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 .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the application filed 11/08/2023. Claims 117-136 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2023 and 03/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 117 and 119-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berger et al. US 20220143653 A1 (“Berger”).
Regarding Claim 117. Berger teaches a method of identifying a subset of a group of deployed legged robots for purposes of communicating instructions to only the subset, wherein the method comprises:
transmitting a first-signal to the group of deployed legged robots;
receiving and processing the first-signal at the group;
transmitting a response-signal from each legged robot of the group;
detecting the response-signal (FIG. 2 shows a legged mobile robot. A master mobile robot is instructed to initiate a collaborative team by identifying the robots that could potentially form the team. A collaboration request is sent out and the master mobile robot gathers answers (responses) from the robots, selects the suitable robots according to possible criteria, such as available capacity, and the master robot initiates the team forming process with the selected slave robots [paragraphs 21-26]); and
identifying each legged robot of the subset (in addition to the suitability of the robots according to possible criteria, such as available capacity [paragraph 25], A central control unit CCU is adapted to control the fleet of mobile robots MR in order to provide a cooperating team of robots for a common task. For that purpose, the central control unit CCU receives information about the following items, by means of different messages, which can include an ID of the robot MR [paragraphs 119-124], which reads on an identification being exchanged as part of the messages).
Regarding Claim 119. Berger teaches the method of claim 117.
Berger also teaches:
wherein the response-signal comprises at least a unique robot ID and a robot status identifier (A central control unit CCU is adapted to control the fleet of mobile robots MR in order to provide a cooperating team of robots for a common task. For that purpose, the central control unit CCU receives information about the following items, by means of different messages, which can include an ID of the robot MR [paragraphs 119-124], which reads on an identification being exchanged as part of the messages).
Regarding Claim 120. Berger teaches the method of claim 119.
Berger also teaches:
wherein the unique robot ID is used to determine the identity of each legged robot that belongs in the subset (paragraphs 119-124).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 126 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. US 20220143653 A1 (“Berger”).
Regarding Claim 126. Berger teaches the method of claim 117.
Berger does not expressly teach:
wherein the group of legged robots further comprises a second-subset of legged robots that do not return a response-signal.
However, Berger implies this element in paragraphs 21-25. Berger teaches that the robots can reply to the master robot organizing a collaboration, and identifies robots to collaborate with based on criteria such as shortest distance or adequate capacity. This implies that robots which do not meet the criteria of distance or adequate capacity do not send a response-signal, either because they are not qualified, or because they are out of range. Further, if a robot were out of range due to the distance criteria to give a response, then it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that a robot outside a response range would not give a response, thus creating a second-subset of legged robots. This element is implicit in Berger.
Claim(s) 118, 121-122, 127-128, 131-132, and 134 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. US 20220143653 A1 (“Berger”) in view of Whitman et al. US 20190381664 A1 (“Whitman”).
Regarding Claim 118. Berger teaches the method of claim 117.
Berger does not teach:
wherein transmitting the first-signal is by a first device and wherein the first device is one of a remote device and a fleet management system (At least some steps of the present invention may also be performed by a remote processing device [paragraph 144], but Berger is silent as to which features are included in this).
However, Whitman teaches:
wherein transmitting the first-signal is by a first device and wherein the first device is one of a remote device and a fleet management system (The program of the described invention may be carried out entirely on a remote computer or server [paragraph 65]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Berger with wherein transmitting the first-signal is by a first device and wherein the first device is one of a remote device and a fleet management system as taught by Whitman so that a remote server can be used to transmit and receive commands for easy access and input by a user.
Regarding Claim 121. Berger teaches the method of claim 120.
Berger does not teach:
wherein each robot of the subset receives a further communication based on its robot status identifier, wherein the further communication is a safety-related instruction.
However, Whitman teaches:
wherein each robot of the subset receives a further communication based on its robot status identifier, wherein the further communication is a safety-related instruction (Program 200 performs a revalidation, steps 210-250, of five surgical robotic arms. Based upon an established tolerance factor, 80%, of the surgical robotic arms not working properly or not being positively identified, Program 200, because two out of five arms are not working, exceeding the tolerance factor of 80%, initiates a shutdown protocol of all five surgical robotic arms [paragraph 51, FIG. 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Berger with wherein each robot of the subset receives a further communication based on its robot status identifier, wherein the further communication is a safety-related instruction as taught by Whitman so as to allow the system to prevent robots that are not in a safe-to-use condition from being assigned to a difficult task.
