Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 42-49 are objected to for being in improper form because they depend from a canceled claim. Accordingly, claims 42-49 have not been further treated on the merits.
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 33, 41, 52 and 54 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.
Claim 33 recites "comprises an elastomer with essentially hyperelastic material properties." The term "essentially” leaves it unclear if the material must strictly possess hyperelastic properties or not.
Claim 41 recites “wherein the solid body comprises at least one bore for reducing the weight of the solid body, wherein a longitudinal axis of the at least one bore is arranged co-axial to the longitudinal axis” and “wherein up to six bores are equally arranged around the longitudinal axis”. It is not clear if the at least one bore and the six bores are the same bores as both have different locations relative to the longitudinal axis.
Claim 52 and 54 recites the limitation "the coated metallic surface" in claims 52 and 54. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 32, 36, 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021147612 A1 ("Xie").
Claim 32: Xie teaches a robot foot (52) for a legged robot, the robot foot comprising a solid body (54) comprising: a first section (inner part of 52) with a surface (part that touches 54) (Figs. 5-8), and an attachment section (5142) adapted to mount the robot foot (52) to a robot foot adapter (512) of a robot (Fig. 3 goes into Fig. 4), and a foot pad (outer layer of 52) comprising a foot material comprising an elastomer (the foot end friction component is made out of rubber; para. 41, lines 1-4), wherein the foot pad covers the surface of the first section and positively engages in a non-detachable manner with the first section in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the solid body (Fig. 1).
Claim 36: Xie teaches the limitations of claim 32 as noted above. Xie further teaches the robot foot, wherein the solid body (54) comprises a constriction section (top 542 sections) (Fig. 3), wherein the constriction section is arranged between the first section (where top parts of 522 fit into) and the attachment section (5142) (Figs. 3 and 4), wherein the constriction section comprises a constriction (recess where top parts of 522 would go into) with a diameter smaller than the largest diameter of the first section (Figs. 3 and 4, wherein the recess representing the constriction exhibits a lateral cross-sectional width/dimension that is visibly narrower than the maximum lateral cross-sectional width of the first section, thereby satisfying the claimed diameter under a broad reasonable interpretation of a cross-sectional dimension), wherein the foot pad covers at least partially the constriction section and by means of the constriction positively engages with the constriction section in a direction opposite to the direction of the longitudinal axis (part of Fig. 4 sets into Fig. 3, to create Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim 37: Xie teaches the limitations of claim 32 as noted above. Xie further teaches the robot foot, wherein the attachment section (5142) is adapted to positively engage with a robot foot adapter (512) of a robot, in the direction of the longitudinal axis (as inherently defined by the linear alignment axis of cylinder 512 and rectangular section 5142, Fig. 3).
Claim 40: Xie teaches the limitations of claim 32 as noted above. Xie further teaches the robot foot, wherein the attachment section (5142) comprises a non-rotatable form-fitting nut or protrusion (entire top part that connects with 512) arranged in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (the rectangular mating interface between 512 and 5142 extends perpendicular to their shared alignment axis, Fig. 3) and adapted to engage with a counterpart on the robot foot adapter (512; is directly attached to 5142 and 512 are directly attached) of the robot, wherein the nut or protrusion is rectangular with corner fillets (base that 512 attaches to is rectangular shaped; Fig. 3) or oval shaped.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021147612 A1 ("Xie") in view of CN 112373596 A ("Xiong").
Claim 34: Xie teaches the limitations of claim 32 as noted above. Xie does not teach the robot foot, wherein the solid body comprises a metallic surface.
However, Xiong in a similar field of art teaches the robot foot, wherein the solid body (102, supporting component) comprises a metallic surface (para. 51, lines 3-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Xie with the features of Xiong by making the robot foot out of metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Xiong teaches that such a structure allows the components to be designed as hollow structures which can greatly reduce the weight of the bionic mechanical foot device.
Claim 35: The prior art of Xie and Xiong teaches the limitations of claim 34 as noted above. Xiong further teaches the robot foot, comprising an adhesion layer (adhesive connection - Xiong) between the foot pad (103 - Xiong) and the metallic surface of the solid body (102) (para. 60, lines 1-5).
Claim 38: Xie teaches the limitations of claim 32 as noted above. Xie does not teach the robot foot, comprising an axial through hole extending in the direction of the longitudinal axis fully through the foot pad and at least partially through the solid body adapted for inserting a screw for force-locking the foot pad with the solid body.
However, Xiong in a similar field of art teaches the robot foot, comprising an axial through hole (first hole C) extending in the direction of the longitudinal axis fully through the foot pad (103; first hole C fully extends through to connect with second hole D, Figs. 2-3; para. 64, lines 1-7) and at least partially through the solid body (102) adapted for inserting a screw for force-locking the foot pad with the solid body (para. 64, lines 8-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Xie with the features of Xiong by adding a threaded hole between the foot pad and the solid body of the robot leg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Xiong teaches that a threaded connection reliably secures the foot pad against detachment during robot movement, while utilizing standard, predictable fastening components to simplify assembly and maintenance.
Claim 39: The prior art of Xie and Xiong teaches the limitations of claim 38 as noted above. Zhang further teaches the robot foot, wherein a first section of the through hole has a larger diameter than a second section of the through hole (stepped hole shape; first hole C in Fig. 2 - Xiong), adapted for the screw to sink into the through hole in the direction of the longitudinal axis until the head of the screw stops at the smaller diameter of the second section of the through hole (para. 64, lines 1-9; Fig. 2 - Xiong).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021147612 A1 ("Xie") in view of CN 113525549 A ("Pan").
Claim 41: Xie teaches the limitations of claim 32 as noted above. Xie does not teach the robot foot, wherein the solid body comprises at least one bore for reducing the weight of the solid body, wherein a longitudinal axis of the at least one bore is arranged co-axial to the longitudinal axis of the solid body, and extending from a surface of the attachment section that is facing away from the first section, in a direction opposite of the direction of the longitudinal axis into the solid body, wherein up to six bores are equally arranged around the longitudinal axis and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the solid body, and extending from said surface of the attachment section in a direction opposite of the direction of the longitudinal axis into the solid body.
However, Pan in a similar field of art teaches the robot foot, wherein the solid body (321, 32 ) comprises at least one bore (311, 322; center hole along center axis) for reducing the weight of the solid body (holes reduce weight; Figs. 4, 9, and 11), wherein a longitudinal axis of the at least one bore (center hole) is arranged co-axial to the longitudinal axis of the solid body (Figs. 4, 9 and 11), and extending from a surface of the attachment section that is facing away from the first section, in a direction opposite of the direction of the longitudinal axis into the solid body (311 extends into 322; para. 81, lines 6-8), wherein up to six bores (holes of 322 arranged around center hole) are equally arranged around the longitudinal axis and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the solid body (Figs. 9-11), and extending from said surface of the attachment section in a direction opposite of the direction of the longitudinal axis into the solid body (311 also extends into 322 for the extra 6 holes as well; para. 81, lines 6-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Xie with the features of Pan by adding holes into the solid body of the robot leg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Pan teaches that such bores allow routing for wires using the bores as passages.
Claims 50 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021147612 A1 ("Xie") in view of CN 116161139 A ("An").
Claim 50: Xie teaches a robot leg assembly comprising: a robot foot (52), comprising: a solid body (54) comprising: a first section (inner part of 52) with a surface, and an attachment section (5142) adapted to mount the robot foot (52) to a robot (Fig. 9), and a foot pad (outer layer of 52) comprising a foot material comprising an elastomer (para. 41, lines 1-4), wherein the foot pad covers the surface of the first section and positively engages in a non- detachable manner with the first section in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the solid body (Fig. 1); a robot foot adapter (512) for mounting the robot foot to a robot leg section (4, 5; Fig. 9), the robot foot adapter comprising a longitudinal adapter axis extending along the robot foot adapter (Figs. 3 and 9), wherein a first end of the robot foot adapter is adapted to positively engage with the attachment section of the robot foot (para. 46, lines 1-5); and a robot leg section comprising a first end (4) adapted to receive the robot foot adapter, and a second end adapted (5) to be mounted to a further robot leg section or a robot. But it does not teach wherein the first end and the second end are electrically connected, and wherein the first end is adapted to electrically connect with the robot foot adapter and/or the second end is adapted to electrically connect with a further robot leg section or the robot.
However, An in a similar field of art teaches wherein the first end and the second end are electrically connected (via 120, wiring through hole - An), and wherein the first end is adapted to electrically connect with the robot foot adapter (125 - An) (120s connection to 124 in 125; Fig. 4; para. 34, lines 7-9 - An). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Xie with the features of An by having a hole from the first end and the second end of the robot leg section, with the hole also going into the robot foot adapter in order to reach a sensor inside the robot foot adapter with wires. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as An teaches that the hole inside provides a protected internal pathway for routing sensor data from the robot's foot to the main body, thereby preventing wire damage during robot movement.
Claim 51: The prior art of Xie and An teaches the limitations of claim 50 as noted above. An further teaches the robot leg assembly, wherein the robot foot, the robot foot adapter (125 - An) and/or the robot leg section are electrically connected (120s connection to 124 in 125; Fig. 4; para. 34, lines 7-9 - An).
Claims 33, 52 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021147612 A1 ("Xie") in view of CN 106985928 A ("Wang").
Claim 33: Xie teaches the limitations of claim 32 as noted above. But it does not teach the robot foot, wherein the foot material comprises a vulcanized elastomer. However, Wang in a similar field of art teaches the robot foot, wherein the foot material comprises a vulcanized elastomer (para. 17, lines 35-40; where the rubber sole inherently constitutes an elastomer that undergoes vulcanization). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Xie with the features of Wang by using the vulcanized rubber as the material for the footpad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Wang to use rubber since it will deform according to the shape of the ground, increasing the contact area between the sole and the ground and effectively increasing the adhesion of the foot end mechanism.
Claim 52: Xie teaches the limitations of claim 32 as noted above. Xie further teaches a method for manufacturing the robot foot, comprising: providing the solid body (54 - Xie) with a surface (surface of 24 - Xie), providing an elastomer material to form the feet pad (outer layer of 52 - Xie) (the foot end friction component is made out of rubber; para. 41, lines 1-4 - Xie). But it does not teach molding the feet pad from the elastomer material onto the coated metallic surface.
However, Wang in a similar field of art teaches molding the feet pad (10 - Wang) from the elastomer material onto the coated metallic surface (9 - Wang) (metallic surface of 9 has high elasticity foot sole 10 molded on via vulcanization; para. 17, lines 35-37 - Wang). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Xie with the features of Wang by using vulcanization between the footpad and the metallic surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Wang to achieve a secure, durable bond between the components, thereby preventing the robot from slipping during movement.
Claim 54: The prior art of Xie and Wang teaches the limitations of claim 52 as noted above. Wang further teaches the method, wherein the elastomer material (rubber - Wang) is molded onto the coated metallic surface (10 - Wang) by means of vulcanization (metallic surface of 9 has high elasticity foot sole 10 molded on via vulcanization; para. 17, lines 35-37 - Wang).
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021147612 A1 ("Xie") in view of CN 106985928 A ("Wang") and further in view of CN 112373596 A ("Xiong").
Claim 53: The prior art of Xie and Wang teaches the limitations of claim 52 as noted above. The cited prior art does not teach the method, wherein the solid body comprises a metallic surface, wherein the method comprises at least partially coating the metallic surface with an adhesion promoter.
However, Xiong in a similar field of art teaches the method, wherein the solid body (102, supporting component - Xiong) comprises a metallic surface (para. 51, lines 3-6 - Xiong). wherein the method comprises at least partially coating the metallic surface with an adhesion promoter (para. 60, lines 1-5 - Xiong). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Xie with the features of Xiong by making the robot foot out of metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Xiong teaches that such a structure allows the components to be designed as hollow structures which can greatly reduce the weight of the bionic mechanical foot device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/Jake Cook/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights