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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-28 are currently pending and addressed below.
Preliminary amendments filed and received on 12/29/2023 and have been accepted and approved.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2024 has been received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“at least one of: a robe, a wire, or a sling” appears to be a typographical error and should be corrected to read “at least one of: a rope, a wire, or a sling” or similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 10, Line 17 appears to have the same typographical error as claim 28. Similar correction or clarification is requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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. It is unclear based on the currently provided claim language what "a horizontally rotatable manner" or "a vertically rotatable manner" is meant to be. What axis is the horizontal/vertical relative to? Further, it is unclear how this is achieved with the claimed joint structures. Both the body coxa joint and the coxa femur joint are ball and socket joints which have three degrees of freedom and are generally understood to rotate with a wide range of motion not only in a horizontal or vertical manner.
Claims 23 and 24 contain the trademark/trade name(s) “Bluetooth” and “Wi-Fi”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe “a wireless communication module” and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the data obtained" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the rotation of the motor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the data obtained" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the rotational position sensor" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the data obtained" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the data obtained" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the tip portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the data obtained" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation " the data obtained " in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " the data obtained " in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation " the data obtained " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the joint region" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3, 21-23, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlee et al. (US 20120103705 A1), hereinafter Schlee in view of Behar et al. (US 7996112 B1), hereinafter Behar.
Regarding claim 1, Schlee teaches:
1. (Currently Amended) A walking robot comprising at least one moving module(Paragraph 0003, "The present invention is a multi-unit mobile robot comprising a plurality of separate carriages or units linked together by linkages. Each unit comprises hinged first and second segments which facilitates pitch relative motion between the segments, and accordingly the units. By controlling actuators to the hinges, one can cause the robot to coil around and compress against the exterior, or compress against the interior, of an object to be traversed.") wherein … and a joint (Paragraph 0037, "In the preferred embodiment, multi-unit mobile robot 1 is capable, given an appropriate length, of compressing around the outside of, or pushing against the inside of, a work surface of an object 2 or 3 which encompasses an arc of greater than 180.degree. (See FIGS. 1, 2). The multi-unit mobile robot comprises a plurality of robot units 10 and 10' connected together by links 40 (FIGS. 4-6). Units 10 and 10' are similar in construction, except that unit 10 is slightly wider than unit 10', such that units 10 and 10' can be joined in alternating fashion with their wheels 15 and 15' being capable of overlapping without interference to allow the multi-unit robot 1 to pass over sharp edges (FIGS. 1, 3, 3A and 4-6). If the object being traversed does not contain sharp edges (shown as object 3 in FIG. 10), wheel overlap is not a requirement. Each unit 10 and 10' includes a hinged platform 20 or 20' located between wheels 15 and preferably within the confines thereof (FIGS. 1 and 4-6).") a controller (Paragraph 0079, "The entire mobile robotic device 1 can be controlled through a "master controller" computer 100 (FIG. 14). Each motion actuator 17, pitch actuator 30 and yaw actuator 45 will preferably be independently controlled to achieve the desired movement and clamping force on the object multi-unit robot 1 surrounds. Thus master controller computer 100 will independently direct a plurality of individual actuator controls A1, A2, A3, AN, depending on the number required to control all of the pitch, yaw and motion actuators mounted on all of the robot units 10 and 10' (FIG. 14). Each actuator control is located on a unit 10 or 10', and controls one of its four actuators: one motion actuator 17 for each of the two wheels 15 or 15', the pitch actuator 30, and the yaw actuator 45 (FIGS. 15-17). Controller computer 100 is either independently wired to each of the actuator controls in each of the units 10, 10', or controller computer 100 controls each actuator control through wireless connections.") and a communication portion (Paragraph 0040, "Each unit 10,10' may include quick connect/disconnect interfaces for electrical power, control communications, communication, pneumatic/hydraulic lines for use by payload and robot unit, if required, and application liquid lines for use by payload, if required. The platforms 20 and 20' can be made to a size which provides room to install all equipment necessary to make it and the payload self contained (e.g. batteries, tanks, wireless communication, etc.). This would be desirable if the chassis needs to navigate around supporting structure or large obstacles that make lines impractical (e.g. pipeline supports). Each unit 10, 10' is preferably 100% electrical for precise control capability and mass savings. However, the large forces required to enable the multi-unit mobile robot to adhere to the work surface may necessitate the use of hydraulic or pneumatic actuators in lieu of electric components.")(Paragraph 0052, "Each Mecanum wheel 15 contains a series of rollers 16 attached to its circumference, each having an axis of rotation of about 45.degree. to the vertical plane of the wheel (FIGS. 1 and 5). Each wheel 15 includes its own individual drive motor, or motion actuator 17. Each motion actuator 17, identified by letters "a", "b", "c", and "d", is individually connected to a control unit 100 (FIG. 14) such that the wheels can be instructed to rotate in the same direction at the same speed, in the same direction differentially, in opposite directions at the same speed, or in opposite directions differentially. In this way, each unit can be made to move sideways, diagonally or straightforward or straight backwards." and Paragraph 0054, "By thus individually controlling the speed and direction of motion actuators 17 independently, the entire multi-unit robot device can be made to traverse the work surface in any direction, forward, backward, laterally left, laterally right and any direction there between. Clockwise and counterclockwise rotation will typically be used for small adjustments only. For unbiased motion, the total number of Mecanum wheels need to be divisible by four.") (Paragraph 0037, "In the preferred embodiment, multi-unit mobile robot 1 is capable, given an appropriate length, of compressing around the outside of, or pushing against the inside of, a work surface of an object 2 or 3 which encompasses an arc of greater than 180.degree. (See FIGS. 1, 2). The multi-unit mobile robot comprises a plurality of robot units 10 and 10' connected together by links 40 (FIGS. 4-6). Units 10 and 10' are similar in construction, except that unit 10 is slightly wider than unit 10', such that units 10 and 10' can be joined in alternating fashion with their wheels 15 and 15' being capable of overlapping without interference to allow the multi-unit robot 1 to pass over sharp edges (FIGS. 1, 3, 3A and 4-6). If the object being traversed does not contain sharp edges (shown as object 3 in FIG. 10), wheel overlap is not a requirement. Each unit 10 and 10' includes a hinged platform 20 or 20' located between wheels 15 and preferably within the confines thereof (FIGS. 1 and 4-6).") and move in a lateral or forward-backward direction by the control of the controller(Paragraph 0052, "Each Mecanum wheel 15 contains a series of rollers 16 attached to its circumference, each having an axis of rotation of about 45.degree. to the vertical plane of the wheel (FIGS. 1 and 5). Each wheel 15 includes its own individual drive motor, or motion actuator 17. Each motion actuator 17, identified by letters "a", "b", "c", and "d", is individually connected to a control unit 100 (FIG. 14) such that the wheels can be instructed to rotate in the same direction at the same speed, in the same direction differentially, in opposite directions at the same speed, or in opposite directions differentially. In this way, each unit can be made to move sideways, diagonally or straightforward or straight backwards." and Paragraph 0054, "By thus individually controlling the speed and direction of motion actuators 17 independently, the entire multi-unit robot device can be made to traverse the work surface in any direction, forward, backward, laterally left, laterally right and any direction there between. Clockwise and counterclockwise rotation will typically be used for small adjustments only. For unbiased motion, the total number of Mecanum wheels need to be divisible by four.") which coordinates with the controllerportion(Paragraph 0040, " Each unit 10,10' may include quick connect/disconnect interfaces for electrical power, control communications, communication, pneumatic/hydraulic lines for use by payload and robot unit, if required, and application liquid lines for use by payload, if required. The platforms 20 and 20' can be made to a size which provides room to install all equipment necessary to make it and the payload self contained (e.g. batteries, tanks, wireless communication, etc.). This would be desirable if the chassis needs to navigate around supporting structure or large obstacles that make lines impractical (e.g. pipeline supports). Each unit 10, 10' is preferably 100% electrical for precise control capability and mass savings. However, the large forces required to enable the multi-unit mobile robot to adhere to the work surface may necessitate the use of hydraulic or pneumatic actuators in lieu of electric components.")
Schlee does not specifically teach each unit having legs with feet on either side of each unit. However, Behar, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
… each moving module (Column 1, Lines 47-65, "The present teachings also describe a robot having a body including a power source and a control unit. The robot also includes at least one leg pivotally attached to the body. The leg includes a first pivot joint that includes a first servo motor, a first controller module, and a first spring-loaded compliance mechanism. The control unit is arranged to communicate with the first controller module to control pivotal movement of the leg.
The present teachings further describe a robot system including a body having a communication system capable of receiving high level commands from a host computer, a control unit, and a power source. The robot system also includes at least one leg pivotably attached to the body. Each leg includes a first pivot joint including a first controller module and a first servo motor, a second pivot joint including a second controller module and a second servo motor, and a foot assembly. Further, each of the first and second controller modules is capable of directly communicating with the control unit.") …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system as taught by Schlee with the leg structure as taught by Behar. While Schlee does teach each unit having two legs with wheels on opposing sides of the unit they do not specifically teach feet connected to the legs of the unit. It would be obvious to incorporate the leg structures as taught by Behar with the multi-unit robotic system as taught by Schlee. This would provide a system that is able to traverse a plurality of environments.
Regarding claim 2, wherein all the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, Schlee further teaches:
2. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 1, wherein the joint (Paragraph s 0041-0042, " Multi-unit robot 1 is capable of movement in any direction on a work surface through the use of individually driven Mecanum wheels, as wheels 15 and 15'. The multi-unit robot 1 clamps (compresses) around the outside or against the interior of a work surface through control of the pitch motion between the hingedly joined platform segments 21 and 22, and 21' and 22' (FIG. 1). Each unit is also capable of pivot, yaw and roll motion relative to its adjacent units through control mechanisms associated with links 40 (FIGS. 7-9).
Compression of the device against the outside or inside of a work surface is achieved by a pitch actuator 30, e.g. a motor, servo, or linear actuator, on each platform 20, 20' which acts to fold the platform segments 21, 22 or 21', 22' towards one another, with a biasing torque in accordance with controller instruction (FIGS. 1 and 4-6). Links 40 do not permit pitch motion between units 10 and 10', such that adjacent planar segments 22' and 21, and 22 and 21', tend to be forced down (or up) against the work surface in a compressing (or outwardly forcing) motion as a result of actuator 30 causing a pitching motion between hinged segments 21 and 22, or 21' and 22'. This action occurring simultaneously in multiple robot units 10 and 10' causes the multi-unit robot 1 to clamp against any surface which is encompassed to the extent of more than 180 degrees by the multi-unit robot 1 (FIG. 2).") and a yaw joint (Paragraph 0045, "The lateral pivot or yaw movement between adjacent units 10 and 10' is achieved by each of the links 40 being pivotably connected at each end to yaw actuators 45 (FIGS. 5 and 6), one of which is mounted on the platform 20 of a unit 10 and the other of which is mounted on the platform 20' of an adjacent unit 10'. Specifically, one yaw actuator 45 mounted on the hinged platform member 21 of unit 10 is joined to one end of a link 40 and the other end of link 40 is joined to another actuator 45 is mounted on the hinged platform 22' of the adjacent unit 10'. Similarly another link 40 is connected to and extends between a yaw actuator 45 mounted on hinged platform segment 22 of unit 10 and another yaw actuator 45 mounted on the succeeding hinged platform 21' of adjacent unit 10' (FIGS. 5-9).")
Regarding claim 3, where all the limitations of claim 2 are discussed above, Schlee further teaches:
3. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 2, wherein the pitch joint (Paragraphs 0042," Compression of the device against the outside or inside of a work surface is achieved by a pitch actuator 30, e.g. a motor, servo, or linear actuator, on each platform 20, 20' which acts to fold the platform segments 21, 22 or 21', 22' towards one another, with a biasing torque in accordance with controller instruction (FIGS. 1 and 4-6). Links 40 do not permit pitch motion between units 10 and 10', such that adjacent planar segments 22' and 21, and 22 and 21', tend to be forced down (or up) against the work surface in a compressing (or outwardly forcing) motion as a result of actuator 30 causing a pitching motion between hinged segments 21 and 22, or 21' and 22'. This action occurring simultaneously in multiple robot units 10 and 10' causes the multi-unit robot 1 to clamp against any surface which is encompassed to the extent of more than 180 degrees by the multi-unit robot 1 (FIG. 2)." and Paragraph 0045, "The lateral pivot or yaw movement between adjacent units 10 and 10' is achieved by each of the links 40 being pivotably connected at each end to yaw actuators 45 (FIGS. 5 and 6), one of which is mounted on the platform 20 of a unit 10 and the other of which is mounted on the platform 20' of an adjacent unit 10'. Specifically, one yaw actuator 45 mounted on the hinged platform member 21 of unit 10 is joined to one end of a link 40 and the other end of link 40 is joined to another actuator 45 is mounted on the hinged platform 22' of the adjacent unit 10'. Similarly another link 40 is connected to and extends between a yaw actuator 45 mounted on hinged platform segment 22 of unit 10 and another yaw actuator 45 mounted on the succeeding hinged platform 21' of adjacent unit 10' (FIGS. 5-9).")
