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 action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 07/20/2026. Claim(s) 1, 5, and 10 have been amended. Claim(s) 3-4, 6-9, 11-14, 18, 22, and 25 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 26 have been added. Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 10, 15-17, 19-21, 23-24, and 26 are pending examination. Objections to claim 25 have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. Rejection to claim(s) 25 over the 35 USC 101 rejection has been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 26 is improper. Accordingly the independent claim and all of its dependents are allowable.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Looking at the amended limitations of the independent claims challenged by the applicant, the examiner finds them to be unpersuasive. Looking at the applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claim 1 and new claim 26, the examiner is not convinced that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art is more than a matter design choice. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards the operation of the leg of the robot. The leg operates like a pogo-stick in that the robot lands on it, compresses it, and bounces off of it; like you would a pogo-stick. The placement of the hooks, leg parts, elastic members, etc. all perform the same function, whether it is the spring system of the prior art or the elastic member as claimed. Therefore, in light of the art the examiner would find the claims as obvious using the cited prior art and the court’s findings, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The claimed invention is taking the parts taught in the prior art and rearranging them in a different configuration, again the placement of hooks, leg elements, elastic members, etc.; but at the end of the day, the functionality of the cited art is preserved and the claims do not appear to be patentably distinct from the prior art. Accordingly the 35 USC 103 rejection will remain. Please see the section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103,” for further detailed mapping and explanation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (“PogoDrone: Design, Model, and Control of a Jumping Quadrotor”) in view of Brown Jr., (US Pat. 7,270,589) Pan Jiwen, (CN212406177U) and Zeglin ("Uniroo: A One Legged Dynamic Hopping Robot").
Regarding claim 1, Zhu teaches a robot, comprising: an aerial unit; (Page 2032, “II Design” section a; describes the system having an aerial quadrotor system)
a passive leg mechanism operably coupled with the aerial unit, (Page 2032, “II Design” section b; describes a passive leg attached to the aerial unit. ) comprising:
an upper leg section, fixed to the aerial unit and comprising a plurality of upper leg rods, a first connector, and a second connector; wherein the plurality of upper leg rods are rigidly mounted below the aerial unit and extend in a vertical direction; the first connector and the second connector are respectively fixed to the plurality of upper leg rods, and the first connector and the second connector are arranged spaced apart in the vertical direction, with the first connector located between the aerial unit and the second connector; (Page 2032, Fig. 2 and “II. Design” section b; teach the leg being a single leg with a telescopic motion arrangement. Looking at the diagram of the drone in Zhu, Page 2032, it shows a T-Shaft, this is analogous to an upper leg element. This element is rigidly connected to the aerial base. It has multiple rods connected together to perform the function of the upper leg section. This upper leg is connected in the vertical direction of the drone and has multiple connectors to the aerial body. The differences between Zhu and the claimed art are merely design choices, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); therefore the examiner finds the elements of the claim as a mere rearrangement of parts. The T-shaft and the claimed elements perform the same function and there is no reason to pick one over the other, except for design choice.)
a lower leg section, extending in the vertical direction and movably connected to the upper leg section via the first connector and the second connector; (Page 2032, Fig. 2 and “II. Design” section b; teach the leg being a single leg with a telescopic motion arrangement. Looking the diagram on page 2032, there is a plunger, which is connected vertically to the t-shaft, upper section, the plunger is movable vertically. They are connected to each other via connection elements)
an elastic mechanism, operably coupled between the upper leg section and the lower leg section and comprising one or more elastic elements; wherein the one or more elastic elements are mounted between the upper leg section and the lower leg section, enabling the one or more elastic elements to be (Page 2032, Fig 2 “Spring” and “II. Design” section b teach that the spring is mounted between the plunger and the T-shaft in order to be compressed on landing and able to provide an upward force on impact to overcome the weight of the robot. This is further on Page 2033 “IV. Control” where the discussion of the phases “Compression” and “Rebound” teach that the robot can use the spring force to overcome its weight for takeoff) and
and a controller configured to control operation of the aerial unit such that the robot is operable in, at least, a flight mode and a hopping mode. (Page 2-33, “IV. Control” teaches the system having a controller that is capable of controlling the robot such that it can have both a flight, “hover,” mode and a hopping, “bounce,” mode)
Zhu does not teach, a pre-stretched [elastic element]; one or more first guide wheel sets connected between the first connector and the lower leg section, and one or more second guide wheel sets connected between the second connector and the lower leg section to restrict motion of the lower leg section to vertical translation; and wherein the lower leg section comprises a first hook for supporting a portion of the elastic mechanism, and the second connector comprises a second hook for supporting another portion of the elastic mechanism; the first hook is located above the first connector and the second hook, the first hook is oriented upward in an open configuration, and the second hook is oriented downward in an open configuration.
