DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-12, 19, and 20 are amended. Claims 13-18 are original. This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 2/4/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/4/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 2/4/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the priority claim (presented on p. 8), the arguments and amendments are acceptable and the claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged and proper.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim interpretation under 112(f) (presented on p. 8), the remarks are acknowledged. Based on the amendments, the terms previously interpreted as invoking 112(f) have been removed and no longer invoke 112(f). However, based on further consideration additional terms have been identified which meet the three prong test and invoke 112(f) (see Claim Interpretation below and MPEP 2181) and no reasoned arguments have been provided regarding these terms.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 8-9), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 101 (presented on p. 9-10), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 10-11), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art of U.S. 11,274,930 B1 (Madhivanan et al.) and Publication JP2015080832A (Ogawa) as well as the previously relied upon prior art of US2021/0114620A1 (Yu et al.), NPL Publication “Real-Time Path Planning for Humanoid Robot” (Tong et al.), NPL Publication “A Floor and Obstacle Height Map for 3D Navigation of a Humanoid Robot” (Gutmann et al.), NPL Publication “Robust Rough-Terrain Locomotion with a Quadrupedal Robot” (Fankhauser et al.), US2018/0111261A1 (Asada et al.), and NPL Publication “Real-time step edge estimation using stereo images for biped robot” (Asatani et al.).
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under Double Patenting (presented on p. 11-12), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitations are:
(a) “a perception system” generating the map, in Claim 2,
(b) “a stair tracker” generating the stair model, in Claim 2.
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “system” or “tracker” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) specification ¶0043 states that the perception system performs processing in parallel with control system 170, i.e. corresponds to a second computer,
(b) specification ¶0053, 0058 states that the stair tracker is software processing sensor data, i.e. corresponds to a computer and algorithms.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are:
(c) the recitation of “step” in the Claims 1, 4, 16, 17, 19, and 20.
Examiner’s note: the term “step” in “no-step region” is not a placeholder for acts and therefore does not invoke 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1, 19, and 20, the limitation wherein obstacle or no-step region data of the stair model for a location in the environment disagrees with obstacle or no-step region data of the map for the location renders the claims indefinite. Based on the obstacle/no-step stated to be data “for a location,” it is not clear whether the limitation means that the disagreement is with regard to location data (e.g. the map and model identifying the same obstacle or region but the exact position being different), or alternatively whether “for a location” is merely reciting the case of a particular obstacle and the disagreement could be something else such as disagreement of obstacle size or height or no-step region surface type. Upon review of the disclosure for clarification, the specification (e.g. ¶0091) appears to only recite the disagreement being for existence of an obstacle, however it is not clear whether the claim language is intended to be broader than this (which does not appear to be supported by the disclosure as originally filed). The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the map and stair model disagreeing on whether an obstacle exists or not.
Claims 2, 3, and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-8, 10-12, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over patent U.S. 11,274,930 B1 (Madhivanan et al.) in view of Publication JP2015080832A (Ogawa) (English description relied upon for citations).
Regarding Claim 1, Madhivanan et al. discloses a method (see Figure 7, 31:34-67, functions of submap assessment module) comprising:
receiving, at a processor of a robot (see Figure 3, 14:30-41, and 15:20-32, implemented as processor and modules executed from memory), from a sensor of the robot, sensor data of an environment of the robot (see Figure 7, steps 702 and 706 first and second sensor data);
generating, by the processor, a map of at least one of an obstacle or a no-step region within the environment based on the sensor data (see Figure 7, step 704 first occupancy map based on the first sensor data from 702, and see 5:33-48 occupancy map indicates locations of one or more obstacles);
generating, by the processor, a stair model of at least one stair within the environment based on the sensor data (see Figure 7, step 708, determining submap representation, based on second sensor data from 706, and see 7:61-8:13, indicative of presence or absence of obstacles 108, which per 5:4-12 may include stair wells), wherein the stair model is separate from the map (see Figures 1 and 7, submap as different, updated subsection of overall occupancy map), wherein obstacle or no-step region data of the stair model for a location in the environment disagrees with obstacle or no-step region data of the map for the location in the environment (see 32:18-33:11, accuracy score based on variables Occ_to_Free and Free_to_Occ where cells have occupancy data which disagrees); and
controlling, by the processor, the robot to traverse a first portion of the environment based on the map (see Figure 7, 33:15-31 step 714 updating occupancy map based on first occupancy map from step 704 and 29:66-30:6 updated occupancy map used for autonomous navigation, or alternatively at 718 exploring, based on the previous step 704) and a second portion of the environment based on the stair model (see Figure 7, 33:15-31 step 714 updating occupancy map based on submap from step 708 and 29:66-30:6 updated occupancy map used for autonomous navigation, or alternatively at 718 exploring, based on the previous step 708, and see Figure 1, travel at any two cells or any two points along a trajectory being “first portion” and “second portion”).
