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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 16 recites the limitation "the shape." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to what ‘the’ shape is referencing because there is no previous mention of a shape in the claim. For examination purposes, the shape is interpreted as a shape of a projection of the robot. Claim 17 is also rejected because it does not resolve the deficiencies of claim 16.
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.
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) 1-7, 9, 11-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Translated CN 114879710 A) in view of Goulding (US 20110231050 A1) and Oleynik (US 20190291277 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Li teaches
A control system for controlling a robot to perform a task, (“The invention claims a track tracking method and device of foot-type robot.” See at least the Abstract)
wherein the robot is a legged robot comprising a trunk and a plurality of legs for supporting the trunk above a ground, (“As shown in FIG. 3, the double-foot, four-foot or six-foot robot, each arm mechanism comprises but not limited to shoulder joint, elbow joint and wrist joint three active joint, each leg foot mechanism comprises but not limited to hip outer swing joint, thigh front swing joint and knee joint three active joint.” See at least pg. 7 and fig. 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
276
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the control system comprises a processor; and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, causes the control system to: (“a terminal device, the terminal device comprises: a memory, a processor and a track tracking program stored on the memory and capable of running on the processor of the foot robot, the track tracking program of the foot robot is executed by the processor to realize the step of the track tracking method of the foot robot.” See at least pg. 4)
collect a reference trajectory defining a sequence of states of the robot in a time and a space to perform the task; (“Further, the desired pose track parameter comprises: a desired trajectory position and velocity and a planning time to reach the desired trajectory position; The processor 1001 can call the track tracking program of the foot-type robot stored in the memory 1005, obtaining the operation requirement of the foot-type robot; determining the desired trajectory position and velocity of the foot robot and the planning time to reach the desired trajectory position according to the manipulation requirement.” See at least pg. 6)
execute a stance controller configured to compute and apply reaction forces of the plurality of legs of the robot in a contact with the ground to push the trunk of the robot based on the reference trajectory; (“the terminal device as the body pose trajectory tracking controller of the foot-type robot final form can be as follows: … the total expected force and torque of the robot body of the foot-type robot calculated by the terminal device is decomposed into the desired ground reaction force of the supporting leg by the optimization calculation method and as the input of the next layer controller-leg foot controller, so as to finally realize the track tracking of the body pose of the foot-type robot.” See at least pg. 10)
and execute a swing controller (“the swinging leg foot end desired force and the second variable damping controller output of the swinging leg end desired force are overlapped and converted into joint desired torque, and the joint desired torque as the input of the joint controller of the foot-type robot, for the joint controller to track the swinging leg track of the foot-type robot.” See at least pg. 13)
Li does not explicitly teach, but Goulding teaches
swing a leg of the plurality of legs in response to detecting a relative position between the trunk and a foot of the leg of the robot indicative of an imbalance of a support of the trunk of the robot above the ground (“The initial condition is when the center of gravity 58 is above the supporting point of the foot. The actuator encoders 99 measure kinematic proprioception and the IMU 82 measures body 42 displacements from the vertical reference plane 44, are compared by the control unit to make a more precise determination as to criticality of rate of roll. … When uncontrolled slip is detected, a leg in flight or near flight phase or the leg contributing least to the expected stability of the body is repositioned to catch the fall. That is in order to stabilize the legged vehicle and prevent turnover, the trajectory of the body 42 as an inverted pendulum is computed and the at least one leg, called the swing leg, is extended in the direction of the fall. … The center of gravity 58 moves in a circular orbit about the supporting foot 45, and the projected center of pressure 59 and zero moment point shifts in the direction of the fall. … The control unit 86 adjusts the placement of the at least one foot so as to position the foot beyond the projected center of gravity and in the direction of the roll. As a result, a counteracting moment can be induced to obtain a large attitude restoring force, to catch the fall and prevent vehicle overturn. Simultaneously, the control unit 86 re-adjusts the gait pattern of the other legs such that in mid-step or in following footstep, the walking gait is restored.” See at least [0479])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Li to further include the teachings of Goulding with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by catching a fall and preventing overturn. (See at least [0479]
Goulding does not explicitly teach, but Oleynik teaches
a plurality of swing controllers (“for complex robotic systems beyond the typical 6 DoFs, such as those comprised of arms with fingered hands, or multi-arms or even mobile (via legs or wheels) humanoids, it is critical to split the system at both the physical and logical level into subsystems that have separate controller and processor devices operating on a dedicated bus, each responsible for only a sub-portion of the complete kinematic chain, while being overseen by a planning and executor system capable of synchronizing the same to achieve a desirable task.” See at least [0760])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Li and Goulding to further include the teachings of Oleynik with a reasonable expectation of success to implement a plurality of swing controllers to allow for real-time control of more complex robotic systems. (See at least [0760])
Regarding Claim 2,
Li does not explicitly teach, but Goulding teaches
wherein the swing controller is agnostic to a change of the space commanded by the reference trajectory. (“When uncontrolled slip is detected, a leg in flight or near flight phase or the leg contributing least to the expected stability of the body is repositioned to catch the fall. That is in order to stabilize the legged vehicle and prevent turnover, the trajectory of the body 42 as an inverted pendulum is computed and the at least one leg, called the swing leg, is extended in the direction of the fall. … The control unit 86 adjusts the placement of the at least one foot so as to position the foot beyond the projected center of gravity and in the direction of the roll. As a result, a counteracting moment can be induced to obtain a large attitude restoring force, to catch the fall and prevent vehicle overturn. … It should be noted that the system of the present invention can operate on the basis of the IMU data 97 alone or the kinematic proprioception data 99 and 100 alone.” See at least [0479]; Examiner Interpretation: The stabilization control (swing controller) operates on the IMU or proprioception data alone and therefore is agnostic to a change of the space commanded by the reference trajectory.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Li to further include the teachings of Goulding with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by catching a fall and preventing overturn. (See at least [0479]
Regarding Claim 3,
Li further teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the swing controller in response to the execution of the stance controller. (“the terminal device as the swinging leg track tracking controller of the foot robot final form can be as follows: wherein, Kf-is swing leg position variable damping coefficient, is the desired speed of the leg end of the swinging leg, and the actual speed of the foot end of the swinging leg. the foot desired force calculated by the terminal device is converted into joint desired torque by Jacobi, as the input of the joint controller, and finally realizing the tracking of the swinging leg foot end track.” See at least pg. 12)
Regarding Claim 4,
Li does not explicitly teach, but Oleynik teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the swing controller in response to another execution of another swing controller of the plurality of swing controllers. (“it is critical to split the system at both the physical and logical level into subsystems that have separate controller and processor devices operating on a dedicated bus, each responsible for only a sub-portion of the complete kinematic chain, while being overseen by a planning and executor system capable of synchronizing the same to achieve a desirable task.” See at least [0760], wherein synchronizing the subsystems is equivalent to executing the swing controller in response to another execution of another swing controller.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Li to further include the teachings of Oleynik with a reasonable expectation of success to implement a plurality of swing controllers to allow for real-time control of more complex robotic systems. (See at least [0760])
Regarding Claim 5,
Li further teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the swing controller in response to the execution of the stance controller (“the terminal device as the swinging leg track tracking controller of the foot robot final form can be as follows: wherein, Kf-is swing leg position variable damping coefficient, is the desired speed of the leg end of the swinging leg, and the actual speed of the foot end of the swinging leg. the foot desired force calculated by the terminal device is converted into joint desired torque by Jacobi, as the input of the joint controller, and finally realizing the tracking of the swinging leg foot end track.” See at least pg. 12)
Li does not explicitly teach, but Goulding teaches
to execute the swing controller in response to … the detection of the imbalance. (“When uncontrolled slip is detected, a leg in flight or near flight phase or the leg contributing least to the expected stability of the body is repositioned to catch the fall. That is in order to stabilize the legged vehicle and prevent turnover.” See at least [0479])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Li to further include the teachings of Goulding with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by catching a fall and preventing overturn. (See at least [0479]
Regarding Claim 6,
Li does not explicitly teach, but Goulding teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to detect the imbalance based on measurements of mutual positions of joints of the leg of the plurality of legs. (“each actuator at the individual joints 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, and 53 is provided with an encoder disposed adjacent to the respective motors for generating sensed kinematic data for actuation control, proposition and posture. … resulting encoders provide joint angle feedback 99.” See at least [0454]; “The actuator encoders 99 measure kinematic proprioception and the IMU 82 measures body 42 displacements from the vertical reference plane 44, are compared by the control unit to make a more precise determination as to criticality of rate of roll. … When uncontrolled slip is detected, a leg in flight or near flight phase or the leg contributing least to the expected stability of the body is repositioned to catch the fall.” See at least [0479])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Li to further include the teachings of Goulding with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by catching a fall and preventing overturn. (See at least [0479]