However, Brown Jr. teaches “a pre-stretched [elastic element]” (Col. 4, lines 28-43, teach the design of the leg and it uses a preloaded elastic member. Col. 4, lines 33-36 recite, “a bow leg 20 that comprises a leaf spring of unidirectional fiberglass that becomes curved under the preload tension of the bow string 60.” The use of the leaf spring being put under tension would be analogous to the pre-stretching of an elastic element. Both impart an initial force onto an elastic element. Col. 18, lines 15-21; further teach the use of a second preloaded elastic element in the leg design. The use of a statically stretched part of the element is merely a rearrangement of parts, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The elastic element being pre-stretched is the same in both arts. With no differences in operation. )
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Zhu with Brown Jr.; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control and usage of hopping robots. As Col. 18, lines 15-21; further teach the use of the preloaded elements limits the tension in the spring to a nominal value and can be used to “minimize disturbance torques on the body during stance.” This limiting of bodily torque ensures a smooth flight as the robot hops around. Ensuring stability as the robot hops is vital to ensuring that the hopping can go on uninterrupted and that the robot can continue to operate at an optimal level.
The combination of Zhu and Brown does not teach one or more first guide wheel sets connected between the first connector and the lower leg section, and one or more second guide wheel sets connected between the second connector and the lower leg section to restrict motion of the lower leg section to vertical translation; and wherein the lower leg section comprises a first hook for supporting a portion of the elastic mechanism, and the second connector comprises a second hook for supporting another portion of the elastic mechanism; the first hook is located above the first connector and the second hook, the first hook is oriented upward in an open configuration, and the second hook is oriented downward in an open configuration.
However, Pan Jiwen teaches “one or more first guide wheel sets connected between the first connector and the lower leg section, and one or more second guide wheel sets connected between the second connector and the lower leg section to restrict motion of the lower leg section to vertical translation;” ([0044]-[0046] teaches a telescopic “arm,” i.e. leg, assembly that has a first arm 1 and a second arm 2, these are analogous to the upper and lower portions of the leg. The arms have a series of guiding mechanism 3 between the arms. These guiding mechanisms have a set of guide wheel sets 32. These guide wheel sets are used to promote movement control and smoothness of movement, i.e. friction and translation control)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Zhu and Brown Jr. with Pan Jiwen; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All make use of appendages, that are constructed of two sliding elements. These elements must brush past each other in translation motion. As Pan Jiwen teaches in [0044]-[0046] the use of guide wheels between the two elements prevents motion errors, i.e. sliding out of place, which would restrict the motion. The guide wheels also allow for “smooth” travel which would be an indication that friction has been cut down. Therefore the use of guide wheels would be advantageous to the design of two sliding elements as makes the motion better.
The combination of Zhu, Brown, and Pan Jiwen does not teach wherein the lower leg section comprises a first hook for supporting a portion of the elastic mechanism, and the second connector comprises a second hook for supporting another portion of the elastic mechanism; the first hook is located above the first connector and the second hook, the first hook is oriented upward in an open configuration, and the second hook is oriented downward in an open configuration.
However, Zeglin teaches “wherein the lower leg section comprises a first hook for supporting a portion of the elastic mechanism, and the second connector comprises a second hook for supporting another portion of the elastic mechanism; the first hook is located above the first connector and the second hook, the first hook is oriented upward in an open configuration, and the second hook is oriented downward in an open configuration.” (Fig. 2-1 shows hooks on an upper portion of a leg and a lower portion of the leg, for supporting an elastic member. The hooks are arranged to hold the elastic element at the optimal orientation and shape. The exact orientation of the hooks/location on the leg would be considered design choices. The hooks location and direction would be considered a rearrangement of parts, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The elastic element of the prior art and the claimed invention are both held in place by a hook shape and perform the same function. The exact orientation/location of the hook is incidental to the performance of the telescopic leg.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Zhu, Brown Jr., and Pan Jiwen with Zeglin; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the usage of an elastic member between an upper and lower leg portion to provide some form of kinetic energy. The usage of hooks to hold the spring in place would allow the spring to be anchored where it needs to be and to ensure that the spring does not move.
Regarding claim 2, Zhu teaches the robot of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control operation of the aerial unit such that the robot alternates between the flight mode and the hopping mode during operation. (Page 2033, Fig. 4 and “IV. Control” teach the robot controller configured to switch the robot between a bouncing and hovering mode, i.e. alternating between modes)
Regarding claim 5, Zhu teaches the robot of claim 1, wherein the lower leg portion has a square cross-section. (Figs. 2 and 3 show the robot hopping drone with a square leg shape)
Regarding claim 10, Zhu teaches the robot of claim 1, wherein the lower leg section comprises a foot for contacting ground or environment. (Page 2032, Fig. 2 and “II. Design” section b teaches a “Threaded Semi-Sphere Foot” that can be used for contacting the ground/environment)
Claim(s) 15-16, 20-21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin in view of Yim (“Precision Jumping Limits from Flight-phase Control in Salto-1P”), hereinafter Yim-1.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin teaches the robot of claim 1.
The combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin does not teach a stabilizer operable to interact with airflow to stabilize the robot.
However, Yim-1 teaches “a stabilizer operable to interact with airflow to stabilize the robot.” (Page 2232, “Physical Experiments” teaches that the robot has a series tail/rotor stabilizer in order to interact with the airflow of the jumping phase in order to ensure stability of the robot)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin with Yim-1; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hopping drones as they transition between a hopping and flight phase. As Yim teaches in the “Physical Experiments” section the use of the stabilizers ensures that the robot system is able to contact the ground at the desired angle. This is important in the bouncing steps as the landing angle directly impacts the takeoff angle.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin teaches the robot of claim 15.
The combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin does not teach wherein the stabilizer is configured to control a landing attitude and to stabilize hopping speed and attitude without external feedback or vision.
However, Yim-1 teaches “wherein the stabilizer is configured to control a landing attitude and to stabilize hopping speed and attitude without external feedback or vision.” (Page 2232, “Physical Experiments” teaches that the onboard microcontroller is able to control the stabilizer system in order to control the landing attitude)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin with Yim-1; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hopping drones as they transition between a hopping and flight phase. As Yim teaches in the “Physical Experiments” section the use of the stabilizers ensures that the robot system is able to contact the ground at the desired angle. The use of this system without external feedback ensures that no latency or lag errors prevent the appropriate landing.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin teaches the robot of claim 1.
The combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: predict a landing location and velocity of the robot for a current hopping cycle (k); determine a takeoff attitude and a takeoff velocity of the robot for the current hopping cycle (k) based on: the predicted landing location and velocity for the current hopping cycle (k), a pre-specified landing location, and a hopping altitude setpoint for a next hopping cycle (k+1); determine a desired landing attitude for the current hopping cycle (k) to realize the determined takeoff attitude and takeoff velocity of the robot for the current hopping cycle (k); control a landing location for the next hopping cycle (k+1) and stabilize the robot by regulating the landing attitude of the current hopping cycle (k).
However, Yim-1 teaches “wherein the controller is configured to: predict a landing location” (Fig. 4 “touchdown predictor; and Page 2232, “Physical Experiments” teaches that the system was able to use a controller to predict of foot placement “pl” while the robot is hopping) and “velocity of the robot for a current hopping cycle (k);” (Pages 2231-2232 “D. Velocity Planner” teaches that the system can determine the current velocity of the hopping cycle for both a touchdown and takeoff velocity) “determine a takeoff attitude and a takeoff velocity of the robot for the current hopping cycle (k)” (Pages 2231-2232 “D. Velocity Planner” teaches that the system can determine the current velocity of the hopping cycle for both a touchdown and takeoff velocity) “based on: the predicted landing location and velocity for the current hopping cycle (k),” (Page 2231, “C. Velocity Controller” teach that the system will monitor the current landing location and landing velocity in order to impact a takeoff scenario) “a pre-specified landing location, and a hopping altitude setpoint for a next hopping cycle (k+1);” (Page 2230, “A. Approach” teaches “The first part, a velocity planner, determines what takeoff velocity v⃗ t will take the robot from its upcoming foot placement pl and place its next foot placement pn on the desired foothold at pt. Since a family of ballistic parabolas pass through two points, the velocity planner has one free variable that it can set by selecting a parameter like vertical velocity at takeoff or apex height.” This would be understood to be teaching that the system has a next foot placement in mind and controls the altitude of the jump) “determine a desired landing attitude for the current hopping cycle (k) to realize the determined takeoff attitude and takeoff velocity of the robot for the current hopping cycle (k);” (Page 2230, “Approach” and Page 2231, “C. Velocity Controller,” teach that the system has parameters for takeoff and landing that it controls in order to maintain the next takeoff in the cycle. This includes landing angles to impact takeoff angles. Pages 2233-2234, “B. Foot Placement[…]Angle, teaches that the placement and angle of the current landing is deeply and keenly associated with the future of the hopping cycle) and “control a landing location for the next hopping cycle (k+1)” (Page 2232, “E. Physical Experiments” teaches the robot selecting the next foot placement in the series of determined placements) and “stabilize the robot by regulating the landing attitude of the current hopping cycle (k).” (Page 2232, “E. Physical Experiments” teaches that the system stabilizes the landing angle of the robot)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin with Yim-1; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hopping drones as they transition between a hopping and flight phase. Zhu uses a ballistic trajectory to determine the hopping. Yim-1 furthers this by using error detection and tracking to determine the next footfall of the robot, “Physical Experiments.” This would optimize the landing and prevent further errors form occurring as it hops. Additionally, Zhu uses a ballistic trajectory to determine the hopping. Yim-1 furthers this by using data collected to determine the optimal trajectory for the system to carry forward.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin teaches the robot of claim 20.
The combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: determine the landing location for the next hopping cycle (k+1) based on: a lateral component of the takeoff velocity and an amount of time the robot spends in an aerial phase; and the takeoff velocity is influenced by the landing attitude.
However, Yim-1 teaches “wherein the controller is configured to: determine the landing location for the next hopping cycle (k+1) based on: a lateral component of the takeoff velocity and an amount of time the robot spends in an aerial phase” (Page 2230 “Introduction” teaches that a foot placement of a device can be determined based on a horizontal, i.e. lateral, component of a takeoff velocity, and the time spent in flight; Pages 2231-2232 “Velocity Planner” further this by teaching that the desired flight time will be intertwined with a horizontal component of velocity and this is used to determine the next foot placement), and “the takeoff velocity is influenced by the landing attitude.” (Page 2234, “Foot placement sensitivity” teaches that the velocity of a takeoff is impacted by a lower limit of flight time because the less time in flight, the worse the landing attitude would be therefore the takeoff velocity must be sufficiently enough to ensure this does not occur)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin with Yim-1; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hopping drones as they transition between a hopping and flight phase. Knowing the next foot placement is vital for determining the current takeoff information. The usage of a lateral velocity is known in the use of ballistic motion as it is an essential component of how far the robot will travel. Yim-1’s usage of this in the “Velocity Planner” shows the need to understand how fast you will travel laterally. The takeoff velocity is a central component of the robot’s movement and the angle it comes from is vitally important as Yim-1 relays in the section related to “Foot Placement Errors” these errors are caused by bad landing angles and improper speeds. These errors compound and without knowing how to solve them will lead to the robot tipping or crashing.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin teaches the robot of claim 1.
The combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin does not teach wherein the controller is configured to predict a landing location of the robot in the hopping mode.
However, Yim 1 teaches “wherein the controller is configured to predict a landing location of the robot in the hopping mode.” (Page 2232, “Physical Experiments” teaches that the hopping system has a determined list of foot placements and each placement has a desired touchdown attitude, this attitude is used in order to ensure that the robot lands at the next predicted area, “Velocity Controller” and “Velocity Planner” further teach the need to determination of a next landing location based on the current landing information)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin with Yim-1; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hopping drones as they transition between a hopping and flight phase. Zhu uses a ballistic trajectory to determine the hopping. Yim-1 furthers this by using data collected to determine the optimal trajectory for the system to carry forward.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin teaches the robot of claim 1.
The combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin does not teach wherein the controller is configured to determine a landing location of the robot for a next hopping cycle based on a landing attitude of the robot for a current hopping cycle.
However, Yim 1 teaches “wherein the controller is configured to determine a landing location of the robot for a next hopping cycle based on a landing attitude of the robot for a current hopping cycle.” (Page 2232, “Physical Experiments” teaches that the hopping system has a determined list of foot placements and each placement has a desired touchdown attitude, this attitude is used in order to ensure that the robot lands at the next predicted area, “Velocity Controller” and “Velocity Planner” further teach the need to determination of a next landing location based on the current landing information)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, and Zeglin with Yim-1; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of hopping drones as they transition between a hopping and flight phase. Zhu uses a ballistic trajectory to determine the hopping. Yim-1 furthers this by using data collected to determine the optimal trajectory for the system to carry forward.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, Zeglin and Yim-1 in view of Kovac ("The EPFL jumpglider: A Hybrid jumping and gliding robot with rigid or folding wings”) found in the IDS
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, Zeglin and Yim-1 teach the robot of claim 15.
Th combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, Zeglin and Yim-1 does not teach wherein the stabilizer comprises a surface that defines a first and a second side different from the first side; the surface being horizontally hinged at the first side, and connected to a cable arrangement at the second side; the cable arrangement connected to a drive unit such that the surface is adapted to be actuated by the drive unit.
However, Kovac teaches “wherein the stabilizer comprises a surface that defines a first and a second side different from the first side;” (Figs. 1 and 4; show a series of robots with surfaces that provide stability for a robot and have a different first and second side) “the surface being horizontally hinged at the first side,” (Fig. 4 and Page 1504 “B. Wings” teaches a series of “wings” i.e. stabilizers” that help control the robot while in flight. The stabilizers can be hinged, i.e. folding) “connected to a cable arrangement at the second side;” (Page 1504 “B. Wings” teaches in the “Locust” design that a series of cables are connected to a root of the wing surface different that the other side of the wing, these cables can be actuated to unfold the wings) and “the cable arrangement connected to a drive unit such that the surface is adapted to be actuated by the drive unit.” (Fig. 4 and Page 1504 “B. Wings” teaches the wings may be actuated by a thread (a) in the “locust” design. This would allow the wings to be manipulated by the robot)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, Zeglin and Yim-1 with Kovac; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to jumping robots that have a desire to control their descent. As taught in the “Introduction” of Kovac the use of wings/stabilizers can be used to impact the flight length of a flight phase of a jumping robot. This allows the system to stay in the air and impact the landing as best as possible.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, Zeglin and Yim-1 teach the robot of claim 17.
Th combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, Zeglin and Yim-1 does not teach wherein the surface is arranged to be made rigid when the cable arrangement is actuated and swing freely in response to airflow when the cable arrangement is de-actuated.
However, Kovac teaches “wherein the one or more horizontally hinged surfaces are arranged to be made rigid when the cable arrangement is actuated and swing freely in response to airflow when the cable arrangement is de-actuated.” (Fig. 4 and Page 1504 “B. Wings” teaches a “butterfly” style of wings. These wings can be actuated to be brought into a “rigid” position and when the actuation stops, the wings are subject to the inherent airflow around the vehicle)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Zhu, Brown Jr., Pan Jiwen, Zeglin and Yim-1 with Kovac; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to jumping robots that have a desire to control their descent. As taught in the “Introduction” of Kovac the use of wings/stabilizers can be used to impact the flight length of a flight phase of a jumping robot. This allows the system to stay in the air and impact the landing as best as possible.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (“PogoDrone: Design, Model, and Control of a Jumping Quadrotor”) in view of Brown Jr. (US Pat. 7,270,589).
Regarding claim 26, Zhu teaches a robot, comprising: an aerial unit; (Page 2032, “II Design” section a; describes the system having an aerial quadrotor system)
a passive leg mechanism operably coupled with the aerial unit; (Page 2032, “II Design” section b; describes a passive leg attached to the aerial unit) the passive leg mechanism comprising a telescopic leg arrangement (Page 2032, Fig. 2 and “II. Design” section b; teach the leg being a single leg with a telescopic motion arrangement) and an elastic mechanism coupled thereto; (Page 2032, Fig 2 “Spring” and “II. Design” section b teaches a “Spring” or elastic mechanism operably connected between the upper and lower sections) the elastic mechanism comprising elastic element that is statically (Page 2032, Fig 2 “Spring” and “II. Design” section b teach that the spring is mounted between the plunger and the T-shaft in order to be compressed on landing and able to provide an upward force on impact to overcome the weight of the robot. This is further on Page 2033 “IV. Control” where the discussion of the phases “Compression” and “Rebound” teach that the robot can use the spring force to overcome its weight for takeoff) and
a controller configured to control operation of the aerial unit such that the robot is operable in, at least, a flight mode and a hopping mode; (Page 2-33, “IV. Control” teaches the system having a controller that is capable of controlling the robot such that it can have both a flight, “hover,” mode and a hopping, “bounce,” mode)
wherein, when the robot lands on a ground, a leg contraction motion further elongates the elastic element along an axis of translation of the telescopic arrangement, for storing landing impact energy. (Section IV. Control, b) which says, “The robot contacts with the ground and the spring compresses until it reaches its maximum compression length. During this phase, the spring converts the kinetic energy accumulated during the descend phase into elastic potential energy.” Furthering this in section III. Model, A. Sensors and actuators, it says, “the spring is aligned with the z-axis,” which as shown in Fig. 3 is the same as the axis of translation of the telescopic leg arrangement. The claim limitation would be obvious in view of Zhu under MPEP 2104.04.VI.A. Reversal of Parts. As determined by In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955); the reversal of parts is an obvious modification. The claimed subject matter merely reverses the direction in which the landing of the drone imparts an elastic potential energy into the spring. In light of this the examiner would find it to be an obvious modification of Zhu.)
Zhu does not teach, a pre-stretched elastic element.
However, Brown Jr. teaches “a pre-stretched elastic element.” (Col. 4, lines 28-43, teach the design of the leg and it uses a preloaded elastic member. Col. 4, lines 33-36 recite, “a bow leg 20 that comprises a leaf spring of unidirectional fiberglass that becomes curved under the preload tension of the bow string 60.” The use of the leaf spring being put under tension would be analogous to the pre-stretching of an elastic element. Both impart an initial force onto an elastic element. Col. 18, lines 15-21; further teach the use of a second preloaded elastic element in the leg design. The use of a statically stretched part of the element is merely a rearrangement of parts. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The elastic element being pre-stretched is the same in both arts. With no differences in operation. )
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Zhu with Brown Jr.; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control and usage of hopping robots. As Col. 18, lines 15-21; further teach the use of the preloaded elements limits the tension in the spring to a nominal value and can be used to “minimize disturbance torques on the body during stance.” This limiting of bodily torque ensures a smooth flight as the robot hops around. Ensuring stability as the robot hops is vital to ensuring that the hopping can go on uninterrupted and that the robot can continue to operate at an optimal level.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shank (US PG Pub 2013/0210587) teaches a bouncing apparatus adjustable between a pogo stick configuration and a stilt configuration. The bouncing apparatus has a first frame member and a second frame member removably coupled to the first frame member. Both the first frame member and the second frame member include a body, a piston moveable with respect to the body, and a first biasing member extending between the piston and the body.
Hurst (US PG Pub 2022/0144358) teaches a method is disclosed for reducing impact forces to legged robots as a result of traversing a terrain. The method includes employing actuators and compliant elements to use the contact of a first portion of a foot assembly with a terrain during a step to reduce the vertical velocity of a subsequent portion of the foot assembly so that the vertical velocity of the subsequent portion as it touches the terrain is substantially zero relative to the terrain. Foot assemblies that employ these methods are also provided.
Huang (CN117539278A) teaches a path planning method, device and device for jumping four-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle, the method comprises: initializing the starting node and the ending node; generating an initial jump flight path according to the initial node and the termination node; optimizing the initial jumping flying path by using the B spline to obtain the target jumping flying path. The invention can search the feasible jumping flight path with minimum thrust, safety and kinematically meeting the collision characteristic in a short time, and can be widely applied to the technical field of unmanned aerial vehicle.
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 NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