Regarding claim 21, where all the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, Schlee further teaches:
21. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 1, wherein the moving module(Paragraph 0086, "Unit position can be determined by feedback from a wide array of sources (e.g. pitch and yaw angle sensors, GPS, known position transmitter, drive motor rates, inertial guidance control, etc.) The unit will relay relevant position data to the payload as required. Precise position control allows for minimal user input and thus facilitates automation of a particular task.")
Regarding claim 22, where all the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, Schlee further teaches:
22. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 1, wherein the controller (Paragraph 0081, "FIG. 15 is a schematic of actuator control system A1, which controls a motion actuator 17. Master controller 100 sends angular rate instructions to a unit controller 120 in actuator control A1, as indicated by line 101. This signal passes through a summing point 121 and on to unit controller 120. At the same time, unit controller 120 is receiving a feedback signal through line 107, summing point 121 and line 108, from a potentiometer 123, which is measuring the rate of rotation of motion actuator 17 through feedback line 105. The unit controller 120 is comparing these two inputs and is sending a blended resultant signal via line 104 to motion actuator 17. At the same time, the feedback signal is being fed back to master controller 100 through summing point 121 and feedback line 102")
Regarding claim 23, where all the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, Schlee further teaches:
23. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 1, wherein the communication portion (Paragraph 0079, "The entire mobile robotic device 1 can be controlled through a "master controller" computer 100 (FIG. 14). Each motion actuator 17, pitch actuator 30 and yaw actuator 45 will preferably be independently controlled to achieve the desired movement and clamping force on the object multi-unit robot 1 surrounds. Thus master controller computer 100 will independently direct a plurality of individual actuator controls A1, A2, A3, AN, depending on the number required to control all of the pitch, yaw and motion actuators mounted on all of the robot units 10 and 10' (FIG. 14). Each actuator control is located on a unit 10 or 10', and controls one of its four actuators: one motion actuator 17 for each of the two wheels 15 or 15', the pitch actuator 30, and the yaw actuator 45 (FIGS. 15-17). Controller computer 100 is either independently wired to each of the actuator controls in each of the units 10, 10', or controller computer 100 controls each actuator control through wireless connections.")
Regarding claim 25, where all the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, Schlee further teaches:
25. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 1, wherein the walking robot is used for an exploration or operation on a horizontal or vertical surface, which is any one of smooth, rough, inclined, concave, or convex surfaces or more than one of those combined. (Paragraph 0087, "While the multi-unit robot 1 has many uses, the use illustrated and contemplated by this multi-unit mobile robot is that of servicing wind turbine blades and towers. In use, multi-unit robot 1 can be placed on a wind turbine blade, or can simply be placed at the base of the tower. The configuration of the blade, or of the entire tower and blades, is loaded into the computer/controller 100 in a program similar to a CNC machining program. Computer/controller 100 compares the configuration of multi-unit robot 1 to the configuration of the tower or blade to determine the starting position of multi-unit robot 1. In addition, an onboard GPS may be used to communicate position information to computer/controller 100. The computer/controller 100 then instructs the robot 1, through various actuator control systems A1-An, on how to move to proceed to and on the blade in order to cover the surface completely. The multi-unit robot 1 may carry cleaning, painting, and/or other servicing equipment on the platforms 20/21, which computer/controller 100 instructs to both prepare and then paint the surface of the blades or tower.")
Regarding claim 26, where all the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, Schlee further teaches:
26. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 1, wherein the walking robot is used for an exploration or operation in an area having any one of horizontal or vertical obstructions or both combined. (Paragraph 0040, " Each unit 10,10' may include quick connect/disconnect interfaces for electrical power, control communications, communication, pneumatic/hydraulic lines for use by payload and robot unit, if required, and application liquid lines for use by payload, if required. The platforms 20 and 20' can be made to a size which provides room to install all equipment necessary to make it and the payload self contained (e.g. batteries, tanks, wireless communication, etc.). This would be desirable if the chassis needs to navigate around supporting structure or large obstacles that make lines impractical (e.g. pipeline supports). Each unit 10, 10' is preferably 100% electrical for precise control capability and mass savings. However, the large forces required to enable the multi-unit mobile robot to adhere to the work surface may necessitate the use of hydraulic or pneumatic actuators in lieu of electric components." Please also see Paragraph 0038. Examiner Note: The intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.)
Regarding claim 27, where all the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, Schlee further teaches:
27. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 1, wherein the walking robot is used for towing or pulling a weighted object to move it from one point to another in the same direction as the walking robot's movement (Paragraph 0038, "Each platform 20, 20' comprises a pair of hingedly joined platform segments 21 and 22, or 21' and 22' (FIGS. 4-6), respectively, which can carry any desired payload. In the embodiment of the multi-unit mobile robot shown, the payload 150 or 150' (shown as a box in FIG. 18) carried by each hinged platform would be a spray painting device, cleaning device, or other servicing device so that the multi-unit mobile robotic device can be used to clean, paint, or perform other maintenance to the blades of a wind turbine. For tower applications, the pay load 150 or 150' would be a crane device which the multi-unit robot would transport to the desired location on the wind tower.") by connecting said weighted object to the moving module (Please see Figure 18 which demonstrates the payload attached to the robotic system.)
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlee in view of Behar and in further view of Jackowski et al. (US 20200256399 A1), hereinafter Jackowski.
Regarding claim 4, where all the limitations of claim 3 are discussed above, Schlee further teaches:
4 . (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 3, wherein … and transmitting the data obtained from the measurement to the controller (Paragraphs 0085-0086, "Alternatively, or in addition, location control can be based on an external reference source. This source will relay global position of specific point(s) of reference on the robot units 10 and 10' to the master controller 100. By comparing the external position references to the various unit positions, the controller will have an accurate position reference for each robot unit 10 or 10'. There are several methods of external control. The most common being GPS or ground transmitter in a known position.
Unit position can be determined by feedback from a wide array of sources (e.g. pitch and yaw angle sensors, GPS, known position transmitter, drive motor rates, inertial guidance control, etc.) The unit will relay relevant position data to the payload as required. Precise position control allows for minimal user input and thus facilitates automation of a particular task." This demonstrates that data is gathered in order to autonomously control the robotic system.)
Schlee does not specifically teach a torque sensor for monitoring the motor. However, Jackowski, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
… the pitch joint (Paragraphs 0193-0194, "FIG. 15B illustrates connecting the torque sensor 1530 and the output encoder 1522 to the controller 1508, in accordance with an example implementation. Wires from the torque sensor 1530 and the output encoder 1522 may be routed to and combined at a connection 1532 fixed to the torque sensor 1530, which is fixed to housing of the stator of the motor 1502. The wires may then be connected to a flexible PCB 1534 that might be configured to perform preliminary processing on the signals from the torque sensor 1530 and the output encoder 1522 (e.g., signal amplification, filtering, etc.).
Wires from the flexible PCB 1534 may then be routed through the housing 1504 to one or more connectors 1536. The connectors 1536 may be configured to mate with corresponding connectors 1537 (shown in FIGS. 15D and 15G) coupled to the controller 1508 (e.g., to the power stage PCB 1510) through a sealing grommet 1538. With this configuration, having the output encoder 1522 and the torque sensor 1530 close to the controller 1508 facilitates integration and shortening the wires, thus improving reliability of the robot.") …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system as taught by Schlee with the torque sensing as taught by Jackowski. This would allow for precise monitoring and control of the system.
Regarding claim 5, where all the limitations of claim 4 are discussed above, Schlee further teaches:
5. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 4, wherein the pitch joint
Schlee does not specifically teach a rotational position sensor. However, Jackowski, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
… a rotational position sensor for measuring the rotation of the motor (Paragraph 0054, "As an example, the robotic system 100 may use force sensors to measure load on various components of the robotic system 100. In some implementations, the robotic system 100 may include one or more force sensors on an arm or a leg to measure the load on the actuators that move one or more members of the arm or leg. As another example, the robotic system 100 may use one or more position sensors to sense the position of the actuators of the robotic system. For instance, such position sensors may sense states of extension, retraction, or rotation of the actuators on arms or legs.") …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system as taught by Schlee with the ability to sense and monitor the rotational position as taught by Jackowski. This would allow for precise monitoring and control of the system.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlee in view of Behar and in further view of Kong et al. (KR 102445308 B1), hereinafter Kong and Kaneko et al. (US 20160096267 A1), hereinafter Kaneko.
Regarding claim 6, where all the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, Schlee does not specifically discuss the legs being a plurality of links connected via hip and knee joints in series. However, Kong, in the same field of endeavor of robotics teaches:
6. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 1, wherein the legs ("The multi-legged robot shown in FIG. 1 is provided with four leg units (1000A, 1000B, 1000C, 1000D), and each leg unit is provided with three connecting links (500, 700, 900) for connecting a hip joint or a knee joint." as well as "As shown in FIG. 12, the conventional leg unit 1000' for a multi-legged robot includes a hip joint driving motor 100 and a knee joint driving motor 300, the hip joint driving motor ( 100) connected to the end of the femoral link (H) and the femoral link (H) driven to rotate in the drive shaft direction, including the lower leg link (L) which is rotationally driven around the rotation axis by the knee joint drive motor 300 is composed" and "As shown in FIGS. 2 to 4 , the leg unit 1000 for a multi-legged robot according to the present invention includes a stacked hip joint driving motor 100 mounted on a hip joint area of the multi-legged robot; and a knee joint driving motor 300; a motor frame 200 to which the stacked hip joint drive motor 100 and the knee joint drive motor 300 are mounted and rotated by the hip joint drive motor 100; a first connection link 500 coupled to the motor frame 200 and rotationally driven together with the motor frame 200; a second connection link 700 that is rotatably fastened to an end of the first connection link 500 to form the first connection link 500 and a first knee joint 600; It is rotatably connected to the end of the second connection link 700 to form the second connection link 700 and the second knee joint 800, and a foot unit 950 for ground support is provided at the end. 3 connection link 900; and a driving link 400 for extending or flexing the first knee joint 600 and the second knee joint 800 together by the knee joint driving motor 200 .")
However, Kaneko, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
… via a BC (body-coxa) joint(Paragraph 0089, "Each of the leg links 3 is constituted of element links corresponding to a thigh 11, a crus 12, and a foot 13, which are connected through the intermediary of a hip joint mechanism part 14, a knee joint mechanism part 15, and an ankle joint mechanism part 16 in this order from the base body assembly 2 side.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system as taught by Schlee with the leg series structure as taught by Kong and the hip/knee joint connections as taught by Kaneko. This would provide the system with versatile legs and it would be obvious to modify the leg system to incorporate a plurality of different joint types in order to increase the range of motion of the leg while maintaining a high level of control over to motion.
Regarding claim 7, where all the limitations of claim 6 are discussed above, Schlee further teaches:
7. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 6, wherein … and transmitting the data obtained from the measurement to the controller(Paragraphs 0085-0086, "Alternatively, or in addition, location control can be based on an external reference source. This source will relay global position of specific point(s) of reference on the robot units 10 and 10' to the master controller 100. By comparing the external position references to the various unit positions, the controller will have an accurate position reference for each robot unit 10 or 10'. There are several methods of external control. The most common being GPS or ground transmitter in a known position.
Unit position can be determined by feedback from a wide array of sources (e.g. pitch and yaw angle sensors, GPS, known position transmitter, drive motor rates, inertial guidance control, etc.) The unit will relay relevant position data to the payload as required. Precise position control allows for minimal user input and thus facilitates automation of a particular task." This demonstrates that data is gathered in order to autonomously control the robotic system.)