Regarding Claim 7,
Li does not explicitly teach, but Goulding teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to detect the imbalance based on the measurements of mutual positions of the joints of the leg of the plurality of legs corresponding to a speed defined by the reference trajectory. (“each actuator at the individual joints 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, and 53 is provided with an encoder disposed adjacent to the respective motors for generating sensed kinematic data for actuation control, proposition and posture. … resulting encoders provide joint angle feedback 99.” See at least [0454]; “The actuator encoders 99 measure kinematic proprioception and the IMU 82 measures body 42 displacements from the vertical reference plane 44, are compared by the control unit to make a more precise determination as to criticality of rate of roll. … When uncontrolled slip is detected, a leg in flight or near flight phase or the leg contributing least to the expected stability of the body is repositioned to catch the fall.” See at least [0479]; “Three methods to afford balance by adjusting the step length for uneven footholds (e.g., rough terrain) are known and include 1) maintaining constant duration of the stance and flight phases and adjusting the forward speed, 2) maintaining a constant forward running speed and constant duration of the stance phase and adjusting the duration of the flight phase, and 3) maintaining constant forward running speed and duration of the flight phase and adjusting the duration of the stance phase.” See at least [0489])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Li to further include the teachings of Goulding with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by catching a fall and preventing overturn. (See at least [0479]
Regarding Claim 9,
Li does not explicitly teach, but Goulding teaches
wherein to swing the leg, the processor is further configured to: execute a pre-determined imbalance function to detect the imbalance of the foot of the leg based on the mutual positions of the joints of the leg; (“each actuator at the individual joints 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, and 53 is provided with an encoder disposed adjacent to the respective motors for generating sensed kinematic data for actuation control, proposition and posture. … resulting encoders provide joint angle feedback 99.” See at least [0454]; “The actuator encoders 99 measure kinematic proprioception and the IMU 82 measures body 42 displacements from the vertical reference plane 44, are compared by the control unit to make a more precise determination as to criticality of rate of roll. … When uncontrolled slip is detected, a leg in flight or near flight phase or the leg contributing least to the expected stability of the body is repositioned to catch the fall.” See at least [0479])
estimate a swing action of the leg to correct the detected imbalance; (“That is in order to stabilize the legged vehicle and prevent turnover, the trajectory of the body 42 as an inverted pendulum is computed and the at least one leg, called the swing leg, is extended in the direction of the fall. Planning of this swing leg involves controlling two parameters. First, FIG. 34 shows that the center of gravity 58 trajectory is expressed as an inverted pendulum whose leg length is constant and thus defines an arc of radius R2. The center of gravity 58 moves in a circular orbit about the supporting foot 45, and the projected center of pressure 59 and zero moment point shifts in the direction of the fall. Second, the expected moment of inertia of the body 42 is calculated for the future time of when the fall would be caught, and a torque is computed to counteract the fall, which then computes the distance, d, required from the projected center of pressure and the swing leg arc of radius R1.” See at least [0479])
generate, based on the estimated swing action, one or more commands to one or more actuators of the robot; and control, based on the one or more commands, the one or more actuators to execute the swing action. (“The control unit 86 adjusts the placement of the at least one foot so as to position the foot beyond the projected center of gravity and in the direction of the roll. As a result, a counteracting moment can be induced to obtain a large attitude restoring force, to catch the fall and prevent vehicle overturn. Simultaneously, the control unit 86 re-adjusts the gait pattern of the other legs such that in mid-step or in following footstep, the walking gait is restored.” See at least [0479])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Li to further include the teachings of Goulding with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by catching a fall and preventing overturn. (See at least [0479]
Regarding Claim 11,
Li does not explicitly teach, but Goulding teaches
wherein the swing controller is agnostic to the reference trajectory, such that the pre-determined imbalance function and the swing action are computed independently of the reference trajectory. (“When uncontrolled slip is detected, a leg in flight or near flight phase or the leg contributing least to the expected stability of the body is repositioned to catch the fall. That is in order to stabilize the legged vehicle and prevent turnover, the trajectory of the body 42 as an inverted pendulum is computed and the at least one leg, called the swing leg, is extended in the direction of the fall. … The control unit 86 adjusts the placement of the at least one foot so as to position the foot beyond the projected center of gravity and in the direction of the roll. As a result, a counteracting moment can be induced to obtain a large attitude restoring force, to catch the fall and prevent vehicle overturn. … It should be noted that the system of the present invention can operate on the basis of the IMU data 97 alone or the kinematic proprioception data 99 and 100 alone.” See at least [0479]; Examiner Interpretation: The stabilization control (swing controller) operates on the IMU or proprioception data alone and therefore is agnostic to a change of the space commanded by the reference trajectory.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Li to further include the teachings of Goulding with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by catching a fall and preventing overturn. (See at least [0479]
Regarding Claim 12,
Li does not explicitly teach, but Goulding teaches
wherein an input to the pre-determined imbalance function includes measurements of sensors indicative of the mutual positions of the joints of the leg. (“each actuator at the individual joints 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, and 53 is provided with an encoder disposed adjacent to the respective motors for generating sensed kinematic data for actuation control, proposition and posture. … resulting encoders provide joint angle feedback 99.” See at least [0454]; “The actuator encoders 99 measure kinematic proprioception and the IMU 82 measures body 42 displacements from the vertical reference plane 44, are compared by the control unit to make a more precise determination as to criticality of rate of roll. … When uncontrolled slip is detected, a leg in flight or near flight phase or the leg contributing least to the expected stability of the body is repositioned to catch the fall.” See at least [0479])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Li to further include the teachings of Goulding with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by catching a fall and preventing overturn. (See at least [0479]
Regarding Claim 13,
Li does not explicitly teach, but Goulding teaches
wherein the measurements of sensors indicative of the mutual positions of joints of the leg include one (“each actuator at the individual joints 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, and 53 is provided with an encoder disposed adjacent to the respective motors for generating sensed kinematic data for actuation control, proposition and posture. … resulting encoders provide joint angle feedback 99.” See at least [0454]; “The actuator encoders 99 measure kinematic proprioception and the IMU 82 measures body 42 displacements from the vertical reference plane 44, are compared by the control unit to make a more precise determination as to criticality of rate of roll. … When uncontrolled slip is detected, a leg in flight or near flight phase or the leg contributing least to the expected stability of the body is repositioned to catch the fall.” See at least [0479])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Li to further include the teachings of Goulding with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by catching a fall and preventing overturn. (See at least [0479]
Regarding Claim 14,
Li does not explicitly teach, but Goulding teaches
wherein an output of the pre-determined imbalance function includes a binary output indicating the detection of the imbalance. (“When uncontrolled slip is detected, a leg in flight or near flight phase or the leg contributing least to the expected stability of the body is repositioned to catch the fall.” See at least [0479]; Examiner Interpretation: Whether or not an uncontrolled slip is detected (e.g., yes there is uncontrolled slip, or no there is no uncontrolled slip) is equivalent to a binary output.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Li to further include the teachings of Goulding with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by catching a fall and preventing overturn. (See at least [0479]
Regarding Claim 15,
Li does not explicitly teach, but Goulding teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to: detect the imbalance based on the binary output of the imbalance function; and execute the swing action in response to the detection of the imbalance. (“When uncontrolled slip is detected, a leg in flight or near flight phase or the leg contributing least to the expected stability of the body is repositioned to catch the fall.” See at least [0479]; Examiner Interpretation: Whether or not an uncontrolled slip is detected (e.g., yes there is uncontrolled slip, or no there is no uncontrolled slip) is equivalent to a binary output.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Li to further include the teachings of Goulding with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by catching a fall and preventing overturn. (See at least [0479]
Regarding Claim 18,
Li teaches
A control method for controlling a robot to perform a task, (“The invention claims a track tracking method and device of foot-type robot.” See at least the Abstract)
wherein the robot is a legged robot comprising a trunk and a plurality of legs for supporting the trunk above a ground, (“As shown in FIG. 3, the double-foot, four-foot or six-foot robot, each arm mechanism comprises but not limited to shoulder joint, elbow joint and wrist joint three active joint, each leg foot mechanism comprises but not limited to hip outer swing joint, thigh front swing joint and knee joint three active joint.” See at least pg. 7 and fig. 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
276
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the control method comprising: collecting a reference trajectory defining a sequence of states of the robot in a time and a space to perform the task; (“Further, the desired pose track parameter comprises: a desired trajectory position and velocity and a planning time to reach the desired trajectory position; The processor 1001 can call the track tracking program of the foot-type robot stored in the memory 1005, obtaining the operation requirement of the foot-type robot; determining the desired trajectory position and velocity of the foot robot and the planning time to reach the desired trajectory position according to the manipulation requirement.” See at least pg. 6)
executing a stance controller configured to compute and apply reaction forces of the plurality of legs of the robot in a contact with the ground to push the trunk of the robot based on the reference trajectory; (“the terminal device as the body pose trajectory tracking controller of the foot-type robot final form can be as follows: … the total expected force and torque of the robot body of the foot-type robot calculated by the terminal device is decomposed into the desired ground reaction force of the supporting leg by the optimization calculation method and as the input of the next layer controller-leg foot controller, so as to finally realize the track tracking of the body pose of the foot-type robot.” See at least pg. 10)
