DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, line 2 recites the limitation “a propulsion device attached to the body unit”, however, claim 1, lines 6 – 7 which positively recites “at least one propulsion device of the plurality of propulsion device to the body unit”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "three or more of the leg units" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (JP 2006297554 A) in view of Takakura (JP 2008178953 A) and Hoshide (US 2021/0047035 A1).
For claim 1, Takakura ‘554 discloses a walking robot 10 equipped with an arm unit 4 connected to a body unit 2 via a shoulder joint actuator 31, 32 and a leg unit 6 connected to the body unit via a hip joint actuator 51, comprising:
a plurality of propulsion devices 7 [that are attached to the robot] (pages 34 and 35, paragraph [0035]) and [apply thrust to the robot] (page 39, paragraph [0040]);
a movable device 33 [that movably attaches at least one propulsion device of the plurality of propulsion devices to the body unit] (page 30, paragraph [0032]); but does not explicitly disclose
a control device that controls respective operations of the shoulder joint actuator, the hip joint actuator, the plurality of propulsion devices, and the movable device,
wherein the control device performs posture control of changing a posture of the propulsion device attached to the body unit from a posture during walking by controlling the movable device during propulsion that is moving using the propulsion device and performs direction control of the leg unit such that an extending direction of the leg unit during propulsion is opposite to a forward direction by controlling the hip joint actuator.
Takakura ‘953 discloses bipedal walking robot comprising a ducted fan 7 suspended from a horizontal member 13 via a ball joint 95] (page 28, paragraph [0032]), and [the ducted fan is rotated by a predetermined angle in an X1 direction] (pages 28 and 29, paragraph [0033]); but does not explicitly disclose wherein the control device performs posture control of changing a posture of the propulsion device attached to the body unit from a posture during walking by controlling the movable device during propulsion that is moving using the propulsion device and performs direction control of the leg unit such that an extending direction of the leg unit during propulsion is opposite to a forward direction by controlling the hip joint actuator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the horizontal member and ball joint of Takakura ‘953 with the rear propulsion device of Takakura ‘554 with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved overall stable floating and movement, thus improving overall traversal of the robot.
Hoshide discloses a flying robot comprising a plurality of propulsion units 23; a control device 200; [in the case of the body unit of the flying robot 1 to move forward, backward, left or right, a flight control unit 210 decreases a number of rotations of actuators 22 of propulsion units 23 in a travel direction and increases the number of rotations of actuators 22 of propulsion units 23 on a side opposite to the travel direction, and, thereby, the body unit of the flying robot is in a posture of leaning forward relative to the travel direction] (page 3, paragraph [0037]); and [a posture control unit 211 is a functional unit that executes posture control to maintain the posture of the flying robot when the flying robot is performing walking work, which is predetermined work, by a walking control unit 310] (page 3, paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the controller and walking and flying controls of Hoshide with the propulsion devices of Yakakura ‘554 modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for independently controlling the propulsion devices and automatic control of the overall robot, thus providing for optimized utilization and reduced error.
For claim 3, Takakura ’554 modified as above discloses the robot [wherein the control device controls the shoulder joint actuator] (in view of the combination above, via a control device of Hoshide) [to cause the arm unit to perform movement imitating movement of a wing] (page 30, paragraph [0032]).
For claim 7, Takakura ‘554 discloses a robot propulsion method for a walking robot 10 equipped with an arm unit 4 connected to a body unit 2 via a shoulder joint actuator 31, 32 and a leg unit 6 connected to the body unit via a hip joint actuator 51, including a plurality of propulsion devices 7 [that are attached to the robot] (pages 34 and 35, paragraph [0035]) and [apply thrust to the robot] (page 39, paragraph [0040]); a movable device 33 [that movably attaches at least one propulsion device of the plurality of propulsion devices to the body unit] (page 30, paragraph [0032]); but does not explicitly disclose
a control device that controls respective operations of the shoulder joint actuator, the hip joint actuator, the plurality of propulsion devices, and the movable device,
wherein the control device performs posture control of changing a posture of the propulsion device attached to the body unit from a posture during walking by controlling the movable device during propulsion that is moving using the propulsion device and
performs direction control of the leg unit such that an extending direction of the leg unit during propulsion is opposite to a forward direction by controlling the hip joint actuator.
Takakura ‘953 discloses bipedal walking robot comprising a ducted fan 7 suspended from a horizontal member 13 via a ball joint 95] (page 28, paragraph [0032]), and [the ducted fan is rotated by a predetermined angle in an X1 direction] (pages 28 and 29, paragraph [0033]); but does not explicitly disclose wherein the control device performs posture control of changing a posture of the propulsion device attached to the body unit from a posture during walking by controlling the movable device during propulsion that is moving using the propulsion device and performs direction control of the leg unit such that an extending direction of the leg unit during propulsion is opposite to a forward direction by controlling the hip joint actuator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the horizontal member and ball joint of Takakura ‘953 with the rear propulsion device of Takakura ‘554 with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved overall stable floating and movement, thus improving overall traversal of the robot.
Hoshide discloses a flying robot comprising a plurality of propulsion units 23; a control device 200; [in the case of the body unit of the flying robot 1 to move forward, backward, left or right, a flight control unit 210 decreases a number of rotations of actuators 22 of propulsion units 23 in a travel direction and increases the number of rotations of actuators 22 of propulsion units 23 on a side opposite to the travel direction, and, thereby, the body unit of the flying robot is in a posture of leaning forward relative to the travel direction] (page 3, paragraph [0037]); and [a posture control unit 211 is a functional unit that executes posture control to maintain the posture of the flying robot when the flying robot is performing walking work, which is predetermined work, by a walking control unit 310] (page 3, paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the controller and walking and flying controls of Hoshide with the propulsion devices of Yakakura ‘554 modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for independently controlling the propulsion devices and automatic control of the overall robot, thus providing for optimized utilization and reduced error.
Claim 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (JP 2006297554 A) in view of Takakura (JP 2008178953 A) and Hoshide (US 2021/0047035 A1), and further in view of Huang (CN 115016252 A).
For claim 2, Takakura ‘554 modified as above does not explicitly disclose the robot [wherein the plurality of propulsion devices includes a propulsion device 7 attached to the body unit via the movable device] (page 30, paragraph [0032]); but does not explicitly disclose a propulsion device incorporated into the leg unit.
Huang discloses a robot comprising a lower leg assembly 5 and a foot assembly 7; and a third duct fan 821 located on the foot assembly] (page 57, paragraph [n0112]), and [wherein a portion of the third duct fan extends into the lower leg assembly] (figs. 5 and 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the fan of Huang with the robot of Takakura ‘554 modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved overall stability of the robot when traversing over terrain, thus reducing unwanted tipping over of the robot.
For claim 6, Takakura ‘554 modified as above does not explicitly disclose the robot
[wherein three or more of the leg units are provided] (pages 2 and 3, paragraph [0029] of Hoshide), but does not explicitly disclose the propulsion device is incorporated in each of the leg units.
Huang discloses a robot comprising a lower leg assembly 5 and a foot assembly 7; and a third duct fan 821 located on the foot assembly] (page, paragraph [n0112]), and [wherein a portion of the third duct fan extends into the lower leg assembly] (figs. 5 and 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the fan of Huang with the robot of Takakura ‘554 modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved overall stability of the robot when traversing over terrain, thus reducing unwanted tipping over of the robot.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (JP 2006297554 A) in view of Takakura (JP 2008178953 A) and Hoshide (US 2021/0047035 A1), and further in view of 신경철 et al. (KR 100572684 B1).
For claim 4, Takakura ‘554 modified as above discloses the robot wherein a blade is further connected to the body unit.
신경철 et al. discloses a robot comprising a blade (element 30 extending rearward) connected to a body unit] (fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the blades of 신경철 et al. with the robot of Takakura ‘554 modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the robot to be aerodynamic, thus improving overall handling and stability during flight.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (JP 2006297554 A) in view of Takakura (JP 2008178953 A) and Hoshide (US 2021/0047035 A1), and further in view of Jung (US 2020/0376661 A1).
For claim 5, Takakura ‘554 discloses the robot wherein the propulsion device is provided with a thruster for controlling a direction in a forward direction.
Jung discloses a robot body comprising [a device for implementing robot motions using propulsive force includes a thruster 200 that is provided to the robot body] (page 2, paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the propulsion thrusters of Jung with the robot of Takakura ‘554 modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for reduced overall vibration and noise, thus reducing overall replacement costs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN-105835038 – comprising a flight outer skeleton comprising a wing back frame; a lower outer bone substrate; and propeller assembly; and
CN-106005316 – comprising an underwater robot comprising a water spraying propeller connected to a calf shell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacob D. Knutson whose telephone number is (571)270-5576. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)-272-6265. 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.
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611