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 .
This communication is in response to application No. 18/475,517; Robotic Vehicle; filed on 9/27/2023. Claims 1 - 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernyak (US 2020/0290217 A1) in view of Wilson (US 2009/0039819 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Chernyak discloses;
A robotic vehicle, comprising
a body (inverted pendulum body IPB 200; paragraph 35, figs. 1A-E) and two legs (leg 400) for locomotion, and a control unit (controller 102; fig. 1C, paragraph 61) for controlling movement of the two legs,
the two legs being attached to opposing sides of the body, (see fig. 1A)
wherein for each of the two legs it is the case that –
the leg comprises a respective hip joint (hip joint 412; paragraph 44), an upper link (upper portion 500), a knee joint (knee joint 414), a lower link (lower portion 550), a wheel joint (ankle joint 422; paragraph 45), and a wheel (wheel 700),
the upper link being attached to the body and being rotatable relative to the body by the hip joint, with a relative angular position of the hip joint being set by a hip drive (actuating device 600; paragraph 44),
the lower link being attached to the upper link and rotatable relative to the upper link by the knee joint, (Paragraph 50 describes the lower leg rotating about the upper leg at the knee joint.)
with a relative angular position of the knee joint being set by a knee drive (second pulley 620; paragraph 86, fig. 6A),
the wheel being attached to the lower link and rotatable relative to the lower link by the wheel joint, (Paragraph 45 describes the drive wheel as being rotatable around the ankle joint.)
with a relative angular position of the wheel joint being set by a wheel drive (torque actuator 710; paragraph 45),
PNG
media_image2.png
546
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chernyak discloses a hip joint with a travel of approximately 90 degrees, in figs. 7A-7D, but does not disclose a range greater than that. However, Wilson teaches;
characterised in that for at least one of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective hip joint has a range of at least 180° (Paragraph 63 of Wilson describes the legs as being able to rotate and the hips and knees through 360 degrees in the forward and backwards directions.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Chernyak such that for at least one of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective hip joint has a range of at least 180°, as taught by Wilson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to legged robots. As disclosed by Wilson, it is well known for at least one of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective hip joint has a range of at least 180°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chernyak such that for at least one of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective hip joint has a range of at least 180°, as taught by Wilson, as such a modification would provide the ability for the robot to step over large objects. (Paragraph 63 of Wilson).
Regarding claim 2, Chernyak in view of Wilson discloses;
wherein for at least one of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective hip joint has a range of at least 350°. (Paragraph 63 of Wilson describes the wheels, legs and hips as being able to rotate through 360 degrees both forwards and backwards.)
Regarding claim 3, Chernyak in view of Wilson discloses;
wherein for at least one of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective hip joint has a range of at least 1080°. (Paragraph 63 of Wilson describes the wheels, legs and hips as being able to rotate through 360 degrees both forwards and backwards. This would constitute two, full revolutions or 720 degrees. It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to allow for hip joints which can rotate at least 1080 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, nothing in Wilson indicates that 360 degrees of rotation is intended as a limit to the range of rotation, rather than a description of a joint which is unlimited in its rotational travel.)
Regarding claim 4, Chernyak in view of Wilson discloses;
wherein for at least one of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective knee joint has a range of at least 180°. (Paragraph 63 of Wilson describes the wheels, legs and hips as being able to rotate through 360 degrees both forwards and backwards. This description as well as fig. 5 illustrate a knee joint capable of rotation through at least 180 degrees.)
Regarding claim 5, Chernyak in view of Wilson discloses;
wherein for at least one of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective knee joint has a range of at least 350°. (Paragraph 63 of Wilson describes the wheels, legs and hips as being able to rotate through 360 degrees both forwards and backwards. This description as well as fig. 5 illustrate a knee joint capable of rotation through at least 360 degrees.)
Regarding claim 6, Chernyak discloses;
comprising a sensor for noncontact sensing, the sensor being one or more of a camera, a distance sensor, microphones, and ground penetrating radars. (Paragraph 68 of Wilson describes multiple types of noncontact sensing, including a camera, as well as ultrasonic, motion, location, and depth sensors.)
Regarding claim 7, Chernyak discloses;
comprising a sensor for contact sensing, the sensor being one or more of an ohm-metre, corrosion sensor, ultrasonic transducer, electro magnetic acoustic transducer and dry Film thickness gauge. (Paragraph 68 of Wilson describes sensor types including touch sensors and ultrasonic sensors.)
Regarding claim 8, Chernyak discloses;
comprising an actuator (end effector 900; paragraph 55, fig. 3) , the actuator being one or more of a gripper, electromagnet, a drill, a brush, a grinder machine, and a sanding machine. (Paragraph 55 describes the end effector as including one or more actuators including grippers.)
Regarding claim 9, Chernyak discloses;
comprising a cooperating unit that (target object; paragraph 55) is configured to be carried by the vehicle, and a connecting element (end effector 900) arranged to releasably connect the body to the cooperating unit by a mating operation, wherein the mating operation comprises moving the body relative to the cooperating unit. (Paragraph 55 describes a connecting element in the form of the end effector (900) mounted on the end of an articulated arm (800), which is configured to grip and manipulate a target object. Paragraph 60 and fig. 1D describe two appendages (800a, 800b) and two actuators (900, 902). Paragraph 57 describes moving the appendages and altering the pose of the robot to allow positioning of the end effectors on a target object.)
Regarding claim 10, Chernyak discloses;
wherein the cooperating unit is one of an actuator or a sensor. (Chernyak discloses the ability to pick up and carry heavy objects (paragraph 2), utilizing actuators located on articulated arms. Additionally, Chernyak discloses actuators (paragraph 53) and sensors (paragraph 68). It would have involved only routine skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a cooperating unit which is an actuator or a sensor.)
Regarding claim 11, Chernyak discloses;
wherein the cooperating unit is a battery. (Paragraph 71 describes the use of batteries to power the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a battery as the cooperating unit, which is configured to be carried by the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 12, Chernyak discloses;
wherein the cooperating unit is a payload or a unit configured to receive and carry a payload. (Paragraph 39 describes the robot as carrying a load. Paragraph 55 describes an end effector and manipulator arm for gripping and manipulating a target object. This constitutes a payload, as a cooperating unit received by the robot utilizing its connecting element.)
Regarding claim 13, Chernyak discloses;
the control unit being programmed to perform a connection operation to connect the body to the cooperating unit, (Paragraph 55 describes the end effectors (900) as gripping and manipulating a target object. Additionally, a vacuum device is described for connecting the body of the robot (via the manipulator arm) with a cooperating unit (target object). This requires a control unit to operate a vacuum unit to perform the connection operation.)
wherein the connection operation comprises operating the legs to move the body to be located above the cooperating unit, and to perform a mating movement of the body towards and against the cooperating unit. (Fig. 1B and paragraph 55 describe the end effector and manipulator arm as exerting a force (Fee) at the end of the arm towards a target object. This force is generated by the movement of the vehicle with respect to the ground as well as actuated movement of the vehicle legs and manipulator arm in vertical and horizontal directions. These abilities describe a vehicle capable of performing a connection operation by moving the body, with the legs, above a cooperating unit and performing a mating movement of the body, including the manipulator arm, towards the cooperating unit.)
Regarding claim 14, Chernyak in view of Wilson discloses;
wherein for both legs the relative angular position of the respective hip joints has a range of at least 180°, (Paragraph 63 of Wilson describes the wheels, legs and hips as being able to rotate through 360 degrees both forwards and backwards.)
wherein the control unit is programmed to flip the body from a reference position to an inverted position by rotating both hip joints, while keeping the legs otherwise in essentially the same configuration, wherein in the reference position a first side of the body is on top, facing upward, and an opposite second side is on the bottom, facing downward and in the inverted position, the first side faces downward and the second face faces upward. (The two legged, balancing robot of Chernyak, as modified by the hip, knee and ankle joints of Wilson would be capable of rotating both hip joints in order to flip the body to an inverted arrangement.)
Regarding claim 15, Chernyak in view of Wilson discloses;
wherein for both legs the relative angular position of the respective hip joint has a range of at least 180° and the relative angular position of the respective knee joint has a range of at least 180° (Paragraph 63 of Wilson describes the wheels, legs and hips as being able to rotate through 360 degrees both forwards and backwards.)
wherein the control unit is programmed to upright the vehicle by first rotating the hips to place both upper links parallel to each other, then by rotating its knees, so that the body is placed in between the wheels, and then by lifting the knees and the body. (The two legged, balancing robot of Chernyak, as modified by the hip, knee and ankle joints of Wilson would be capable of rotating the hip joints to place both upper links parallel and then rotate the knees so that the body is between the wheels and then lift the knees and body.)
Regarding claim 16, Chernyak in view of Wilson discloses;
wherein for both legs the relative angular position of the respective hip joint has a range of at least 180° and the relative angular position of the respective knee joint has a range of at least 180° (Paragraph 63 of Wilson describes the wheels, legs and hips as being able to rotate through 360 degrees both forwards and backwards.)
wherein the control unit is programmed to upright the vehicle when lying on one of its wheels, by first extending a top leg, to generate a moment due to the weight of the top leg and a top wheel, then, after this moment has rotated the body and both wheels are in contact with the ground, by extending the bottom leg. (The two legged, balancing robot of Chernyak, as modified by the hip, knee and ankle joints of Wilson would be capable of extending a top leg, to generate a moment due to the weight of the top leg and a top wheel, followed by extending a bottom leg once both wheels were in contact with the ground.)
Regarding claim 17, Chernyak in view of Wilson discloses;
wherein for both of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective hip joint has a range of at least 180°and of less than 350°, and wherein for both of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective knee joint has a range of at least 1080°. (Paragraph 63 of Wilson describes the wheels, legs and hips as being able to rotate through 360 degrees both forwards and backwards. This describes a hip joint capable of a range of at least 180 degrees and less than 350 degrees. Additionally, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to allow for knee joints which can rotate at least 1080 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, nothing in Wilson indicates that 360 degrees of rotation is intended as a limit to the range of rotation, rather than a description of a joint which is unlimited in its rotational travel.)
Regarding claim 18, Chernyak in view of Wilson discloses;
wherein for both of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective hip joint has a range of at least 350°, (Paragraph 63 of Wilson describes the wheels, legs and hips as being able to rotate through 360 degrees both forwards and backwards.)
wherein for both of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective knee joint has a range of at least 1080°. (It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to allow for knee joints which can rotate at least 1080 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, nothing in Wilson indicates that 360 degrees of rotation is intended as a limit to the range of rotation, rather than a description of a joint which is unlimited in its rotational travel.)
Regarding claim 19, Chernyak in view of Wilson discloses;
wherein for both of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective hip joint has a range of at least 180° and of less than 350°, and wherein for both of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective knee joint has a range of less than 180°. (Paragraph 63 of Wilson describes the wheels, legs and hips as being able to rotate through 360 degrees both forwards and backwards. This describes a hip joint capable of a range of at least 180 degrees and less than 350 degrees. Additionally, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to allow for knee joints which can rotate less than 180 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, nothing in Wilson indicates that 360 degrees of rotation is intended as a limit to the range of rotation, rather than a description of a joint which is unlimited in its rotational travel.)
Regarding claim 20, Chernyak in view of Wilson discloses;
wherein for both of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective hip joint has a range of at least 350°, (Paragraph 63 of Wilson describes the wheels, legs and hips as being able to rotate through 360 degrees both forwards and backwards.)
wherein for both of the two legs, the relative angular position of the respective knee joint has a range of at least 180°. (It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to allow for knee joints which can rotate less than 180 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, nothing in Wilson indicates that 360 degrees of rotation is intended as a limit to the range of rotation, rather than a description of a joint which is unlimited in its rotational travel.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER whose telephone number is (703)756-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614