Schlee does not specifically discuss a rotational position sensor. However, Kaneko, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
… the BC joint(Paragraph 0108, "The robot 1 incorporates, as sensors, an attitude sensor 42 for detecting the attitude (the spatial orientation) of one of the lower base body 6 and the upper base body 7 of the robot 1, e.g., the attitude of the lower base body 6, joint displacement sensors 43 for detecting the amounts of displacement (the rotational angle) of the joints of the robot 1, current sensors 44 for detecting the energizing currents of the joint actuators (the electric motors) 41, force sensors 45 for detecting external forces (translational forces and moments) received by the foot 13 of each of the leg links 3 from an object with which the foot 13 comes in contact, force sensors 46 for detecting external forces (translational forces and moments) received by the hand 23 of each of the arm links 4 from an object with which the hand 23 comes in contact, and a camera 47 serving as an external world condition observation instrument for observing the external world condition on the front side of the upper base body 7.") …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system as taught by Schlee with the ability to sense and monitor the rotational position as taught by Kaneko. This would allow for precise monitoring and control of the system.
Claim(s) 8-10, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlee in view of Behar and in further view of Summer et al. (US 20060214622 A1), hereinafter Summer.
Regarding claim 8, where all the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, Schlee does not specifically teach the feet having a case and a ground contacting platform. However, Summer, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
8. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 1, wherein the feet (Paragraph 0039, "FIG. 5 is an isometric view showing an example of a leg 20 that is typically electrically and mechanically substantially identical to other legs. The leg 20 functions kinematically similar to the leg illustrated in the force diagram of FIG. 3. The leg 20 attaches to the robot body 18 through the body or leg attachment points 70, for example, by using appropriate fasteners. The hip joint 32, knee joint 34, and shin joint 36 (also referred to as the shin and foot assembly) are illustrated in FIG. 5. Each joint includes a respective motor 32a, 34a, 36a for powering joint rotation and movement. Respective potentiometers 32b, 34b, 36b allow control over the motors 32a, 34a, 36a. The controller 50 with respective analog feedback control and associated hardware and software permits control over the leg 20 as explained in greater detail below. The force sensor legged 37 is positioned at the shin 36 for sensing foot contact and operative with the controller 50.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system as taught by Schlee with the foot structure as taught by Summer. This structure would allow the system to have a higher level of control over the foot structure and increase the versatility of the robot and its ability to traverse different surfaces. (See Summer, Paragraphs 0043-0046)
Regarding claim 9, where all the limitations of claim 8 are discussed above, Schlee does not specifically discuss a ground contacting platform which is shaped as a square or circle when viewed from above. However, Summer, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
9. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 8, wherein the ground-contacting platform (Paragraph 0040, "The hip q.sub.1 (32) and knee q.sub.2 (34) joints are revolute while the shin q.sub.3 (36) is prismatic with its attached single-axis force transducer 37, and as such, the foot/shin assembly 36 is modeled as a series elastic actuator. The force sensor 37 is incorporated on each leg and provides estimated contact force and compliance between the robot body 18 and the ground. Radial reaction forces on each foot 36 are estimated based on the spherical geometry of its rubber feet 38, which have a spherical lower segment, for example, configured as a half-sphere as illustrated. It has been demonstrated that the single-axis force sensors, in conjunction with accurate proprioception, are sufficient to estimate the static reaction loads on the support polygon 40.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system as taught by Schlee with the foot structure as taught by Summer. This structure would allow the system to have a higher level of control over the foot structure and increase the versatility of the robot and its ability to traverse different surfaces. (See Summer, Paragraphs 0043-0046)
Regarding claim 10, where all the limitations of claim 8 are discussed above, Schlee does not specifically teach the ground contacting platform having a flat, convex, or concave surface. However, Summer, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
10. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 8(Paragraph 0040, "The hip q.sub.1 (32) and knee q.sub.2 (34) joints are revolute while the shin q.sub.3 (36) is prismatic with its attached single-axis force transducer 37, and as such, the foot/shin assembly 36 is modeled as a series elastic actuator. The force sensor 37 is incorporated on each leg and provides estimated contact force and compliance between the robot body 18 and the ground. Radial reaction forces on each foot 36 are estimated based on the spherical geometry of its rubber feet 38, which have a spherical lower segment, for example, configured as a half-sphere as illustrated. It has been demonstrated that the single-axis force sensors, in conjunction with accurate proprioception, are sufficient to estimate the static reaction loads on the support polygon 40.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system as taught by Schlee with the foot structure as taught by Summer. This structure would allow the system to have a higher level of control over the foot structure and increase the versatility of the robot and its ability to traverse different surfaces. (See Summer, Paragraphs 0043-0046)
Regarding claim 14, Schlee does not specifically teach a leg with an outer case and an inner rod structure. However, Summer, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
14. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 1, wherein the feet (Paragraph 0039, "FIG. 5 is an isometric view showing an example of a leg 20 that is typically electrically and mechanically substantially identical to other legs. The leg 20 functions kinematically similar to the leg illustrated in the force diagram of FIG. 3. The leg 20 attaches to the robot body 18 through the body or leg attachment points 70, for example, by using appropriate fasteners. The hip joint 32, knee joint 34, and shin joint 36 (also referred to as the shin and foot assembly) are illustrated in FIG. 5. Each joint includes a respective motor 32a, 34a, 36a for powering joint rotation and movement. Respective potentiometers 32b, 34b, 36b allow control over the motors 32a, 34a, 36a. The controller 50 with respective analog feedback control and associated hardware and software permits control over the leg 20 as explained in greater detail below. The force sensor legged 37 is positioned at the shin 36 for sensing foot contact and operative with the controller 50." Figure 5 shows the interior rod which is inside of a casing shell both of which are attached at the top of the eg and the interior rod which extends out below to the foot structure.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system as taught by Schlee with the foot structure as taught by Summer. This structure would allow the system to have a higher level of control over the foot structure and increase the versatility of the robot and its ability to traverse different surfaces. (See Summer, Paragraphs 0043-0046)
Regarding claim 16, wherein all the limitations of claim 14 are discussed above, Schlee does not specifically teach encapsulating the ground contacting portion of the system with a rubber material. However, Summer, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
16. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to The walking robot according to wherein the tip portion of the ground-contacting rod (Paragraph 0040, "The hip q.sub.1 (32) and knee q.sub.2 (34) joints are revolute while the shin q.sub.3 (36) is prismatic with its attached single-axis force transducer 37, and as such, the foot/shin assembly 36 is modeled as a series elastic actuator. The force sensor 37 is incorporated on each leg and provides estimated contact force and compliance between the robot body 18 and the ground. Radial reaction forces on each foot 36 are estimated based on the spherical geometry of its rubber feet 38, which have a spherical lower segment, for example, configured as a half-sphere as illustrated. It has been demonstrated that the single-axis force sensors, in conjunction with accurate proprioception, are sufficient to estimate the static reaction loads on the support polygon 40.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system as taught by Schlee with the foot structure as taught by Summer. This structure would allow the system to have a higher level of control over the foot structure and increase the versatility of the robot and its ability to traverse different surfaces. (See Summer, Paragraphs 0043-0046)
Regarding claim 17, wherein all the limitations of claim 14 are discussed above, Schlee does not specifically teach a spring within the leg structure. However, Summer, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
17. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 14,wherein the feet (Paragraph 0032, "FIG. 3 shows a fragmentary force diagram of the mechanical linkage 30 used in each multi-limbed legs 20a-h, and the kinematic parameters of an i.sup.th leg are defined as shown in FIG. 3. As illustrated, the kinematic equivalents for a leg 20 are a hip joint 32 that is connected to both the robot body 18 and a knee joint 34, which in turn, is connected to a shin/foot assembly 36 and operative with a force sensor 37. The force sensor uses a linear displacement sensor to measure a spring 38 deflection. The spring rate is known, and therefore, the force can be estimated.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system as taught by Schlee with the foot structure as taught by Summer. This structure would allow the system to have a higher level of control over the foot structure and increase the versatility of the robot and its ability to traverse different surfaces. (See Summer, Paragraphs 0043-0046)
Regarding claim 18, where all the limitations of claim 14 are discussed above, Schlee does not specifically teach a force sensor within the leg structure. However, Summer, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
18. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 14,wherein the feet (Paragraph 0032, "FIG. 3 shows a fragmentary force diagram of the mechanical linkage 30 used in each multi-limbed legs 20a-h, and the kinematic parameters of an i.sup.th leg are defined as shown in FIG. 3. As illustrated, the kinematic equivalents for a leg 20 are a hip joint 32 that is connected to both the robot body 18 and a knee joint 34, which in turn, is connected to a shin/foot assembly 36 and opera