DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 24-43 of application 18/708,962, filed on 9-May-2024, are presented for examination. Claims 1-23 were canceled by the Preliminary Amendment received on the same date. The IDSs received on 9-May-2024 and 12-May-2025 have been considered.
The present application, filed on or after 16-March-2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
2.1 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2.2 Claims 24-26 and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torii et al., USP 5,739,655.
2.3 Torii discloses:
Claim 24: A robot [col. 1:ln(s) 6 (ambulatory robot)], comprising:
a control system [2:39 (control means)], a trunk module [2:36], and a leg module connected to the trunk module [2:34-36 (a plurality of front legs and a plurality of rear
legs are installed rotatably with respect to the ambulatory robot trunk)];
wherein the leg module comprises at least one leg assembly [2:34-36 (a plurality of front legs and a plurality of rear legs)], the leg assembly comprises a plurality of connected moving elements [2:55-59; Fig. 1], and the control system is able to control at least one of the moving elements to switch between a state of being lifted off ground and a state of being in contact with the ground to change an overall state of the robot [2:32-3:50] (first control means for raising either the front legs or the rear legs from the surface of the ground in a state in which the other legs are maintained in contact with the ground.)].
Claim 25: wherein the trunk module comprises a first action component, and an output end of the first action component is drivingly connected to the leg module [2:59-62 (the robot can assume a posture in which the terminal portions 3a of the front legs 3 reach the ground while the trunk of length L3 is maintained in an erect posture.); 4:24-64 (A shoulder joint motor 36 is provided to the shoulder joint 5. and this motor 36 is driven by drive instruction signals that are output from the controller 13 in 60 order to rotate the upper arm segment 6 to a prescribed angle
a1 with respect to the trunk 2.)].
Claim 26: wherein the leg module comprises at least two leg assemblies arranged on opposite sides of the trunk module, and the trunk module is rotatable relative to the leg assemblies [2:34-36 (a plurality of front legs and a plurality of rear legs are installed rotatably with respect to the ambulatory robot trunk); 4:24-31; Fig. 1].
Claim 39: further comprising a sensing system [4:32-36; 5:34-42], wherein the sensing system monitors a component posture and a position state of the robot, and the control system obtains the overall state of the robot according to the component posture and the position state [2:25-54 (control by the first. second. and third control means being performed repeatedly as the front legs and rear legs are rotated and the length of these legs is changed so that the trunk is maintained in
substantially erect posture as the ambulatory robot ambulates.)];
when the overall state is a tipping or tilting state, the control system controls the trunk module to rotate relative to the leg module and/or the moving element to rotate, so that the robot balances autonomously [8:1-9:32 (During this time, rotation of the front leg 3 and rear leg 4 joints 5, 7, 9, and 11 is controlled so that a vertical line through the center of gravity G of the robot 1 passes through the interior of a triangle having the aforementioned three support points as its apices (see FIG. 8(d'))…allowing the ambulatory robot 1 to ambulate by static ambulation on irregular terrain.)].
Claim 40: wherein the sensing system comprises an angle detection component that detects a relative angle between the leg module and the trunk module [4:37-5:5 (shoulder angles)], and the control system obtains the component posture of the robot according to the relative angle [4:24-64 (A shoulder joint motor 36 is provided to the shoulder joint 5. and this motor 36 is driven by drive instruction signals that are output from the controller 13 in 60 order to rotate the upper arm segment 6 to a prescribed angle a1 with respect to the trunk 2)].
Claim 41: wherein the sensing system further comprises a first sensing component that monitors a positional relationship of a center of gravity of the robot relative to the ground to obtain the position state of the robot [1:39-2:3; 7:34-58 (the three-axis rate gyro differs from a simple clinometer that merely detects in the direction of gravity in that it is able to accurately detect posture angle without being affected by accelerating or decelerating motion of the trunk 2. and can detect posture angles such as roll angle and pitch angle.); 8:1-9:32], and the control system determines whether the robot has a tendency to tip over according to the position state and the component posture [7:34-58 (Accurate detection of the posture angle of trunk 2 and of acceleration allows for accurate detection of the direction and speed of inverted pendulum downswing during control of dynamic ambulation.)];
when the robot has a tendency to tip over, the control system controls the trunk module to rotate relative to the leg module and/or the moving element to rotate, so that the robot generates torque in a direction opposite to a tipping direction to prevent the robot from tipping over [5:14-24 (The shoulder joint 5 is provided with a shoulder torque sensor 15 for sensing the torque (load) that is applied to the 15 shoulder joint…The values detected by these torque sensors 15 and 17 are input to the controller 13 and utilized in the control process)]; and/or
the control system determines whether the robot is in the tipping state according to the position state and the component posture [7:34-58 (Accurate detection of posture angles of the trunk 2 of the robot)];
when the robot is in the tipping state, the control system controls the trunk module to rotate relative to the leg module and/or the moving element to rotate, so as to make the robot in a standing state [7:34-58 (a three-axis rate gyro posture sensor 34 allows the gravitational acceleration influence component in data from the three-axis accelerometer due to inclination of
the trunk 2 to be canceled so that acceleration of motion of the trunk 2 can be detected accurately…accurately estimate the direction and timing with which a front leg 3 or rear leg 3 is replaced on the ground after this front leg or rear leg has been raised from the ground, thus permitting precise control of dynamic ambulation)].
Claim 42: wherein: the first sensing component obtains trunk position information by monitoring a positional relationship of a center of gravity of the trunk module relative to the ground [1:39-2:3; 7:34-58; 8:1-9:32], the control system obtains leg position information according to the trunk position information and the component posture, and the control system obtains the position state of the robot according to the trunk position information and the leg position information [2:25-54; 7:34-58]; or
the first sensing component comprises a trunk detection component and a leg detection component, the trunk detection component obtains trunk position information by monitoring a positional relationship of a center of gravity of the trunk module relative to the ground, the leg detection component obtains leg position information by monitoring a positional relationship of a center of gravity of the leg module relative to the ground, and the control system obtains the position state of the robot according to the trunk position information and the leg position information.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
3.1 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 the objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
3.2 Claims 27 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Torii et al. (T), USP 5,739,655, in view of Morgrey (M), USP 5,158,493.
3.3 Torii (T) discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not specifically disclose all of the features of claims 27 and 43. However, in an analogous prior art reference in the same field of endeavor and/or reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved, Morgrey (M) describes these features, including:
Claim 27: wherein the leg assembly further comprises a wheel frame connected to the plurality of moving elements [M:12:32-40 (Platform 76R of the exemplary robot's right foot skeletal structure also serves to support the reversible servo motor 68 which is drivingly coupled to at least two (2) of a plurality of ground-engaging wheels or rollers 78 (FIG. 1))], and the control system controls the wheel frame to rotate relative to the trunk module so that the moving element switches between the state of being lifted off the ground and the state of being in contact with the ground [M:11:57-12:1 (robotic mechanisms enabling a multi-legged robot, such as the exemplary robotic biped 50 depicted in FIG. 1, to walk with an essentially normal human gait by: i) shifting its center of gravity or point of balance substantially into the vertical plane containing its ground engaged leading leg/foot assembly; ii) lifting its trailing leg/foot assembly off the ground and striding forward with the raised leg/foot assembly; and iii), thereafter lowering its raised leg/foot assembly into contact with the ground at a point advanced relative to its previously leading, and now trailing, leg/foot assembly so as to essentially mimic a human step)].
Claim 43: wherein the trunk module comprises a head-face assembly and a body assembly connected movably [M:10:51; 11:40-46; Fig. 1], the body assembly connects the head-face assembly with the leg module [M:Fig. 1], and rotation of the body assembly relative to the leg module drives rotation of the head-face assembly relative to the leg module [M:12:32-40 (Platform 76R of the exemplary robot's right foot skeletal structure also serves to support the reversible servo motor 68 which is drivingly coupled to at least two (2) of a plurality of ground-engaging wheels or rollers 78 so as to enable the robot 50 (FIG. 1) (as well as the head) to turn to either the right or to the left at the command of the operator using toggle switch 66 on the remote-controlled transmitter 60 (FIG. 1) when the robot's right foot 59R/76R is planted on the ground.)].
3.4 Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ambulatory robot as described by Torii with the walking robot as disclosed by Morgrey, because doing so would allow the robot to walk in a manner simulating a human or two-legged biped without consideration of movement
up and down steps, or over uneven ground, and without consideration of movement of the robot's arms, hands, or other extremities, and provide a robot that is capable of walking along
straight and/or curved paths on level ground regardless of whether the subsurface is carpeted, formed of dirt, concrete or other paving media [M:6:40-52], with a reasonably predictable expectation of success.
Claim Objections
4. In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103 rejections noted above, claims 28-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art
5. The following prior art, discovered in an updated search and herein made of record, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and consists of documents A-D on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Document A defines a document of particular relevance, wherein the claimed invention cannot be considered novel or cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is taken alone.
Document B defines a document of particular relevance, wherein the claimed invention cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is combined with one or more other such documents, such combination being obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Documents C-D define the general state of the art which is not considered to be of particular relevance.
Prior Art of Record
6. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. [SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: 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].
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966)]. Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference [See In re Freda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963)]. Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973)]. Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references [See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962)].
Response Guidelines
7.1 A shortened statutory period for response to this non-final action is set to expire 3 (three) months and 0 (zero) days from the date of this letter. Unless the applicant is notified in writing that a reply is required in less than six months (see the shortened response period previously noted), a maximum period of six months is allowed, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed [see MPEP 710 and 35 U.S.C. 133]. Failure to respond within the required period for response will cause the application to become abandoned [see MPEP 710.02, 710.02(b)].
7.2 Any response to the Examiner in regard to this non-final action should be
directed to: Russell Frejd, telephone number (571) 272-3779, Monday-Friday from 0730 to
1600 ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful,
please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, who can be reached at
(571) 270-7016.
mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
faxed to: (571) 273-8300
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to the Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314.
/RUSSELL FREJD/
Primary Examiner AU 3661