Madhivanan et al. does not explicitly recite the robot being:
A legged robot.
However, Ogawa teaches a robot for traversal of environments being:
a legged robot (see Figures 1, 3, [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous mobile device and control technique of Madhivanan et al. to work with a legged robot as taught by Ogawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the flexibility of the system to apply to different robot types and improving interactions in environments with people (see Ogawa, [0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Madhivanan et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the map comprises:
generating the map using a perception system of the legged robot (see Figure 3, 14:30-36, for the case of “one or more” processors being more/plural), wherein generating the stair model comprises:
generating the stair model using a stair tracker of the legged robot (see Figure 7, 31:34-67, functions of submap assessment module, and 14:30-36, processor(s) executed the stored instructions).
Regarding Claim 3, Madhivanan et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the map and the stair model comprise different dimensional models of the environment (see Figure 1 submap and occupancy map being different 2D representations of environment).
Regarding Claim 4, Madhivanan et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the obstacle or no-step region data of the map for the location in the environment disagrees with the obstacle or no-step region data of the stair model for the location in the environment with regard to obstacle existence or no-step region existence (see 32:18-33:11, accuracy score based on variables Occ_to_Free and Free_to_Occ where cells have occupancy data which disagrees).
Regarding Claim 5, Madhivanan et al. discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining to override a portion of the stair model corresponding to the location in the environment with a portion of the map corresponding to the portion of location in the environment (see 33:21-31, at 716 discarding first submap data (i.e. overridden and occupancy map data is trusted instead)) based on a mode of the legged robot (see 9:5-8, map assessment module 138 (which per Figure 1 includes submap assessment module) may operate in online mode, and legged robot per the combination with Ogawa in the rejection of Claim 1, above).
Regarding Claim 6, Madhivanan et al. discloses wherein controlling the robot to traverse the second portion of the environment comprises:
controlling the legged robot to traverse the environment based on the stair model (see Figure 7, 33:15-31 step 714 updating occupancy map based on submap from step 708 and 29:66-30:6 updated occupancy map used for autonomous navigation), wherein each of the map and the stair model individually define the at least one stair (see 5:33-48 and 7:61-8:13, occupancy map and submap both with obstacles 108 which (5:4-12) may be stair wells and 32:51-55 for Occ_to_Occ both maps having occupied cell).
Madhivanan et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the legged robot to traverse the second portion of the environment comprises:
controlling the legged robot to traverse the at least one stair.
However, Ogawa teaches the robot as above, including:
controlling the legged robot to traverse the at least one stair (see Figure 3, [0033] e.g. move on ascending stairs).
The motivation to combine Madhivanan et al. and Ogawa was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Madhivanan et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the legged robot to traverse the second portion of the environment is further based on activation of a stair mode.
However, Ogawa teaches the robot as above, including:
wherein controlling the legged robot to traverse the second portion of the environment is further based on activation of a stair mode (see [0033, 0041] change to ascending stair gait generation method).
The motivation to combine Madhivanan et al. and Ogawa was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Madhivanan et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the environment is identified for traversal based on the map and the second portion of the environment is identified for traversal based on the stair model (see Figure 7, traversal in 714 or 718 based on both occupancy map from previous step 704 and submap from 708) using data associated with the legged robot (see Figure 1 and 31:64-67, performed by submap assessment module 144 on the robot, and legged robot per the combination with Ogawa in the rejection of Claim 1, above).
Regarding Claim 10, Madhivanan et al. discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
adding an indicator to the stair model based on additional sensor data (see 7:61-8:3, submap indicative of plural obstacles and 5:52-62, obstacles can be tagged with type (indicator). I.e. any second obstacle sensed is based on “additional sensor data” relative to a first obstacle),
wherein the sensor data and the additional sensor data indicate different features within the environment (see 7:61-8:3, plural obstacles),
wherein controlling the legged robot to traverse the second portion of the environment based on the stair model comprises controlling the legged robot to traverse the second portion of the environment based on the indicator (see (see Figure 7, 33:15-31 step 714 updating occupancy map based on submap from step 708 and 29:66-30:6 updated occupancy map used for autonomous navigation, i.e. based on submap including indicator).
Regarding Claim 11, Madhivanan et al. discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
adding an indicator to the stair model based on the map(see 7:61-8:3, submap indicative of plural obstacles and 5:52-62, obstacles can be tagged with type (indicator), and see Figure 7, stair model in 708 based on map from 704),
wherein controlling the legged robot to traverse the second portion of the environment based on the stair model comprises controlling the legged robot to traverse the second portion of the environment based on the indicator (see (see Figure 7, 33:15-31 step 714 updating occupancy map based on submap from step 708 and 29:66-30:6 updated occupancy map used for autonomous navigation, i.e. based on submap including indicator).
Regarding Claim 12, Madhivanan et al. discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
merging the stair model and the map to generate a merged map (see Figure 7, and 33:15-20, step 714 merge to generate updated occupancy map),
wherein controlling the legged robot to traverse the second portion of the environment based on the stair model comprises controlling the legged robot to traverse the second portion of the environment based on the merged map (see 29:66-30:6 updated occupancy map used for autonomous navigation).
Regarding Claim 15, Madhivanan et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the map identifies the obstacle, wherein the obstacle comprises an object (see 5:36-40, e.g. table).
Regarding Claim 19, Madhivanan et al. discloses a robot (see Figure 1, autonomous mobile device 104, which per 1:62 is a robot) comprising:
a body (see 16:17, chassis);
a sensor coupled to the body (see Figures 1, 4, 5:13-24, sensor(s) 110);;
a control system comprising a processor and memory hardware in communication with the processor, the memory hardware storing instructions, wherein execution of the instructions by the processor causes the processor to (see Figure 3, 14:30-41, and 15:20-32, implemented as processor and modules executed from memory):
receive, from the sensor, sensor data of the environment (see Figure 7, steps 702 and 706 first and second sensor data);
generate a map of at least one of an obstacle or a no-step region within the environment based on the sensor data (see Figure 7, step 704 first occupancy map based on the first sensor data from 702, and see 5:33-48 occupancy map indicates locations of one or more obstacles);
generate a stair model of at least one stair within the environment based on the sensor data (see Figure 7, step 708, determining submap representation, based on second sensor data from 706, and see 7:61-8:13, indicative of presence or absence of obstacles 108, which per 5:4-12 may include stair wells), wherein the stair model is separate from the map (see Figures 1 and 7, submap as different, updated subsection of overall occupancy map), wherein obstacle or no-step region data of the stair model for a location in the environment disagrees with obstacle or no-step region data of the map for the location in the environment (see 32:18-33:11, accuracy score based on variables Occ_to_Free and Free_to_Occ where cells have occupancy data which disagrees);
and control the legged robot to traverse a first portion of the environment based on the map (see Figure 7, 33:15-31 step 714 updating occupancy map based on first occupancy map from step 704 and 29:66-30:6 updated occupancy map used for autonomous navigation, or alternatively at 718 exploring, based on the previous step 704) and a second portion of the environment based on the stair model (see Figure 7, 33:15-31 step 714 updating occupancy map based on submap from step 708 and 29:66-30:6 updated occupancy map used for autonomous navigation, or alternatively at 718 exploring, based on the previous step 708, and see Figure 1, travel at any two cells or any two points along a trajectory being “first portion” and “second portion”).
Madhivanan et al. does not explicitly recite:
a legged robot, comprising
two or more legs coupled to the body and configured to traverse an environment of the legged robot.
However, Ogawa teaches a robot for traversal of environments being:
a legged robot (see Figures 1, 3, [0007]), comprising
two or more legs coupled to the body and configured to traverse an environment of the legged robot (see Figures 1, 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous mobile device and control technique of Madhivanan et al. to work with a legged robot as taught by Ogawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the flexibility of the system to apply to different robot types and improving interactions in environments with people (see Ogawa, [0005]).
Regarding Claim 20: the limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over patent U.S. 11,274,930 B1 (Madhivanan et al.) in view of Publication JP2015080832A (Ogawa) (English description relied upon for citations), further in view of Published Application US2021/0114620A1 (Yu et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Madhivanan et al. discloses controlling the legged robot to traverse the first and second portion based on the map and stair model (see the mapping of Claim 1, above), and further discloses different types of obstacles (see 5:4-13, static and dynamic).
Madhivanan et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the legged robot to traverse the first portion of the environment based on the map comprises controlling the legged robot to traverse the first portion of the environment according to a first manner of obstacle avoidance, and wherein controlling the legged robot to traverse the second portion of the environment based on the stair model comprises controlling the legged robot to traverse the second portion of the environment according to a second manner of obstacle avoidance.
However, Yu et al. teaches a technique of obstacle avoidance, wherein controlling a robot to traverse an environment comprises:
controlling the robot to traverse according to a first manner of obstacle avoidance, and wherein controlling the robot comprises controlling the robot to traverse according to a second manner of obstacle avoidance (see [0053], obstacle without moving characteristics has a move around avoidance, while moving obstacle uses trajectory comparison).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the first manner of obstacle avoidance of Yu et al. in the first portion disclosed in Madhivanan et al., and second manner of obstacle avoidance of Yu et al. in the second portion, disclosed in Madhivanan et al., because there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e. limited combinations of how to apply two types of obstacle avoidance to two different areas), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued such solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing improved adaptability to various obstacles and situations and improving safety (see Yu et al. [0003, 0053]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over patent U.S. 11,274,930 B1 (Madhivanan et al.) in view of Publication JP2015080832A (Ogawa) (English description relied upon for citations), further in view of NPL Publication “Real-Time Path Planning for Humanoid Robot” (Tong et al.).
Regarding Claim 13, Madhivanan et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein the map identifies the obstacle, wherein the obstacle comprises a wall of the at least one stair.
However, Tong et al. teaches a technique to identify obstacles,
wherein the map identifies the obstacle, wherein the obstacle comprises a wall of the at least one stair (see p. 693 map with obstacles, and see Figures, 3A and 3D, occupancy grid showing obstacle for vertical surfaces next to stairs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the map and/or model of Madhivanan et al. to have obstacles such as those taught by Tong et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the method to apply to various robots while traveling efficiently (see Tong et al. Abstract, Section I.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over patent U.S. 11,274,930 B1 (Madhivanan et al.) in view of Publication JP2015080832A (Ogawa) (English description relied upon for citations), further in view of NPL Publication “A Floor and Obstacle Height Map for 3D Navigation of a Humanoid Robot” (Gutmann et al. – on IDS filed with instant application 8/30/2024 and copy in file wrapper of 16/877,749 filed 10/31/2022).
Regarding Claim 14, Madhivanan et al. discloses wherein the map identifies the obstacle (see 5:33-48 occupancy map indicates locations of one or more obstacles).
Madhivanan et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein the obstacle comprises an obstacle on the at least one stair.
However, Gutmann et al. teaches a method for a robot (see Abstract),
wherein the obstacle comprises an obstacle on the at least one stair. (see Figure 3, p. 1069, obstacle intersecting with stair).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the map of Madhivanan et al. to include obstacles as taught by Gutmann et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving accuracy of obstacles and travel by accurately representing the real world (see Gutmann et al., Section V).
