DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 2-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takenaka et al. (US 2010/0042256).
Regarding claims 2, 16, 19, and 21 Takenaka discloses a robot, system, and a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, at data processing hardware of a robot (control unit 60), sensor data of an environment of the robot, wherein the sensor data indicates a touchdown of an appendage of the robot (see at least [0263] which discloses sensing a floor reaction force of a walking robot);
determining, by the data processing hardware, a state of an appendage of the robot based on the touchdown of the appendage (see again at least [0263] which discloses posture determination of appendages);
detecting, by the data processing hardware, a slip of the appendage based on the state of the appendage (via slippage determiner described in a least [1075]); and
instructing, by the data processing hardware, one or more actuators of the robot to apply a force at the appendage based on detecting the slip of the appendage (see again at least [1075] which discloses the floor reaction force is generated based on the slippage determination. See also at least [0263] which discloses each joint is provided with an electric motor).
Regarding claim 3,Takenaka discloses the state of the appendage comprises a position of the appendage (see at least [0288, 0289, 1115, 1116] which discloses foot position or posture is determined).
Regarding claim 4, Takenaka discloses the state of the appendage comprises a swing state or a stance state (see at least [0278, 1121, 1122] which discloses the state of the robot stance and gait is determined).
Regarding claim 5, Takenaka discloses identifying a first position of the appendage based on the state of the appendage, wherein detecting the slip of the appendage is further based on a difference between the first position and a second position of the appendage (see at least figure 79 and [1078] which discloses translational slippage is calculated).
Regarding claim 6, Takenaka discloses wherein application of the force causes the appendage to move from a first position to a second position (see again at least [1075, 1076]).
Regarding claim 7, Takenaka discloses wherein application of the force causes a reduction in movement of the appendage (see at least [1086]).
Regarding claim 8, Takenaka discloses detecting the slip of the appendage is further based on a difference between a first position of the appendage and a second position of the appendage (see at least figure 79 and [1078] which discloses translational slippage is calculated), wherein application of the force causes the appendage to move from the first position to the second position (see again at least [1075, 1076]).
Regarding claim 9, Takenaka discloses determining the force based on the state of the appendage (see at least [0161, 0622]).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Takenaka discloses the appendage comprises a leg of two or more legs of the robot, wherein the touchdown of the appendage comprises a touchdown of a foot of the leg, wherein the slip of the appendage comprises a slip of the foot, and wherein instructing the one or more actuators to apply the force at the appendage comprises instructing the one or more actuators to apply the force at the foot (see again at least [0622,1046-1079]).
Regarding claim 11, Takenaka discloses determining a velocity associated with the robot, wherein one or more of the force or detection of the slip of the appendage is based on the velocity (see at least [1072, 1076, 1078]).
Regarding claim 12, Takenaka discloses applying, by the one or more actuators, the force at the appendage (via the joint motors noted above).
Regarding claim 13, Takenaka discloses receiving the sensor data comprises: receiving the sensor data from a sensor of the robot (see at least [1076] which discloses a 6 axis force sensor of the foot).
Regarding claim 14, Takenaka discloses the touchdown of the appendage indicates a transition between a swing state and a surface state (see again at least [1075, 1076]).
Regarding claim 15, Takenaka discloses the touchdown of the appendage comprises a touchdown of the appendage at a position on a ground surface, wherein the slip of the appendage comprises a slip of the appendage from the position on the ground surface (see again at least [1075-1080]).
Regarding claim 18, Takenaka discloses to instruct the one or more actuators to apply the force at the appendage, the execution of the first instructions by the data processing hardware further causes the data processing hardware to: provide second instructions to the one or more actuators, wherein the one or more actuators apply the force at the appendage based on the second instructions (see at least figure 83, [1086] which teaches changing the instruction to a reduced output based on determination of slipping).
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.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka et al. (US 2010/0042256) and further in view of Fujita (US 5,929,585).
Regarding claim 20, Takenaka does not explicitly disclose the robot comprises a quadruped robot as Takenaka appears to only disclose a bipedal embodiment of the robot. Fujita teaches quadruped robots are well known in the art (see at least figures 1-9). Therefore, from the teaching of Fujita, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide an embodiment of Takenaka which includes more than 2 legs, i.e. 4 legs, as it would have been an obvious design choice to provide an appropriate number of legs depending on the end use of the robot, e.g. an end use where added stability of the robot is required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON HOLLOWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Tommy Worden can be reached at 571-272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658