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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1 have been amended. Claim(s) 6-8, 12-14, and 18 have been previously cancelled. Claim(s) 25 have been added. Claim(s) 1-5, 9-11, 15-17, and 19-25 are pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claim 1 is improper. Applicant points towards the newly added limitation, in particular the use of a “pre-stretched elastic element” and “wherein the pre-stretched elastic element is adapted to be elongated along an axis of translation of the telescopic leg arrangement, upon a leg contraction when the robot is landed on a ground;” as overcoming the prior art. 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 first limitation of “pre-stretched elastic element,” the applicant alleges that Brown does not teach this. Applicant argues that Brown teaches a “bow string” that is not pre-stretched. However, the examiner would point towards the “bow leg” that is stretched, as the “pre-stretched elastic element.” As Brown 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 leaf-spring is clearly put under a pre-tension which is analogous to a pre-stretch as both would impart some form of initial force before the robot lands during a hopping cycle. Therefore the examiner believes that Brown does indeed teach the “pre-stretch” of an elastic member.
Looking at the second element of, “wherein the pre-stretched elastic element is adapted to be elongated along an axis of translation of the telescopic leg arrangement, upon a leg contraction when the robot is landed on a ground,” the applicant alleges that Zhu and Brown do not teach this limitation. However, Zhu teaches a spring that is compressed as the robot lands, this compression imparts a force along the z-axis of the robot, which is the same as the leg compression. The leg is compressed as the robot lands. See, 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.
In light of applicant’s arguments and further search and consideration the examiner finds the independent claim 1, as amended, as obvious in view of Zhu and Brown. 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 Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25 recites, “a constant friction of magnitude f.sub.e” however, in the spec [0075] it recites “a constant friction of magnitude f.sub.c” the claim needs to be updated to reflect the correct constant of friction as f.sub.e is also used to describe a force
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea, in particular the claim is directed to a mathematical formula or equation, without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) "the pre-stretched elastic element is adapted to generate an elastic force f.sub.e which is linearly proportional to a deformation of the pre-stretched elastic element l – l.sub.o – l.sub.p by a constant k, with a constant friction of magnitude f.sub.e." This appears to be claiming a Mathematical Formula or Equation. This is a modification of Hooke's law, F=kx. As claimed the constant k is identical, where x, the displacement of the spring, is claimed by the "l – l.sub.o – l.sub.p." This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it appears to be reciting a well understood activity in the art at a broad level. There is no further limiting element of the claim, it merely recites that an elastic element will act in the way that an elastic element acts. Cited art Zhu The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements just claim that this formula will be used when the elastic member is operated as the telescopic leg compresses as the robot lands on the ground. The formula is well understood in the art of elastic elements and merely using it does not integrate it beyond the judicial exception. Even though claim 25 depends on eligible subject matter, in claim 1, MPEP 2106.07 states, “The evaluation of whether the claimed invention qualifies as patent-eligible subject matter should be made on a claim-by-claim basis…if an independent claim is determined to be eligible, a dependent claim may be ineligible because it adds a judicial exception without also adding limitations that integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more.” In light of this, claim 25 is not eligible as it does not add sufficient elements beyond the judicial exception to integrate the mathematical formula or equation beyond said judicial exception; therefore, claim 25 is ineligible.
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) 1-5, 10, and 25 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 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) 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 (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 the pre-stretched elastic element is adapted to be elongated along an axis of translation of the telescopic leg arrangement, upon a leg contraction when the robot is landed on a ground. (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)
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.
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 3, Zhu teaches the robot of claim 1, wherein the passive leg mechanism consists of only one said telescopic leg arrangement. (Page 2032, Fig. 2 and “II. Design” section b; teach the leg being a single leg with a telescopic motion arrangement)
Regarding claim 4, Zhu teaches the robot of claim 3, wherein single telescopic leg arrangement comprises: an upper leg section fixed to the aerial unit; (Page 2032, Fig 2 “T-shaft” and “II. Design” section b teaches a “T-shaft” or upper portion connected to the aerial vehicle) and
a lower leg section movably connected with the upper leg section via one or more connectors; (Page 2032, Fig 2 “Plunger” and “II. Design” section b teaches a “Plunger” or lower portion connected to the upper portion of the leg via a “Threaded cap” i.e. connector) and
wherein the elastic mechanism operably coupled between the upper leg section and the lower leg section. (Page 2032, Fig 2 “Spring” and “II. Design” section b teaches a “Spring” or elastic mechanism operably connected between the upper and lower sections)
Regarding claim 5, Zhu teaches the robot of claim 4, 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 4, 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)
Regarding claim 25, Zhu teaches the robot of claim 1, wherein upon the leg contraction when the robot is landed on the ground, the pre-stretched elastic element is adapted to generate an elastic force f.sub.e which is linearly proportional to a deformation of the pre-stretched elastic element l – l.sub.o – l.sub.p by a constant k, with a constant friction of magnitude f.sub.e; wherein l – l.sub.o is the leg contraction and l.sub.p is a pre-stretched length of the pre-stretched elastic element. (Section III. Model, A. Sensors and Actuators teaches that the prog mechanism generates a force, F.sub.s, that is equal to a spring constant k multiplied by the amount of deformation, delta.L, of the elastic member minus the dampening constant, b, which is described as the force of friction in the system. Delta.L would be analogous to the deformation of the elastic element. As described earlier the claim limitation would further be obvious as it is a reversal of parts, MPEP 2144.04.IV.A. Both Zhu and the current limitation as using Hooke’s law to determine the force of the elastic element.)
Claim(s) 15-16, 20-21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu and Brown Jr. in view of Yim (“Precision Jumping Limits from Flight-phase Control in Salto-1P”), hereinafter Yim-1.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Zhu and Brown Jr. teaches the robot of claim 1.
The combination of Zhu and Brown Jr. 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 and Brown Jr. 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 and Brown Jr. teaches the robot of claim 15.
The combination of Zhu and Brown Jr. 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 and Brown Jr. 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 and Brown Jr. teaches the robot of claim 1.
The combination of Zhu and Brown Jr. 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 and Brown Jr. 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 and Brown Jr. teaches the robot of claim 20.
The combination of Zhu and Brown Jr. 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 and Brown Jr. 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 and Brown Jr. teaches the robot of claim 1.
The combination of Zhu and Brown Jr. 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 and Brown Jr. 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 and Brown Jr. teaches the robot of claim 1.
The combination of Zhu and Brown Jr. 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 and Brown Jr. 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) 9 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu and Brown Jr. in view of Pan Jiwen (CN212406177U).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zhu and Brown Jr. teaches the robot of claim 4.
The combination of Zhu and Brown Jr. does not teach, wherein the telescopic leg arrangement further comprises one or more guide wheel sets, each of the one or more guide wheel sets being operably coupled between a respective one of the one or more connectors and the lower leg section to restrict motion of the lower leg section to translation only and to reduce friction.
However, Pan Jiwen teaches “wherein the telescopic leg arrangement further comprises one or more guide wheel sets, each of the one or more guide wheel sets being operably coupled between a respective one of the one or more connectors and the lower leg section to restrict motion of the lower leg section to translation only and to reduce friction.” ([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.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Zhu and Brown Jr. teaches the robot of claim 9.
The combination of Zhu and Brown Jr. does not teach, wherein the telescopic leg arrangement comprises two said guide wheel sets which are separated from each other along a translational direction of the lower leg section.
However, Pan Jiwen teaches “wherein the telescopic leg arrangement comprises two said guide wheel sets which are separated from each other along a translational direction of the lower leg section.” ([0045] teaches two sets of guide wheels arranged to guide different sides of the telescopic element. The arm of Pan Jiwen is analogous to the telescopic leg element as they perform similar functions)
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu and Brown Jr. in view of Zeglin ("Uniroo: A One Legged Dynamic Hopping Robot").
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Zhu and Brown Jr. teaches the robot of claim 10.
The combination of Zhu and Brown Jr. does not teach wherein the lower leg section comprises a first hook for supporting part of the elastic mechanism; and wherein at least one of the connectors comprises a second hook for supporting another part of the elastic mechanism.
However, Zeglin teaches “wherein the lower leg section comprises a first hook for supporting part of the elastic mechanism;” (Fig. 2-1 shows a hook on an upper portion of a leg for supporting an elastic member) and “wherein at least one of the connectors comprises a second hook for supporting another part of the elastic mechanism.” (Fig. 2-1 shows a second “hook” on a lower portion of the leg for supporting the elastic member)
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 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.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, Brown Jr. 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., and Yim-1 teach the robot of claim 15.
Th combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., 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., 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, and Yim-1 teach the robot of claim 17.
Th combination of Zhu, Brown Jr., 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., 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hurst (US Pat 10,189,519) teaches devices and methods for legged locomotion, including a robotic leg for spring-mass legged locomotion incorporating passive dynamics.
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