Claim 1 (in the alternative) and Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over patent U.S. 11,274,930 B1 (Madhivanan et al.) in view of NPL Publication “Robust Rough-Terrain Locomotion with a Quadrupedal Robot” (Fankhauser et al. – on IDS filed with instant application 8/30/2024 and copy in file wrapper of 16/877,749, filed 2/1/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Madhivanan et al. discloses a method (see Figure 7, 31:34-67, functions of submap assessment module) comprising:
receiving, at a processor of a robot (see Figure 3, 14:30-41, and 15:20-32, implemented as processor and modules executed from memory), from a sensor of the robot, sensor data of an environment of the robot (see Figure 7, steps 702 and 706 first and second sensor data);
generating, by the processor, a map of at least one of an obstacle or a no-step region within the environment based on the sensor data (see Figure 7, step 704 first occupancy map based on the first sensor data from 702, and see 5:33-48 occupancy map indicates locations of one or more obstacles);
generating, by the processor, a stair model of at least one stair within the environment based on the sensor data (see Figure 7, step 708, determining submap representation, based on second sensor data from 706, and see 7:61-8:13, indicative of presence or absence of obstacles 108, which per 5:4-12 may include stair wells), wherein the stair model is separate from the map (see Figures 1 and 7, submap as different, updated subsection of overall occupancy map), wherein obstacle or no-step region data of the stair model for a location in the environment disagrees with obstacle or no-step region data of the map for the location in the environment (see 32:18-33:11, accuracy score based on variables Occ_to_Free and Free_to_Occ where cells have occupancy data which disagrees); and
controlling, by the processor, the robot to traverse a first portion of the environment based on the map (see Figure 7, 33:15-31 step 714 updating occupancy map based on first occupancy map from step 704 and 29:66-30:6 updated occupancy map used for autonomous navigation, or alternatively at 718 exploring, based on the previous step 704) and a second portion of the environment based on the stair model (see Figure 7, 33:15-31 step 714 updating occupancy map based on submap from step 708 and 29:66-30:6 updated occupancy map used for autonomous navigation, or alternatively at 718 exploring, based on the previous step 708, and see Figure 1, travel at any two cells or any two points along a trajectory being “first portion” and “second portion”).
Madhivanan et al. does not explicitly recite the robot being:
A legged robot.
However, Fankhauser et al. teaches a robot for traversal of environments being:
a legged robot (see Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous mobile device and control technique of Madhivanan et al. to work with a legged robot as taught by Fankhauser, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the flexibility of the system to apply to different robot types and enabling the climbing over significant obstacles while ensuring stability (see Fankhauser, Abstract, Section VI).
Regarding Claim 16, Madhivanan et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein the map identifies the no-step region, wherein the no-step region comprises an area of the environment.
However, Fankhauser et al. teaches the robot as above,
wherein the map identifies the no-step region, wherein the no-step region comprises an area of the environment (see p. 5763, Figure 3, invalid foothold regions).
The motivation to combine Madhivanan et al. and Fankhauser et al. was provided above in the alternative rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 1 (in the alternative) and Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over patent U.S. 11,274,930 B1 (Madhivanan et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0111261A1 (Asada et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Madhivanan et al. discloses a method (see Figure 7, 31:34-67, functions of submap assessment module) comprising:
receiving, at a processor of a robot (see Figure 3, 14:30-41, and 15:20-32, implemented as processor and modules executed from memory), from a sensor of the robot, sensor data of an environment of the robot (see Figure 7, steps 702 and 706 first and second sensor data);
generating, by the processor, a map of at least one of an obstacle or a no-step region within the environment based on the sensor data (see Figure 7, step 704 first occupancy map based on the first sensor data from 702, and see 5:33-48 occupancy map indicates locations of one or more obstacles);
generating, by the processor, a stair model of at least one stair within the environment based on the sensor data (see Figure 7, step 708, determining submap representation, based on second sensor data from 706, and see 7:61-8:13, indicative of presence or absence of obstacles 108, which per 5:4-12 may include stair wells), wherein the stair model is separate from the map (see Figures 1 and 7, submap as different, updated subsection of overall occupancy map), wherein obstacle or no-step region data of the stair model for a location in the environment disagrees with obstacle or no-step region data of the map for the location in the environment (see 32:18-33:11, accuracy score based on variables Occ_to_Free and Free_to_Occ where cells have occupancy data which disagrees); and
controlling, by the processor, the robot to traverse a first portion of the environment based on the map (see Figure 7, 33:15-31 step 714 updating occupancy map based on first occupancy map from step 704 and 29:66-30:6 updated occupancy map used for autonomous navigation, or alternatively at 718 exploring, based on the previous step 704) and a second portion of the environment based on the stair model (see Figure 7, 33:15-31 step 714 updating occupancy map based on submap from step 708 and 29:66-30:6 updated occupancy map used for autonomous navigation, or alternatively at 718 exploring, based on the previous step 708, and see Figure 1, travel at any two cells or any two points along a trajectory being “first portion” and “second portion”).
