DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12, filed 10/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the new references cited below.
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) 129, 137-139, 144-146, and 150 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (US 5369346).
Claim 129.
Takahashi et al. teaches:
A method of controlling deployed autonomous bipedal robots
(Takahashi – Abstract) “An emergency stop control system for a biped walking robot”
generating one or more acoustic signals
(Takahashi – Abstract) “The robot operator and persons in a robot’s working environment are provided with a whistle and blows it when the robot is likely to collide with them or objects.”
receiving the one or more acoustic signals at respective microphones of the deployed autonomous bipedal robots
(Takahashi – Abstract) “an emergency stop controller including an acoustic sensor (microphone).”
correlating, by the deployed autonomous bipedal robots, the one or more acoustic signals to one or more safety commands
(Takahashi – Abstract) “In the microcomputer, it is first checked if the signal is larger than a first reference level at an interval and a counter value is incremented if the result of checking is affirmative. Then the counter value is compared with a second reference value and if it exceeds the second reference value, the robot is ascertained to be in a stable attitude. If it is ascertained to be stable, the robot is driven to stop its locomotion.”
moving the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to respective safe-states in response to the one or more safety commands
(Takahashi – Abstract) “In the microcomputer, it is first checked if the signal is larger than a first reference level at an interval and a counter value is incremented if the result of checking is affirmative. Then the counter value is compared with a second reference value and if it exceeds the second reference value, the robot is ascertained to be in a stable attitude. If it is ascertained to be stable, the robot is driven to stop its locomotion.”
Claim 137.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. further teaches:
wherein moving the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to the respective safe-states includes moving the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to respective crouching positions
(Takahashi – Col. 5, lines 55-58) “the squatting attitude illustrated is an example and any other attitude such as sitting, kneeling or the like will be taken so as to lower the robot’s center of gravity.”
[Examiner’s Note: The specification does not provide any features that distinguish a crouching position from a squatting position. By the broadest reasonable interpretation of the two terms, they are considered to be interchangeable.]
Claim 138.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. further teaches:
wherein moving the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to the respective safe-states includes moving the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to respective squatting positions
(Takahashi – Col. 5, lines 55-58) “the squatting attitude illustrated is an example and any other attitude such as sitting, kneeling or the like will be taken so as to lower the robot’s center of gravity.”
Claim 139.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. further teaches:
wherein moving the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to the respective safe-states includes moving the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to respective sitting positions
(Takahashi – Col. 5, lines 55-58) “the squatting attitude illustrated is an example and any other attitude such as sitting, kneeling or the like will be taken so as to lower the robot’s center of gravity.”
Claim 144.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. further teaches:
executing, by the deployed autonomous bipedal robots, respective self evaluation protocols after receiving the one or more acoustic signals
(Takahashi – Abstract) “In the microcomputer, it is first checked if the signal is larger than a first reference level at an interval and a counter value is incremented if the result of checking is affirmative. Then the counter value is compared with a second reference value and if it exceeds the second reference value, the robot is ascertained to be in a stable attitude. If it is ascertained to be stable, the robot is driven to stop its locomotion.”
Claim 145.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. further teaches:
wherein the one or more acoustic signals include a whistle
(Takahashi – Abstract) “The robot operator and persons in a robot’s working environment are provided with a whistle and blows it when the robot is likely to collide with them or objects.”
Claim 146.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. further teaches:
wherein the one or more acoustic signals include a directional acoustic signal
(Takahashi – Abstract) “The robot operator and persons in a robot’s working environment are provided with a whistle and blows it when the robot is likely to collide with them or objects.”
[Examiner’s Note: No explicit definition has been provided for the phrase “a directional acoustic signal”. In light of paragraph [0120] of the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this phrase is determined to be inclusive of a whistle.]
Claim 150.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. further teaches:
correlating the one or more acoustic signals to one or more safety commands includes performing a data signal match
(Takahashi – Abstract) “The sensor picks up the signal to pass it to a band-filter so as a frequency components of 400 Hz is passed to a later state made up of a microcomputer. In the microcomputer, it is first checked if the signal is larger than a first reference level at an interval”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 130 and 152 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. as applied to claim 129 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 20030171850).
Claim 130.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach a voice command; however, Kobayashi et al. teaches:
wherein the one or more acoustic signals include a voice command
(Kobayashi – [0037]) “the sensor input processing unit 50 includes a voice recognition unit 50A for recognizing the voice signal supplied from the microphone 15.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the emergency stop system of Takahashi et al. with the voice recognition unit of Kobayashi et al. Both Takahashi et al. and Kobayashi et al. are directed toward recognition of acoustic inputs; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be combined in this fashion with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to allow an operator to easily give a plurality of commands to a robot.
Claim 152.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach an acoustic response; however, Kobayashi et al. teaches:
transmitting, by the deployed autonomous bipedal robots, one or more acoustic response to the one or more acoustic signals
(Kobayashi – [0057]) “the speaker 18 outputs… a voice ‘What?’ to respond to a call from the user.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the robot of Takahashi et al. with the voice output system of Kobayashi et al. Both Takahashi et al. and Kobayashi et al. are directed towards robots responding to acoustic inputs; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be modified in this fashion with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to provide an indication of a received signal in a situation in which the robot may not be visible to the operator.
Claim(s) 133 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. as applied to claim 129 above, and further in view of Ng et al. (US 20220287531, previously cited).
Claim 133.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach a hierarchical command protocol; however, Ng et al. teaches:
executing, by the deployed autonomous bipedal robots respective hierarchical command protocols after receiving the one or more acoustic signals
(Ng – Abstract) “a plurality of cleaning apparatus, and at least one of the plurality of cleaning apparatus is communicatively connected with a processor unit, wherein the processor unit comprises a hierarchy generation module for determining a hierarchy state of each of the registered cleaning apparatus”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the robot of Takahashi et al. such that it is part of a fleet in a similar fashion to Ng et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a plurality of robots such as those of Takahashi et al. could be used at the same time, and further would have been motivated to modify such a fleet with the hierarchy generation module of Ng et al. to allow for cooperative control of the fleet (Ng – Abstract).
Claim(s) 140 and 141 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. as applied to claim 139 above, and further in view of Ueno et al. (US 20020007230).
Claim 140.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 139, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach a position with a chest of a robot adjacent to a ground surface; however, Ueno et al. teaches:
wherein moving the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to respective sitting positions includes moving the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to respective forward sitting positions with respective chests of the deployed autonomous bipedal robots adjacent to a ground surface
(Ueno – [0049]) “the robot changes its position to that in which the robot is, for example, sitting down, lying on its face, or lying on its back”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the robot attitudes of Takahashi et al. with the robot attitudes of Ueno et al. Both Takahashi et al. and Ueno et al. are directed towards placing a robot in a position with a low center of gravity; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this could be done with predictable results. The particular attitude in which the robot is placed is a design choice, as any attitude which lowers the center of gravity of the robot will result in a reduced risk of damage to the robot or to objects in its environment (Ueno – [0049]).
Claim 141.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 139, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach a position with a back of a robot adjacent to a ground surface; however, Ueno et al. teaches:
wherein moving the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to respective sitting positions includes moving the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to respective backward sitting positions with respective backs of the deployed autonomous bipedal robots adjacent to a ground surface
(Ueno – [0049]) “the robot changes its position to that in which the robot is, for example, sitting down, lying on its face, or lying on its back”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 140.
Claim(s) 142 and 143 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. as applied to claim 129 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 115729195).
Claim 142.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach moving arms of a robot into contact with the ground; however, Chen et al. teaches:
wherein moving the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to the respective safe-states includes moving respective arms of the deployed autonomous bipedal robots into contact with a ground surface
(Chen – [n0053]) “This resting task instructs the forklift to return to the designated position, and the fork arm to reset, etc. to restore the fork arm to its original state.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the robot of Takahashi et al. with the arms of Chen et al. Both Takahashi et al. and Chen et al. are directed towards machines used in a working environment; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this combination could be made with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to allow the robot of Takahashi et al. to be used in tasks which require the carrying of an object.
Claim 143.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach placing payloads; however, Chen et al. teaches:
wherein moving the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to the respective safe-states includes causing the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to place respective payloads
(Chen – [n0053]) “This resting task instructs the forklift to return to the designated position, and the fork arm to reset, etc. to restore the fork arm to its original state.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 142.
Claim(s) 147 and 148 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. as applied to claim 129 above, and further in view of Fire Supply Depot (NPL 1).
Claim 147.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach a handheld whistle; however, Fire Supply Depot teaches:
wherein generating the one or more acoustic signals includes generating the one or more acoustic signals via a handheld device
(Fire Supply Depot) “The emergency whistle is constructed of metal and comes with a lanyard.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the whistle of Takahashi et al. with the lanyard of Fire Supply Depot. Both Takahashi et al. and Fire Supply Depot are directed towards whistles; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this modification could be made with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure that the whistle is easily accessible to an operator and does not get lost in a chaotic situation.
Claim 148.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. further teaches, with respect to Fig. 1 above:
wherein generating the one or more acoustic signals includes generating the one or more signals via a wearable device
(Takahashi – Abstract) “The robot operator and persons in a robot’s working environment are provided with a whistle and blows it when the robot is likely to collide with them or objects.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 147.
Claim(s) 149 and 153 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. as applied to claim 129 above, and further in view of Stahl (US 20210314699).
Claim 149.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach a range; however, Stahl teaches:
determining a range for the one or more safety commands
(Stahl – Abstract) “a transmitter configured to transmit an electro-magnetic signal that carries the audio signal for receipt at distances limited to an audibility range of the set of sound waves.”
generating at least one of the one or more acoustic signals at an amplitude based on the range
(Stahl – [0070]) “the audibility range may be dynamically determined based on a volume level set for the speaker device 502”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the whistle of Takahashi et al. with the volume level of Stahl. Both Takahashi et al. and Stahl are directed towards emission of acoustic signals, therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the whistle of Takahashi et al. could also be used at different volume levels. One would have been motivated to do this in order to increase the audibility range of the whistle (Stahl – [0070]).
Claim 153.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach a range; however, Stahl teaches:
generating the one or more acoustic signals at an amplitude selected to control a range of the deployed autonomous bipedal robots that receive the one or more acoustic signals
(Stahl – [0070]) “the audibility range may be dynamically determined based on a volume level set for the speaker device 502”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 149.
Claim(s) 151 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. as applied to claim 129 above, and further in view of Vestal et al. (US 20140365258).
Claim 151.
Takahashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 129, as discussed above. Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach a docking station; however, Vestal et al. teaches:
wherein moving the deployed autonomous bipedal robots to the respective safe-states includes moving the deployed autonomous bipedal mobile robots to one or more docking stations
(Vestal – [0103]) “if the job management system 205 sends a command to a mobile robot in the fleet 290 to perform the operation ‘Charge Battery,’ the onboard navigation system on the mobile robot will use a copy of the map 208 to obtain the current locations of battery charging stations in respect to the floor plan 210, as well as the current availability of the nearby battery charging stations, and based on this information, automatically drive the mobile robot to the nearest battery charging station that is not currently being used by another mobile robot.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the emergency stop system of Takahashi et al. with the charging stations of Vestal et al. Both Takahashi et al. and Vestal et al. are directed towards responding to received commands; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this combination could be made with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to keep the working area clear of potential collision hazards in an emergency situation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669