Regarding Claim 122. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 121.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the safety-related instruction comprises a command to perform a remote shutdown.
However, Whitman teaches:
wherein the safety-related instruction comprises a command to perform a remote shutdown (Program 200 performs a revalidation, steps 210-250, of five surgical robotic arms. Based upon an established tolerance factor, 80%, of the surgical robotic arms not working properly or not being positively identified, Program 200, because two out of five arms are not working, exceeding the tolerance factor of 80%, initiates a shutdown protocol of all five surgical robotic arms [paragraph 51, FIG. 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Berger with wherein the safety-related instruction comprises a command to perform a remote shutdown as taught by Whitman as a full stop of the robotic arms is logically the safest action to take regarding robots with a negative status identifier.
Regarding Claim 127. Berger teaches the method of claim 117.
Berger does not teach:
further comprising identifying the legged robots that do not return a response-signal and sending them a command to perform a remote shutdown.
However, Whitman teaches:
further comprising identifying the legged robots that do not return a response-signal and sending them a command to perform a remote shutdown (In step 280 of FIG. 2, the program initiates a shut down protocol in response to determining that the unknown robotic device is not the first robotic device [paragraph 51]. While Whitman does not teach that the robot does not return a response at all, it does teach that if the robot does not return a specific response-signal (identifying as the first robot)).
Combined with the disclosure of Berger, which implicitly teaches that some of the legged robots will not send any response signal at all, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to modify Berger and Whitman to teach further comprising identifying the legged robots that do not return a response-signal and sending them a command to perform a remote shutdown so that the system can turn off any robots that are not sending a response-signal and are not being used for the task at hand.
Regarding Claim 128. Berger teaches a method of identifying a subset of a group of deployed legged robots for purposes of communicating instructions to only the subset, wherein the method comprises:
transmitting by a processor, a first-signal to a first location, wherein the subset of legged robots are located; receiving at the processor, a response-signal comprising a unique robot ID from each legged robot of the subset (FIG. 2 shows a legged mobile robot. A master mobile robot is instructed to initiate a collaborative team by identifying the robots that could potentially form the team. A collaboration request is sent out and the master mobile robot gathers answers (responses) from the robots, selects the suitable robots according to possible criteria, such as available capacity, and the master robot initiates the team forming process with the selected slave robots [paragraphs 21-26]); identifying at the processor, each legged robot of the subset (in addition to the suitability of the robots according to possible criteria, such as available capacity [paragraph 25], A central control unit CCU is adapted to control the fleet of mobile robots MR in order to provide a cooperating team of robots for a common task. For that purpose, the central control unit CCU receives information about the following items, by means of different messages, which can include an ID of the robot MR [paragraphs 119-124], which reads on an identification being exchanged as part of the messages).
Berger does not teach:
the instructions are safety-related,
receiving a notification of a safety-related issue requiring communication with the subset;
and
communicating by the processor, a safety-related instruction to the first subset.
However, Whitman teaches:
the instructions are safety-related,
receiving a notification of a safety-related issue requiring communication with the subset;
and
communicating by the processor, a safety-related instruction to the first subset Program 200 performs a revalidation, steps 210-250, of five surgical robotic arms. Based upon an established tolerance factor, 80%, of the surgical robotic arms not working properly or not being positively identified, Program 200, because two out of five arms are not working (a safety-related issue), exceeding the tolerance factor of 80%, initiates a shutdown protocol of all five surgical robotic arms [paragraph 51, FIG. 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Berger with the instructions are safety-related, receiving a notification of a safety-related issue requiring communication with the subset; and communicating by the processor, a safety-related instruction to the first subset as taught by Whitman so as to allow the system to prevent robots that are not in a safe-to-use condition from being assigned to a difficult task.
Regarding Claim 131. Berger teaches a method of polling a group of deployed legged robots to identify potentially malfunctioning robots comprising:
transmitting a first-signal to each of the deployed legged robots of the group;
detecting response-signals associated with one or more of the deployed legged robots (FIG. 2 shows a legged mobile robot. A master mobile robot is instructed to initiate a collaborative team by identifying the robots that could potentially form the team. A collaboration request is sent out and the master mobile robot gathers answers (responses) from the robots, selects the suitable robots according to possible criteria, such as available capacity, and the master robot initiates the team forming process with the selected slave robots [paragraphs 21-26]), wherein the response-signals comprise at least a unique robot ID and a status identifier for each deployed legged robot (A central control unit CCU is adapted to control the fleet of mobile robots MR in order to provide a cooperating team of robots for a common task. For that purpose, the central control unit CCU receives information about the following items, by means of different messages, which can include an ID of the robot MR [paragraphs 119-124], which reads on an identification being exchanged as part of the messages).
Berger does not teach:
comparing each status identifier with an expected status to identify potentially malfunctioning robots; and flagging robots that provide a status identifier that does not match the expected status as potentially malfunctioning.
However, Whitman teaches:
comparing each status identifier with an expected status to identify potentially malfunctioning robots; and flagging robots that provide a status identifier that does not match the expected status as potentially malfunctioning (Program 200 performs a revalidation, steps 210-250, of five surgical robotic arms. Based upon an established tolerance factor, 80%, of the surgical robotic arms not working properly or not being positively identified, Program 200, because two out of five arms are not working, exceeding the tolerance factor of 80%, initiates a shutdown protocol of all five surgical robotic arms [paragraph 51, FIG. 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Berger with comparing each status identifier with an expected status to identify potentially malfunctioning robots; and flagging robots that provide a status identifier that does not match the expected status as potentially malfunctioning as taught by Whitman so as to allow the system to prevent robots that are not in a safe-to-use condition from being assigned to a difficult task.
Regarding Claim 132. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 131.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the status identifier indicates that the robot is not fully operative, and wherein the robot is requiring shutdown.
However, Whitman teaches:
wherein the status identifier indicates that the robot is not fully operative, and wherein the robot is requiring shutdown (Program 200 performs a revalidation, steps 210-250, of five surgical robotic arms. Based upon an established tolerance factor, 80%, of the surgical robotic arms not working properly or not being positively identified, Program 200, because two out of five arms are not working, exceeding the tolerance factor of 80%, initiates a shutdown protocol of all five surgical robotic arms [paragraph 51, FIG. 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Berger with wherein the status identifier indicates that the robot is not fully operative, and wherein the robot is requiring shutdown as taught by Whitman so as to allow the system to prevent robots that are not in a safe-to-use condition from being assigned to a difficult task.
Regarding Claim 134. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 131.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the step of flagging robots further comprises flagging robots that did not provide a response-signal as potentially malfunctioning.
However, Whitman teaches:
wherein the step of flagging robots further comprises flagging robots that did not provide a response-signal as potentially malfunctioning (In step 280 of FIG. 2, the program initiates a shut down protocol in response to determining that the unknown robotic device is not the first robotic device [paragraph 51]. While Whitman does not teach that the robot does not return a response at all, it does teach that if the robot does not return a specific response-signal (identifying as the first robot)).
Combined with the disclosure of Berger, which implicitly teaches that some of the legged robots will not send any response signal at all, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to modify Berger and Whitman to teach wherein the step of flagging robots further comprises flagging robots that did not provide a response-signal as potentially malfunctioning so that the system can turn off any robots that are not sending a response-signal and are not being used for the task at hand.
Claim(s) 123 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. US 20220143653 A1 (“Berger”) in view of Whitman et al. US 20190381664 A1 (“Whitman”) as applied to claim 122, and in further view of Martin et al. US 20170326737 A1 (“Martin”).
Regarding Claim 123. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 122.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the remote shutdown comprises a hard shutdown, wherein electrical power to the robot is immediately discontinued.
However, Martin teaches:
wherein the remote shutdown comprises a hard shutdown, wherein electrical power to the robot is immediately discontinued (the control system may allow for the equipment to be shut down in a motive-safe state by the triggering of an emergency stop circuit, The design of the control system in some embodiments ensures the equipment fails in a safe state upon the removal of motive power by emergency stop circuit or removal of electrical services. A non-powered fail-safe design allows for a hard equipment shutdown, such as an electrical disconnect and isolation [paragraph 138]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Berger with wherein the remote shutdown comprises a hard shutdown, wherein electrical power to the robot is immediately discontinued as taught by Martin so as to fully stop the machine and save electricity.
Claim(s) 124, 129-130, and 135 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. US 20220143653 A1 (“Berger”) in view of Whitman et al. US 20190381664 A1 (“Whitman”) as applied to claim 122, and in further view of Loschak et al. US 20230166405 A1 (“Loschak”).
Regarding Claim 124. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 122.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the remote shutdown is a soft shutdown,
wherein the robot is brought to a safe position, and then electrically powered off.
However, Loschak teaches:
wherein the remote shutdown is a soft shutdown,
wherein the robot is brought to a safe position, and then electrically powered off (if an error occurs at one component, then a controller, e.g., the main cart controller 41a, associated with that component reacts to the error with a preprogrammed response (e.g., preprogrammed action that places the component in a safe state). Safety behavior may also define an error response that includes a hard stop, e.g., complete shutdown of the robotic system, in which all modes are disabled for the remainder of the procedure until deactivation of the robotic system [paragraph 43]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Berger with wherein the remote shutdown is a soft shutdown, wherein the robot is brought to a safe position, and then electrically powered off as taught by Loschak so as to allow the robot to move to a safe position before powering down.
Regarding Claim 129. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 128.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the safety-related issue is a robot performing an unauthorized behavior.
However, Loschak teaches:
wherein the safety-related issue is a robot performing an unauthorized behavior (Safety behaviors may be implemented as an error response [paragraph 43], and these errors that would implement the safety behaviors can include a desired pose that was not properly reached by the robot [paragraphs 41-43]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Berger with wherein the safety-related issue is a robot performing an unauthorized behavior as taught by Loschak so as to shut-down or at least implement safety measures when the robot has done something it was not supposed to do, such as move to a position that is not a desired position.
Regarding Claim 130. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 128.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the safety-related instructions comprise an instruction to perform a remote shutdown, wherein the remote shutdown is one of a hard shutdown and a soft shutdown.
However, Loschak teaches:
wherein the safety-related instruction comprises a command to perform a remote shutdown, wherein the remote shutdown is one of a hard shutdown and a soft shutdown (if an error occurs at one component, then a controller, e.g., the main cart controller 41a, associated with that component reacts to the error with a preprogrammed response (e.g., preprogrammed action that places the component in a safe state). Safety behavior may also define an error response that includes a hard stop, e.g., complete shutdown of the robotic system, in which all modes are disabled for the remainder of the procedure until deactivation of the robotic system [paragraph 43]. The first stop reads on a soft shutdown, and the deactivation of the robotic system reads on a hard shutdown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Berger with wherein the safety-related instruction comprises a command to perform a remote shutdown, wherein the remote shutdown is one of a hard shutdown and a soft shutdown as taught by Loschak so as to allow the robot to move to a safe position before powering down.
Regarding Claim 135. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 131.
Berger does not teach:
further comprising the step of transmitting a safety-related instruction to the robots that have been flagged, wherein the safety-related instruction is an instruction to perform one of a soft shutdown and a hard shutdown.
However, Loschak teaches:
further comprising the step of transmitting a safety-related instruction to the robots that have been flagged, wherein the safety-related instruction is an instruction to perform one of a soft shutdown and a hard shutdown (if an error occurs at one component, then a controller, e.g., the main cart controller 41a, associated with that component reacts to the error with a preprogrammed response (e.g., preprogrammed action that places the component in a safe state). Safety behavior may also define an error response that includes a hard stop, e.g., complete shutdown of the robotic system, in which all modes are disabled for the remainder of the procedure until deactivation of the robotic system [paragraph 43]. The first stop reads on a soft shutdown, and the deactivation of the robotic system reads on a hard shutdown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Berger with further comprising the step of transmitting a safety-related instruction to the robots that have been flagged, wherein the safety-related instruction is an instruction to perform one of a soft shutdown and a hard shutdown as taught by Loschak so as to allow the robot to move to a safe position before powering down.
Claim(s) 125 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. US 20220143653 A1 (“Berger”) in view of Whitman et al. US 20190381664 A1 (“Whitman”) and Loschak et al. US 20230166405 A1 (“Loschak”) as applied to claim 124 above, and further in view of Ueno et al. US 20020007230 A1 (“Ueno”).
Regarding Claim 125. Berger in combination with Whitman and Loschak teaches the method of claim 124.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the safe position is one of a standing position, a crouching position, a squatting position, a sitting position, and a controlled collapsed position.
However, Ueno teaches:
wherein the safe position is one of a standing position, a crouching position, a squatting position, a sitting position, and a controlled collapsed position (FIGS. 10-12 show a variety of stable positions, which is when the robot can enter state 3, wherein motion is suspended in all axes [FIG. 9]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Berger with wherein the safe position is one of a standing position, a crouching position, a squatting position, a sitting position, and a controlled collapsed position as taught by Uno so as to ensure that the robot is in a stable position when it is powered down.
Claim(s) 133 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. US 20220143653 A1 (“Berger”) in view of Whitman et al. US 20190381664 A1 (“Whitman”) as applied to claim 131 above, and further in view of Kuhara US 20160320774 A1 (“Kuhara”).
Regarding Claim 133. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 131.
Berger also teaches:
The robots are legged robots (FIG. 2).
Berger does not teach:
wherein the group comprises all robots at a first location, wherein the first location is a first zone, and wherein the first zone comprises a range of the first-signal, and wherein the range of the first signal is modifiable in order to change a size of the first zone.
However, Kuhara teaches:
wherein the group comprises all at a first location, wherein the first location is a first zone, and wherein the first zone comprises a range of the first-signal, and wherein the range of the first signal is modifiable in order to change a size of the first zone (each of the autonomous robots 11 to 19 has a communication function. In the present embodiment, the region in which communication is possible for each of the autonomous robots 11 to 19 is limited. Autonomous robots within a region in which communication is possible are able to exchange information with each other. For example, in FIG. 1, a communication range 311 is depicted as a region in which communication is possible for the autonomous robot 11, and it is depicted that the autonomous robot 11 is able to communicate with the other autonomous robots 12, 13, and 14 that are within the communication range 311 [paragraph 85], meaning a group is formed comprising all of the robots at a first location. FIG. 1 shows a robot When a cleaning robot moves, the communication range of the robot changes [paragraph 45], shown in FIG. 8 to change the size of the zone).
Also of note, while Berger does not explicitly teach the claimed language, Berger does teach that the criteria for selecting suitable robots can include the distance between robots [paragraphs 21-25], so while this element isn’t explicitly taught by Berger, at least part of it is implied.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Berger with wherein the group comprises all at a first location, wherein the first location is a first zone, and wherein the first zone comprises a range of the first-signal, and wherein the range of the first signal is modifiable in order to change a size of the first zone as taught by Kuhara in part because the first signal will necessarily have a limited range; this element is inherent, and to modify the signal to adjust which robots are located within the first zone.
Claim(s) 136 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman et al. US 20190381664 A1 (“Whitman”) in view of Ueno et al. US 20020007230 A1 (“Ueno”).
Regarding Claim 136. Whitman teaches a method of identifying a subset of a group of robots that require a remote shutdown because of a safety-related issue, and communicating a remote shutdown command only to the subset, wherein the method comprises:
transmitting by a processor, a first-signal to the group of robots;
transmitting to the processor, a response-signal from each robot of the group, wherein the response-signal comprises at least a unique robot ID and a robot status identifier, and wherein the unique robot ID is used to determine the identity of each bipedal robot that belongs in the subset (In step 210 of FIG. 2, program 200 receives an identification dataset. In an embodiment, program 200 receives an identification dataset from the output of a neural network, not shown, that includes a historical dataset for a first, unknown robotic device. Program 200 is capable of receiving multiple identification datasets for different constituent parts of the same robot, and an identification dataset for the robot itself [paragraph 33]. In another embodiment, program 200 requests a collection of knowledge priors from the unknown robotic device 315 based on the historical dataset received in step 210 to determine the programming of the unknown robotic device. In an example, program 200 requests prior device identification response knowledge collection through communicating with an unknown robotic device [paragraph 38]); and
transmitting by the processor, based on the robot status identifier, a command to perform a remote shutdown of at least one bipedal robot, wherein the remote shutdown places the bipedal robot in a safe recovery position (Program 200 performs a revalidation, steps 210-250, of five surgical robotic arms. Based upon an established tolerance factor, 80%, of the surgical robotic arms not working properly or not being positively identified, Program 200, because two out of five arms are not working, exceeding the tolerance factor of 80%, initiates a shutdown protocol of all five surgical robotic arms [paragraph 51]).
Whitman does not teach:
the robots are deployed bipedal robots.
However, Ueno teaches:
the robots are deployed bipedal robots (FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Berger with the robots are deployed bipedal robots as taught by Ueno so that a robot command system like the one taught by Whitman can be applied to bipedal robots as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/AARON G CAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656