and executing a swing controller (“the swinging leg foot end desired force and the second variable damping controller output of the swinging leg end desired force are overlapped and converted into joint desired torque, and the joint desired torque as the input of the joint controller of the foot-type robot, for the joint controller to track the swinging leg track of the foot-type robot.” See at least pg. 13)
Li does not explicitly teach, but Goulding teaches
swing a leg in response to detecting a relative position between the trunk and a foot of the leg of the robot indicative of an imbalance of a support of the trunk of the robot above the ground (“The initial condition is when the center of gravity 58 is above the supporting point of the foot. The actuator encoders 99 measure kinematic proprioception and the IMU 82 measures body 42 displacements from the vertical reference plane 44, are compared by the control unit to make a more precise determination as to criticality of rate of roll. … When uncontrolled slip is detected, a leg in flight or near flight phase or the leg contributing least to the expected stability of the body is repositioned to catch the fall. That is in order to stabilize the legged vehicle and prevent turnover, the trajectory of the body 42 as an inverted pendulum is computed and the at least one leg, called the swing leg, is extended in the direction of the fall. … The center of gravity 58 moves in a circular orbit about the supporting foot 45, and the projected center of pressure 59 and zero moment point shifts in the direction of the fall. … The control unit 86 adjusts the placement of the at least one foot so as to position the foot beyond the projected center of gravity and in the direction of the roll. As a result, a counteracting moment can be induced to obtain a large attitude restoring force, to catch the fall and prevent vehicle overturn. Simultaneously, the control unit 86 re-adjusts the gait pattern of the other legs such that in mid-step or in following footstep, the walking gait is restored.” See at least [0479])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Li to further include the teachings of Goulding with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by catching a fall and preventing overturn. (See at least [0479]
Goulding does not explicitly teach, but Oleynik teaches
a plurality of swing controllers (“for complex robotic systems beyond the typical 6 DoFs, such as those comprised of arms with fingered hands, or multi-arms or even mobile (via legs or wheels) humanoids, it is critical to split the system at both the physical and logical level into subsystems that have separate controller and processor devices operating on a dedicated bus, each responsible for only a sub-portion of the complete kinematic chain, while being overseen by a planning and executor system capable of synchronizing the same to achieve a desirable task.” See at least [0760])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Li and Goulding to further include the teachings of Oleynik with a reasonable expectation of success to implement a plurality of swing controllers to allow for real-time control of more complex robotic systems. (See at least [0760])
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Translated CN 114879710 A) in view of Goulding (US 20110231050 A1), Oleynik (US 20190291277 A1), and Kwak (US 20100161117 A1).
Regarding Claim 10,
Li does not explicitly teach, but Kwak teaches
wherein the pre-determined imbalance function detects the imbalance corresponding to the foot position of the leg on the ground that is outside of the shape centered on the projection of the hip position of the leg to the ground. (See at least [0056-0053] and figs. 6A-6B, and fig. 7 (fig. 6A provided below) which describes determining sideways tilt of the robot (imbalance) based at least in part a foot position (C1) that is outside of the shape centered on the projection of the hip position (robot plane P))
PNG
media_image2.png
432
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Li to further include the teachings of Kwak with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate balancing a biped robot in a 3D space. (See at least [0009] and [0070-0071])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The relevant prior art does not disclose the dimensions of the shape as a function of speed as disclosed by the applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rizzi (US 9395726 B1) is pertinent because it discusses a robotic device to perform a gallop gait or a bound gait using decoupled controllers.
Hodgins (US 20100250001 A1) is pertinent because it discusses controlling a humanoid robot using a balance controller and a tracking controller.
Tajima (US 20090005906 A1) is pertinent because it discusses a technique that makes a robot continue a stabilized walk, even when an actual movement state of the robot deviates greatly from a target movement state of the robot.
Chen (NPL: “Virtual Model Control for Quadruped Robots”) is pertinent because it discusses similar techniques of trajectory tracking control and anti-disturbance control to balance the robot.
The above mentioned art, evaluated separately and in combination, does not disclose the entirety of limitations of the dependent claims 8 and 16-17 since they do not describe the dimensions of the shape as a function of speed or moving the foot in a center of the shape to correct imbalance as disclosed by the applicant. No prior art has been found at the time of writing this office action to reject the pending claims 8 and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karston G Evans whose telephone number is (571)272-8480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at (571)270-3976. 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.
/KARSTON G. EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3657