Madhivanan et al. does not explicitly recite the robot being:
A legged robot.
However, Asada et al. teaches a robot for traversal of environments being:
a legged robot (see Figure 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous mobile device and control technique of Madhivanan et al. to work with a legged robot as taught by Fankhauser, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the flexibility of the system to apply to different robot types improving safety and reliability (see Asada et al., [0021]).
Regarding Claim 17, Madhivanan et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein the map identifies the no-step region, wherein the no-step region comprises an edge of the at least one stair.
However, Asada et al. teaches the robot as above,
wherein the map identifies the no-step region, wherein the no-step region comprises an edge of the at least one stair (see [0021] edge of a staircase as unsafe place to step).
The motivation to combine Madhivanan et al. and Asada et al. was provided above in the alternative rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 1 (in the alternative) and Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over patent U.S. 11,274,930 B1 (Madhivanan et al.) in view of NPL Publication “Real-time step edge estimation using stereo images for biped robot” (Asatani et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Madhivanan et al. discloses a method (see Figure 7, 31:34-67, functions of submap assessment module) comprising:
receiving, at a processor of a robot (see Figure 3, 14:30-41, and 15:20-32, implemented as processor and modules executed from memory), from a sensor of the robot, sensor data of an environment of the robot (see Figure 7, steps 702 and 706 first and second sensor data);
generating, by the processor, a map of at least one of an obstacle or a no-step region within the environment based on the sensor data (see Figure 7, step 704 first occupancy map based on the first sensor data from 702, and see 5:33-48 occupancy map indicates locations of one or more obstacles);
generating, by the processor, a stair model of at least one stair within the environment based on the sensor data (see Figure 7, step 708, determining submap representation, based on second sensor data from 706, and see 7:61-8:13, indicative of presence or absence of obstacles 108, which per 5:4-12 may include stair wells), wherein the stair model is separate from the map (see Figures 1 and 7, submap as different, updated subsection of overall occupancy map), wherein obstacle or no-step region data of the stair model for a location in the environment disagrees with obstacle or no-step region data of the map for the location in the environment (see 32:18-33:11, accuracy score based on variables Occ_to_Free and Free_to_Occ where cells have occupancy data which disagrees); and
controlling, by the processor, the robot to traverse a first portion of the environment based on the map (see Figure 7, 33:15-31 step 714 updating occupancy map based on first occupancy map from step 704 and 29:66-30:6 updated occupancy map used for autonomous navigation, or alternatively at 718 exploring, based on the previous step 704) and a second portion of the environment based on the stair model (see Figure 7, 33:15-31 step 714 updating occupancy map based on submap from step 708 and 29:66-30:6 updated occupancy map used for autonomous navigation, or alternatively at 718 exploring, based on the previous step 708, and see Figure 1, travel at any two cells or any two points along a trajectory being “first portion” and “second portion”).
Madhivanan et al. does not explicitly recite the robot being:
A legged robot.
However, Asatani et al. teaches a robot for traversal of environments being:
a legged robot (see Figure 8, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous mobile device and control technique of Madhivanan et al. to work with a legged robot as taught by Fankhauser, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the flexibility of the system to apply to different robot types and improving stair navigation (see Asatani et al., Abstract).
Regarding Claim 18, Madhivanan et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein generating the stair model comprises:
generating a first stair model of the at least one stair corresponding to ascent of the at least one stair; and
generating a second stair model of the at least one stair corresponding to descent of the at least one stair, wherein the stair model comprises the first stair model or the second stair model.
However, Asatani et al. teaches a method for a robot (see e.g. Abstract),
wherein generating the stair model comprises:
generating a first stair model of the at least one stair corresponding to ascent of the at least one stair (see p. 4465, Figure 4(b), upward case with riser modeled); and
generating a second stair model of the at least one stair corresponding to descent of the at least one stair (see p. 4465, Figure 4(a), downward case without riser), wherein the stair model comprises the first stair model or the second stair model (see Section IV, modeling both upward and downward case).
The motivation to combine Madhivanan et al. and Asatani et al. was provided above in the alternative rejection of Claim 1.
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 Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights