected position of the swinging leg (“a torque calculation unit to calculate torques tracking the target angle trajectories, and a control unit to output the torques to the hip joint unit to control the walking velocity of the robot” [0022]. Both the pitch and roll target angle trajectories are delivered to the torque calculation unit for controlling the swinging leg of the robot to move by output values from the control unit (see [0132-0133]).).
Regarding claim 4, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the method of claim 1,
with Lee ‘182 further teaching wherein the torso deflection posture parameter includes a pitch angle and a pitch angular velocity of a torso of the humanoid robot in a pitch direction and a roll angle and a roll angular velocity of the torso of the humanoid robot in a roll direction (“The inclination detection unit 221 is provided on the torso 130 and detects an inclination of the torso with respect to the vertical line, i.e., rotating angles of three axes including pitch, roll and yaw axes, and angular velocities thereof” [0086]. Thus, the inclination of the torso, i.e., torso deflection posture parameter, is inclusive of a pitch and roll angular velocity and inclusive of a pitch and roll rotation angle.), and
calculating, using the swinging leg capture point algorithm, the calculated step length of the humanoid robot that meets the posture balance requirement of the humanoid robot at the current time based on the torso deflection posture parameter, the lower limb parameter, and the leg swing frequency (see rejection of claim 1) comprises:
calculating a first step length of the humanoid robot in the pitch direction that is relative to a horizontal plane by substituting each of the pitch angular velocity, the pitch angle, the leg swing frequency, and the leg length and the sole length included in the lower limb parameter into a first step length precise calculation equation, wherein the first step length precise calculation equation corresponds to the swinging leg capture point algorithm and meets the posture balance requirement (As cited above, the step length is calculated by determining a reference pitch knot point. The reference pitch knot point takes into consideration the pitch angular velocity and pitch angle (inclination of the torso which determines CoM and associated rotating angles/velocities; see [0086] and [0089]), the leg swing frequency (“step time” which indicates the time it takes to complete a step, which as noted above corresponds directly to the measure of frequency), and a lower limb parameter (hip angle/velocity with implicit determination of leg length as described in rejection of claim 1 and additionally associated sole length as reexplained below; see [0028] and [0156]). All such calculations correspond to the compensation values as determined by the balance requirement, i.e., swinging leg capture point algorithm as rejected in claim 1.);…
However, Lee ‘182 does not explicitly teach …calculating a second step length of the humanoid robot in the roll direction that is relative to the horizontal plane by substituting each of the roll angular velocity, the roll angle, the leg swing frequency, and the leg length and the sole width included in the lower limb parameter into a second step length precise calculation equation, wherein the second step length precise calculation equation corresponds to the swinging leg capture point algorithm and meets the posture balance requirement.
Lee ‘182 only directly teaches the step length corresponding to a pitch rotating angle which determines the reference hip pitch knot point used to determine the landing point of the heel of the swinging leg in a pitch direction. However, given that such measurements and calculations for a reference hip roll knot point are described using the same variables as described above measured with respect to the roll plane/roll direction, one of ordinary skill in the art may reasonably determine that, although not explicitly stated, Lee ‘182 subsequently determines a second step length in the roll direction. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it necessary to determine both the step length in the pitch direction as well as the roll direction such that the balance requirement for pitch and roll compensation values may each be met. Evidence for such a remarks may be found in Fig. 15, wherein the amplitude indicative of a step length (see Paragraph [0028]) is adjusted for roll knot point compensation value.
Additionally, with regard to the sole length and sole width as part of the lower limb parameter, teachings of Lee ‘684 as described in the rejection of claim 1 determine a sole length and sole width based on a sole center of pressure to be obvious measures of a lower limb parameter as the inclusion of such measurements would determine a balanced landing point for the swing leg in both the roll and pitch directions such that the foot does not topple upon impact. The same such logic is applied to this rejection of claim 4 which relies upon the sole length and sole width in respective roll and pitch step length calculations.
Regarding claim 5, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the method of claim 4…
However, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 does not explicitly teach … wherein the first step length precise calculation equation is represented as an equation of
∆
x
=
L
2
+
(
l
/
2
)
2
θ
˙
sin
θ
ω
and the second step length precise calculation equation is represented as an equation of
∆
y
=
L
2
+
(
d
/
2
)
2
γ
˙
sin
γ
ω
…
However, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 (pertinent reference for rejection will be designated in each citation below) teaches the variables … where Δx represents the first step length (Step length measured from the reference pitch knot point (Lee ‘182).), Δy represent the second step length (Step length measured from the reference roll knot point (Lee ‘182).), L represents the leg length of the humanoid robot(Leg length implicitly determined by the relation between an angular velocity and a walking velocity, or determined by a relation between a walking velocity and a frequency (Lee ‘182).), and ω represents the leg swing frequency of the humanoid robot (“step time” t converted to the frequency may be noted as ω (Lee ‘182).),
θ
˙
represents the pitch angular velocity (Pitch angular velocity measured by the inclination detection unit (Lee ‘182, [0086]).), θ represents the pitch angle (Pitch rotating angle measured by the inclination detection unit (Lee ‘182, [0086]).),
γ
˙
represents the roll angular velocity (Roll angular velocity measured by the inclination detection unit (Lee ‘182, [0086]).), γ represents the roll angle (Roll rotating angle measured by the inclination detection unit (Lee ‘182, [0086]).), l represents the sole length (Length component of the support base area as determined in the rejection of claim 4 (Lee ‘684).), and d represents the sole width (Width component of the support base area as determined in the rejection of claim 4 (Lee ‘684).).
Given that Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the variables, each of which is used for the purpose of calculating a step length (as cited above in the rejection of claim 4) it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculation for step length as taught by Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 to include the first and second step length precise calculation equations in determining a step length as disclosed by the Applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as design incentives may prompt variations in the equation which is used in the field of endeavor (determining step lengths for humanoid robot control) with predictable results outcome from the above variations (see MPEP 2143.I(F)). Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 provides the same outcome for the applicable step length problem, using the same required variables, and as such this modification is a mere design choice which yields a predictable results for both inventions.
Regarding claim 20, Lee ‘182 as modified by Lee ‘684 teaches the method of claim 1,
However, Lee ‘182 as currently modified does not explicitly teach …wherein detecting whether the humanoid robot is in the balanced state at the current time, based on the motion state of the humanoid robot obtained through the sensors installed on the humanoid robot comprises:
in response to a posture angle of the humanoid robot being obtained through the posture sensor, comparing the obtained posture angle with a preset posture angle threshold, and when the posture angle is larger than or equal to the preset posture angle threshold, determining that the humanoid robot not in the balanced state at the current time; and
in response to a force acting on the humanoid robot being detected through the force sensor, comparing the detected force with a preset force threshold, and when the detected force is larger than or equal to the preset force threshold, determining that the humanoid robot is not in the balanced state.
As will be described below, Lee ‘684 further teaches …wherein detecting whether the humanoid robot is in the balanced state at the current time, based on the motion state of the humanoid robot obtained through the sensors installed on the humanoid robot comprises:
in response to a posture angle of the humanoid robot being obtained through the posture sensor, comparing the obtained posture angle with a preset posture angle threshold, and when the posture angle is larger than or equal to the preset posture angle threshold, determining that the humanoid robot not in the balanced state at the current time; and
in response to a force acting on the humanoid robot being detected through the force sensor, comparing the detected force with a preset force threshold, and when the detected force is larger than or equal to the preset force threshold, determining that the humanoid robot is not in the balanced state.
Lee ‘684 teaches finding “admissible motions” which are optimally close to desired motions, while at the same time remaining within physical limitations of the robot (see [0035]). In determining admissible motions, Lee ‘684 further determines admissible (desired) GRF acting on the foot and the center of pressure (CoP) acting on the foot (see [0044]). Measurements for GRF and CoP are a result of force sensors installed on the feet (see [0047]) and additionally the robot’s posture, inclusive of posture angle, is measured by a gyroscope (see [0058]). Paragraph [0092] describes balance control in a way which would indicate threshold parameters for force and posture which are indicative of the robot not being balanced. In the first example, the push magnitude is small, which indicates an admissible GRF and CoP which determines that the robot is balanced. That is, the robot may maintain the desired posture which is already determined based on the desired momentum to be achieved through said posture requirement, as the force threshold acting on the feet has not been exceeded in this instance. In the second example, the perturbation as a result of the push is larger, which determines the GRF and CoP are inadmissible as the force exceeds a given threshold according to the physical limitations of the robot’s balance requirement. It is further described that the balance controller preserves the balance of the robot by adjusting the posture to an admissible range such that the robot maintains balance.
As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, that despite not having the explicit language addressed in the claim, the robot of Lee ‘684 determines admissible motions that rely on perturbations being smaller than a desired threshold limited by the robot’s measured posture and the robot’s measured force acting on the foot.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the balanced walking control of Lee ‘182 to include the admissible motion requirements of Lee ‘684 with a reasonable expectation of success. Similar to the rationale for combining the teachings of Lee ‘684 in the rejection of claim 1, one would be motivated to make such a modification such that the robot may adjust its motion so that the robot does not topple over due to unexpected perturbations during a stepping motion (Lee ‘684, [0060]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 8 A.M. to 3 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656