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 10/24/2025. Claims 118, 123-125, 127-129, 131, 133-134 and 137-146 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims, particularly claim 131, distinguish the claims from references like Berger et al. US 20220143653 A1 (“Berger”) in view of Whitman et al. US 20190381664 A1 (“Whitman”). Applicant argues that Berger does not teach the element “comparing each status identifier with an expected status of the corresponding legged robot”, and that Whitman, which was previously relied upon by the examiner to teach this element, does not remedy Berger’s lack of disclosure on the grounds that Whitman’s is primarily focusing on robotic arms, and because Whitman’s tolerance-based shutdown protocol operates differently from the individual robot status comparison and flagging methodology. However, applicant does not explain how the comparison of status identifiers differs between Whitman and the amended claims, as Whitman teaches that the received datasets, including failure detections, are received individually (The received datasets are particular to individual arms, the individual robot, and are not fungible [paragraph 33]. Further, applicant’s argument that Whitman does not teach the status of a legged robot is not persuasive, because Whitman is not relied upon to teach the robot having legs instead of arms. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For these reasons, the claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Berger and Whitman.
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) 131, 118, 127-128, 134 and 143-146 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 131. Berger teaches a method comprising:
transmitting a first-signal individual legged robots of a group of legged robots;
receiving response-signals associated with the legged robots, respectively (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 individual response-signals comprise a unique robot ID and a status identifier for the corresponding 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:
for the status identifiers individually, comparing the status identifier with an expected status of the corresponding legged robot;
flagging a legged robot of the group that provides that provide a status identifier that does not match the expected status of the legged robot as potentially malfunctioning; and
commanding a shutdown of the flagged legged robot.
However, Whitman teaches:
for the status identifiers individually, comparing the status identifier with an expected status of the corresponding legged robot (A method for identifying robotic devices, wherein the method includes receiving identification datasets for the robotic devices [paragraph 6]. The received datasets are particular to individual arms, the individual robot, and are not fungible [paragraph 33]);
flagging a robot of the group that provides that provide a status identifier that does not match the expected status of the robot as potentially malfunctioning (In another example, four out of the five arms are positively identified, and moving consistent with their proper biomimetic identification consistent with their evolved programming dataset as generated in step 240 [paragraph 51]. 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]); and
commanding a shutdown of the flagged robot (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 for the status identifiers individually, comparing the status identifier with an expected status of the corresponding robot; flagging a robot of the group that provides that provide a status identifier that does not match the expected status of the legged robot as potentially malfunctioning; and commanding a shutdown of the flagged robot as taught by Whitman, and to apply the flagging system to the legged robots of Berger, 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 118. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 131.
Berger does not teach:
wherein transmitting the first-signal is by a fleet management system.
However, Whitman teaches:
wherein transmitting the first-signal is by 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 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 127. Berger teaches the method of claim 131.
Berger also teaches:
The robots are legged robots (FIG. ).
Berger does not teach:
further comprising:
identifying a robot of the group that does not return a response-signal; and
commanding a shutdown of the robot that does not return a response-signal.
However, Whitman teaches:
further comprising:
identifying a robot of the group that does not return a response-signal; and
commanding a shutdown of the robot that does not return a response-signal (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 the shutdown step should be followed 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 a robot of the group that does not return a response-signal; and commanding a shutdown of the robot that does not return a response-signal 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 in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 131.
Berger does not teach:
wherein
the method further comprises receiving a notification of a safety-related issue and transmitting the first-signal is in response to receiving the notification.
However, Whitman teaches:
wherein
the method further comprises receiving a notification of a safety-related issue and transmitting the first-signal is in response to receiving the notification (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 wherein the method further comprises receiving a notification of a safety-related issue and transmitting the first-signal is in response to receiving the notification 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 also teaches:
the robots are legged robots (FIG. 2).
Berger does not teach:
wherein:
the flagged robot is a first robot; and
the method further comprises flagging a second legged robot of the group that did not provide a response-signal as potentially malfunctioning.
However, Whitman teaches:
wherein:
the flagged robot is a first robot; and
the method further comprises flagging robots of the group 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)).
Regarding Claim 143. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 131.
Berger also teaches:
wherein the first-signal is an infrared signal (Berger mentions that the network signals can be infrared [paragraph 41]).
Regarding Claim 144. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 131.
Berger also teaches:
wherein the status identifier indicates a kinematic state of the corresponding legged robot (Master robot acquires the exact position of each slave robots including motion sensors positions (legs, clamps etc) [paragraphs 29-30]. The messages that the robots send in FIG. 6 includes a local robot’s state message, comprising a position of the robot MR [paragraphs 119-124]).
Regarding Claim 145. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 131.
Berger also teaches:
wherein the status identifier indicates a position of the corresponding legged robot (Paragraphs 29-30, 124).
Regarding Claim 146. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 131.
Berger also teaches:
wherein the status identifier indicates an operational state of the corresponding legged robot (Paragraphs 119-124, wherein the robot’s state message can include a current task of the robot MR and a charging battery status).
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 131, 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 131.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the shutdown is a hard shutdown in which electrical power to the flagged legged robot is immediately discontinued.
However, Martin teaches:
wherein the shutdown is a hard shutdown in which electrical power to the flagged legged 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 shutdown is a hard shutdown in which electrical power to the flagged legged robot is immediately discontinued as taught by Martin so as to fully stop the machine and save electricity.
Claim(s) 124 and 129 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 also teaches:
The robots are legged robots (FIG. 2).
Berger does not teach:
wherein the remote shutdown is a soft shutdown in which the flagged robot is brought to a safe position and then electrically powered off.
However, Loschak teaches:
wherein the remote shutdown is a soft shutdown in which the flagged 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 in which the flagged 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 also teaches:
The robots are legged robots of a group (FIGS. 1-2).
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.
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 Xiong et al. US 10059393 B2 (“Xiong”).
Regarding Claim 125. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 124.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the safe position is a standing position.
However, Xiong teaches:
wherein the safe position is a standing position (In step S110, as shown in FIG. 2A, transmitting first controlling signals to a first leg mechanism and a second leg mechanism to control a first leg 110 and a second leg 120 of the robot to be perpendicular to ground (a standing position) upon determining a power outage condition [Column 2, lines 47-52]).
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 as taught by Xiong so as to ensure that the robot is in a stable position when it is powered down.
Claim(s) 137-139 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”) 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 137. Berger in combination with Whitman and Loschak teaches the method of claim 124.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the safe position is a crouching position.
However, Ueno teaches wherein the safe position is one of a variety positions.
Berger in combination with Ueno and the other references do not explicitly teach that the safe position is a crouching position. However, this specific claim limitation does not appear to be critical to solving any specific position, and there is no clear advantage of a crouching position over any of the positions taught by Ueno. Without criticality or any problem solved by this specific position, the safe position being a crouching position is merely a design choice, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Regarding Claim 138. Berger in combination with Whitman and Loschak teaches the method of claim 124.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the safe position is a squatting position.
However, Ueno teaches wherein the safe position is one of a variety positions.
Berger in combination with Ueno and the other references do not explicitly teach that the safe position is a squatting position. However, this specific claim limitation does not appear to be critical to solving any specific position, and there is no clear advantage of a squatting position over any of the positions taught by Ueno. Without criticality or any problem solved by this specific position, the safe position being a squatting position is merely a design choice, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Regarding Claim 139. Berger in combination with Whitman and Loschak teaches the method of claim 124.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the safe position is a sitting position.
However, Ueno teaches:
wherein the safe position is a sitting 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 a sitting 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 within a range of the first-signal.
However, Kuhara teaches:
wherein the group comprises all legged robots within a range of the first-signal (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 legged robots within a range of the first-signal 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) 140-142 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 Chin et al. US 20220107625 A1 (“Chin”).
Regarding Claim 140. Berger in combination with Whitman teaches the method of claim 131.
Berger does not teach:
wherein transmitting the first-signal is by a portable device.
However, Chin teaches:
wherein transmitting the first-signal is by a portable device (FIG. 5 illustrates a diagrammatic representation of a machine 500 in the form of a computer system, sending a signal at 572 to a device or devices at 570. The machine 500 may comprise, but not be limited to, a server computer, a client computer, a PC, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a netbook, a set-top box (STB), a PDA, an entertainment media system, a cellular telephone, a smart phone, a mobile device, a wearable device (e.g., a smart watch), etc. [paragraph 52]).
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 portable device as taught by Chin, so as to allow the device to be carried by an operator.
Regarding Claim 141. Berger in combination with Whitman and Chin teaches the method of claim 140.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the portable device is a handheld device.
However, Chin teaches:
wherein the portable device is a handheld device (FIG. 5 illustrates a diagrammatic representation of a machine 500 in the form of a computer system, sending a signal at 572 to a device or devices at 570. The machine 500 may comprise, but not be limited to, a server computer, a client computer, a PC, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a netbook, a set-top box (STB), a PDA, an entertainment media system, a cellular telephone, a smart phone, a mobile device, a wearable device (e.g., a smart watch), etc. [paragraph 52]).
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 portable device is a handheld device as taught by Chin, so as to allow the device to be carried conveniently by an operator.
Regarding Claim 142. Berger in combination with Whitman and Chin teaches the method of claim 140.
Berger does not teach:
wherein the portable device is a wearable device.
However, Chin teaches:
wherein the portable device is a wearable device (FIG. 5 illustrates a diagrammatic representation of a machine 500 in the form of a computer system, sending a signal at 572 to a device or devices at 570. The machine 500 may comprise, but not be limited to, a server computer, a client computer, a PC, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a netbook, a set-top box (STB), a PDA, an entertainment media system, a cellular telephone, a smart phone, a mobile device, a wearable device (e.g., a smart watch), etc. [paragraph 52]).
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 portable device is a wearable device as taught by Chin, so as to allow the device to be carried conveniently by an operator.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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.
/A.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights