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 Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/30/2026. Claims 1, 5-23, and 25-28 are currently pending with claims 1, 5, 7, 13, 16, 18-21, 23, and 27-28 being amended, and claims 2-4 and 24 being cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the specification submitted on 03/30/2026 are accepted. The objections to the specification set forth in the previous Office action are withdrawn except for those set forth below in the specification objection section.
The amendments to the claims submitted on 03/30/2026 overcome the claim objections set forth in the previous Office action except for those set forth in the claim objection section.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the Applicant has asserted that the language “horizontally rotatable” and “vertically rotatable” is clear in light of the specification and drawings without direction as to where in the disclosure, this is made clear. The written description provides no clear indication as to how the horizontal or vertical rotation is established. The drawings indicate the joints 1.2.4 and 1.2.6 without clear indication of the axis about which these are expected to rotate. Further, it is unclear if this is meant to be limiting the motion of the joint to only horizontal or vertical rotation respectively as both of these joint structures are generally understood to have multiple degrees of freedom and would not be rotatable about a single axis.
The Applicant has asserted that. In response to applicant's argument that Schlee is incapable of operating “in areas that are difficult to access, such as uneven or obstructed terrain” the Examiner disagrees, a recitation of 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. Further, the invention of Schlee is design to allow for operation on “an irregular work surface” (See Schlee Paragraph 0005) and to “navigate very sharp edges or corners in the surface” (See Schlee Paragraph 0007) and further to “clear an obstacle on the surface” (See Schlee Paragraph 0022).
The Applicant has further asserted that the modular system of Schlee may not be used to suggest the claimed invention due to the reliance on wheels rather than articulated legs. The currently provided claim language does not require “articulated legs”. Further, the joint which is discussed in the independent claim is that between two modules. Not a joint connecting a leg structure or controlling articulation of a leg structure. The current claims also do not discuss gait or coordinating the touchdown of each leg structure. The only discussion of ground contact is in dependent claims 8-12 and 14-18 with respect to the structure of the portion which contacts the ground. The structure disclosed is suggested by references Summer et al., Kato et al. and Khan et al. detailed below.
With respect to the control approach, the currently provided claim language does not preclude the use of a master controller. The claim recites a controller for each module which controls the movement of that module as well as a communication portion which may communicate with the other modules. This is not required to be a direct communication and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language may include a central communication point.
Regarding the Applicant’s assertion that the invention of Schlee does not teach or suggest changes in the locomotion mode based on the number of connected modules, the Examiner notes that this is not present in the currently provided claim language. The discussion of the forward/backward/lateral movement defines what each module is capable of. There is no discussion of that changing based on the number of connected modules. Schlee is capable of performing all of the claimed functionality.
Regarding the Applicant’s discussion of the claimed torque sensors, the Examiner notes that, while Schlee discusses the use of torque in the control of the connection between modules so that complex surfaces may be traversed (See Schlee, Paragraphs 0042 and 0043), they are silent on the use of torque sensors. This is suggested by Jackowski et al. who demonstrates that torque sensing in the control of robotic joints is well known and utilized in the field of endeavor.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 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 and Jackowski et al. (US 20200256399 A1), hereinafter Jackowski.
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 provided on the body for connecting to another moving module in a detachable manner; (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 provided on each moving module for controlling a movement of the legs or the joint(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 provided on each moving module for communicating with the controller provided on another moving module; (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.") wherein each moving module can move in a lateral direction by a 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.") and at least two moving modules can be connected together (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 controller of another moving module through the 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.") the joint of the moving module comprises a pitch joint for adjusting a rotation of a pitch angle (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 for adjusting a rotation of a yaw angle (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).") and receiving a connection from the pitch joint of another moving module, the pitch joint and the yaw joint are a free-rotating joint or a motor 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).") and the pitch joint and the yaw joint … and transmitting data obtained from the measurement to the controller to allow the controller to control a rotation of the pitch joint and the yaw joint. (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 each unit having legs with feet on either side of each unit or the use of torque sensing to control the motors of system. However, Behar, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
… each moving module comprises a body, two legs, each leg connected to each opposite lateral side of the body, feet connected to the legs, (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.") …
However, Jackowski, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
… comprise a torque sensor for measuring a generated motor torque (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 leg structure as taught by Behar and with the torque sensing as taught by Jackowski. 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 with 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 1, wherein the pitch joint and the yaw joint further comprise … and transmitting (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 rotational position sensor. However, Jackowski, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
… a rotational position sensor for measuring a 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.
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 further comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU) provided on the body for measuring the movement of the body and transmitting (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. (Previously Presented) 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 is a wireless communication module (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. (Previously Presented) 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. (Previously Presented) 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 at a region of the joint (Please see Figure 18 which demonstrates the payload attached to the robotic system.)
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlee in view of Behar and Jackowski 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. (Previously Presented) The walking robot according to claim 1, wherein the legs of the moving module comprise proximal legs with one end connected to the lateral side of the body in a horizontally rotatable manner … intermediate legs with one end connected to the other end of the proximal legs in a vertically rotatable manner … and distal legs with one end connected to the other end of the intermediate legs in a vertically rotatable manner … and the other end connected to the feet. ("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; … via a CF (coxa-femur) joint; … via an FT (femur-tibia) 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, the CF joint, and the FT joint comprise the rotational position sensor for measuring a rotation (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 Jackowski 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. (Previously Presented) The walking robot according to claim 1, wherein the feet comprise a case connected to the legs and a ground-contacting platform connected to the case. (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. (Previously Presented) The walking robot according to claim 8, wherein the ground-contacting platform has a circular or square shape when viewed from the top. (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. (Previously Presented) The walking robot according to claim 8, wherein the ground-contacting platform has a bottom surface profile that is flat, convex, or concave. (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. (Previously Presented) The walking robot according to claim 1, wherein the feet comprise a hollow-rod case connected to the legs and a ground-contacting rod with one end mounted in a stationary or axially movable manner inside the hollow-rod case and the other end provided outside the hollow-rod case. (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 claim 14, wherein a tip portion of the ground-contacting rod on the side provided outside the hollow-rod case is encapsulated with a rubber material (R). (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. (Previously Presented) The walking robot according to claim 14, wherein the feet further comprise a spring provided inside the hollow-rod case such that it is adjacent to the ground-contacting rod. (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 further comprise a compression force sensor provided inside the hollow-rod case for measuring a compression force generated by the ground-contacting rod and transmitting (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)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlee in view of Behar, Jackowski and Summer in further view of Kato et al. (US 20050067993 A1), hereinafter Kato.
Regarding claim 11, where all the limitations of claim 10 are discussed above, Schlee does not specifically teach the ground contacting platform being concave. However, Kato, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
11. (Previously Presented) The walking robot according to claim 10, wherein the ground-contacting platform has the bottom surface profile that is concave (Paragraphs 0073-0075, "In addition, a legged mobile robot according to the present invention includes a plurality of movable legs and a foot which is provided on an end portion of each of the movable legs. The foot includes a first concavity formed in a ground-contact surface of the foot at a central area of the ground-contact surface and a flexible portion with a predetermined elasticity which is disposed in the first concavity.
In addition, according to another aspect of the present invention, a foot of a legged mobile robot having a plurality of movable legs includes a first concavity formed in a ground-contact surface of the foot at a central area of the ground-contact surface, the first concavity being, for example, dome-shaped, and one or more grooves which are formed, each groove being formed in the ground-contact surface of the foot such that the groove extends from the first concavity across a peripheral portion of the foot and communicates with the outside through one of side surfaces of the foot.
In the foot of the legged mobile robot having the above-described construction, even when the ZMP is at the central position of the foot and deflection of the foot around this position occurs, the deformation can be absorbed by a concavity including the first concavity and the position and the shape of a ground-contact portion hardly change. Accordingly, variation in the resistive force against the moment about the yaw axis can be reduced and spinning motion can be prevented. In addition, motion of the legged mobile robot can be predicted and be suitably controlled by a control system, and the attitude of the legged mobile robot can be maintained stable.") with a radius of curvature ranging from 3-12 inches. (It would be obvious to try a plurality of different sizes to correspond with the size of the overall system.)
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 structure of concave ground contacting portions as taught by Kato. This would allow for a higher level of grip with the suction capabilities disclosed by Kato increasing the traction of the foot and allowing the system to operate in varied environments with more stability.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlee in view of Behar, Jackowski and Summer in further view of Khan et al. (“iCrawl: An Inchworm-Inspired Crawling Robot”), hereinafter Khan.
Regarding claim 12, where all the limitations of claim 8 are discussed above, Schlee does not specifically teach the ground contacting platform being made of an electromagnetic material. However, Khan, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
12. (Previously Presented) The walking robot according to claim 8, wherein the ground-contacting platform is made of an electromagnetic material. (Page 2, "The robot has five motor joints and two electromagnetic feet.")
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 electromagnetic foot caps and structure as taught by Khan. This would allow the system to operate with increased adaptability and stability on metal pipes of varying curvature. (See Khan, Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, where all the limitations of claim 12 are discussed above, Schlee further teaches:
13. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 12, wherein the feet further comprise … and transmitting (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 Hall-effect sensor. However, Khan, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
… a Hall-effect sensor for measuring an electric field strength (Page 5 "A hall sensor was mounted on top of the electromagnet to distinguish the robot crawling surface. It acts on the hall sensor effect with varying output voltages based on the intensity of the magnetic flux around it. This flux was detectable by the hall sensors. ") …
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 Hall-effect sensor as taught by Khan. This would allow the system to operate with increased adaptability and stability on metal pipes of varying curvature. (See Khan, Abstract)
Regarding claim 15, where all the limitations of claim 14 are discussed above, Schlee does not specifically teach a tip portion of the ground contacting rod being an electromagnetic material. However, Khan, in the same field of endeavor of robotic control, teaches:
15. (Previously Presented) The walking robot according to claim 14, wherein a tip portion of the ground-contacting rod on a side provided outside the hollow-rod case is made of an electromagnetic material. (Page 2, "The robot has five motor joints and two electromagnetic feet.")
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 electromagnetic foot caps and structure as taught by Khan. This would allow the system to operate with increased adaptability and stability on metal pipes of varying curvature. (See Khan, Abstract)
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlee in view of Behar, Jackowski and Summer in further view of Xiong et al. (US 20190163195 A1), hereinafter Xiong.
Regarding claim 19, where all the limitations of claim 8 are discussed above, Schlee further teaches:
19. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 8, wherein … and transmitting (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 infrared sensors mounted to detect obstacles. However, Xiong, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
… the feet further comprise an infrared sensor which is mounted such that it faces the same direction as the walking robot's movement direction (Paragraph 0009, "Referring to FIGS. 1-2, in one embodiment, a foot of a robot has an obstacle detecting ability and includes a lower plate 10, a first infrared transmitting and receiving unit 20 and a circuit board 30 electrically connected to the first infrared transmitting and receiving unit 20 that are arranged on the lower plate 10. The first infrared transmitting and receiving unit 20 is arranged in such a way that infrared light transmitted from and received by the infrared transmitting and receiving unit travels in paths that are inclined with respect to the lower plate 10 toward an area in front of the foot when the lower plate 10 is substantially horizontal, so as to detect existence of a footing in an area where the foot is about to land. Specifically, the infrared transmitting and receiving unit 20 is arranged at the front end of the lower plate 10. The light transmitted from the infrared transmitting and receiving unit 20 travels in a path different from the path in which the light received by the infrared transmitting and receiving unit 20 travels, so as to prevent the light received by the infrared transmitting from being interfered.") for detecting obstructions (Paragraph 0011, " The technical effects of the foot of the present disclosure are as follows: Infrared light is used to detect an object, which is less susceptible to environmental noise, weather, ambient light, etc., and has better stability, high detection accuracy and sensitivity, and low manufacturing cost compared with acoustic sensor-based obstacle detection system.") …
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 obstacles using an infrared sensor as taught by Xiong. This ensures safer operation of the robotic system by increasing the ability to avoid obstacles in the environment.
Regarding claim 20, where all the limitations of claim 8 are discussed above, Schlee further teaches:
20. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 8, wherein … and transmitting the data obtained from the detection 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 an ultrasonic sensor for obstacle detection. However, Xiong, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
… the feet further comprise an ultrasonic sensor (Paragraph 0003, "Obstacle detection is a primary requirement for an autonomous robot. With obstacle detecting ability, an autonomous robot can change direction to avoid collision or loss of footing. Most commercial autonomous robots use range sensor to detect obstacles. The use of radar and ultrasonic sensor for developing an obstacle detection system had started as early as the 1980's. An ultrasonic sensor-based obstacle detection system needs many ultrasonic sensors. Since sound waves tend to be interfered by the environment, and thus it is not easy to achieve high accuracy and high sensitivity, and the cost is high.") which is mounted such that it faces the same direction as the walking robot's movement direction (Paragraph 0009, "Referring to FIGS. 1-2, in one embodiment, a foot of a robot has an obstacle detecting ability and includes a lower plate 10, a first infrared transmitting and receiving unit 20 and a circuit board 30 electrically connected to the first infrared transmitting and receiving unit 20 that are arranged on the lower plate 10. The first infrared transmitting and receiving unit 20 is arranged in such a way that infrared light transmitted from and received by the infrared transmitting and receiving unit travels in paths that are inclined with respect to the lower plate 10 toward an area in front of the foot when the lower plate 10 is substantially horizontal, so as to detect existence of a footing in an area where the foot is about to land. Specifically, the infrared transmitting and receiving unit 20 is arranged at the front end of the lower plate 10. The light transmitted from the infrared transmitting and receiving unit 20 travels in a path different from the path in which the light received by the infrared transmitting and receiving unit 20 travels, so as to prevent the light received by the infrared transmitting from being interfered.") for detecting obstructions (Paragraph 0011, " The technical effects of the foot of the present disclosure are as follows: Infrared light is used to detect an object, which is less susceptible to environmental noise, weather, ambient light, etc., and has better stability, high detection accuracy and sensitivity, and low manufacturing cost compared with acoustic sensor-based obstacle detection system.") …
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 obstacles using an ultrasonic sensor as taught by Xiong. This ensures safer operation of the robotic system by increasing the ability to avoid obstacles in the environment.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlee in view of Behar and Jackowski and in further view of Langenfeld et al. (US 20230001956 A1), hereinafter Langenfeld.
Regarding claim 28, where all the limitations of claim 27 are discussed above, Schlee does not specifically teach attaching the payload to the system using a rope, wire, or sling. However, Langenfeld, in the same field of endeavor of robotic control, teaches:
28. (Currently Amended) The walking robot according to claim 27, wherein the fastening element is at least one of: a rope, a wire, or a sling. (Paragraph 0090, " Referring now to FIGS. 5E-5F, in a sixth exemplary configuration, AV 101 includes arms 23 and ropes 25, similar to package release mechanisms 1123 (FIG. 5C). Arms 23 may extend from any location on cargo box 21. For example, arms 23 can extend from the upper corners of cargo box 21 as shown. Arms 23 can extend from anywhere along the top, edges, or bottom of the cargo hold. Arms 23 can extend to their full length from the cargo hold, or any shorter length, depending upon, for example, the size and weight of delivery container 109. Arms 23 can be constructed of flexible, semi-rigid, or rigid weight-bearing material, the material possibly being selected for holding up to a pre-selected maximum cargo weight. Ropes 25 can be flexible enough to retract and store compactly, but can retain a measure of rigidity, if needed. Ropes 25 can fully surround the ground-facing surface of delivery container 109, or can terminate in connectors as discussed herein. Ropes 25 can include, but are not limited to including, cables, cords, lines, strands, chains, or strings. Arms 23 can include telescoping features made from fiberglass, aluminum, steel, or other suitable material. In an aspect, the extension of arms 23 is actuated by the same mechanism as actuates the opening of doors 105/107. Ropes 25 are extended to enable delivery container 109 to reach a desired surface near AV 101, if necessary. Other aspects are contemplated that hold delivery container 109 as it is moved out of the cargo hold. Ropes 25 extend from arms 23 to enable delivery container 109 to be deployed to a surface. When the surface is reached, ropes 25 are disengaged from delivery container 109. Sensor data received from sensors 103 associated with delivery container 109, ropes 25, and arms 23, for example, can trigger the disengagement of ropes 25 from delivery container 109. Ropes 25 can be temporarily connected to delivery container 109, and the connection can be automatically released when delivery container 109 has reached its desired position. Disconnected cables 25 are retracted, and arms 23 and cables 25 can be repositioned inside of the cargo hold, and doors 105/107 are closed. A sanitizing sequence can be optionally activated.")
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 attach a payload using a rope as taught by Langenfeld. This provides an easily configurable fastening method which may easily attach as well as detach to the payload.
Conclusion
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the referencesapplied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations arerepresentative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/H.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights