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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Chinese Patent App. No. CN202311072253.5 on 23 August 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202311072253.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: element S230, referenced in at least [0033] and [0057] of the present specification. Further, in [0044] of the present specification, Fig. 5 is described as including element S220, however element S220 is not present in Figure 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 3 includes element S503. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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.
Regarding claims 1-18, the repeated use of “spider-type quadruped robot” renders the claims that use it as indefinite, because it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). In this case, the specification fails to provide an explicit definition for what exactly makes a quadruped robot into a spider-type versus a non-spider-type. The specification (e.g., Paragraph 17) describes limited degrees of freedom in each leg’s joints; however, a robot that looks nothing like a spider might have limited degrees of freedom in each leg’s joints as well. The term “quadruped” also lends to the indefiniteness here, because spiders are typically known for having eight legs, whereas “quadruped” strongly implies just four. As such, would an 8-legged robot still count as a “quadruped”? And would a 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, or 10, etc. legged robot count as a “quadruped” and/or “spider-type”? Ultimately, the use of the word “type” creates indefiniteness in these claims, and its use in combination with “quadruped” makes it even worse. Appropriate corrections are required.
Additionally, regarding claim 5, the examiner notes that Applicant uses the terms “the support legs,” “the two current support legs,” and “the two support legs” repeatedly throughout the claims. Specifically, the examiner notes that it is unclear if the “two current support legs” and the “two support legs” are the same sets of support legs, or if they represent two different sets of support legs, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the “two current support legs” and the “two support legs” to be the same set of support legs. Claims 11 and 17 are similar in scope to claim 5, and are similarly rejected. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-6 are directed towards a “computer implemented method” (i.e., a process). Claims 7-12 are directed towards “a control device,” (i.e., a machine). Claims 13-18 are directed towards a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, claims 1-18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as the representative claim for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for trajectory planning of a turning motion of a spider-type quadruped robot, the method comprising:
Acquiring a desired turning angle of the spider-type quadruped robot in a floating base coordinate system during a current gait cycle;
Calculating a desired displacement for each support leg of the spider-type quadruped robot in the floating base coordinate system during the current gait cycle based on the desired turning angle; and
Performing discrete trajectory planning in the floating base coordinate system based on the desired displacements of the support legs, to obtain a desired turning motion trajectory for each of the support legs of the spider-type quadruped robot in the floating base coordinate system during the current gait cycle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process”, because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers actions capable of being performed in the human mind, or with the assistance of pen and paper. Specifically, the examiner asserts that “calculating a desired displacement,” and “performing discrete trajectory planning” amount to mere determinations as to where to move the support legs, and planning the trajectories for the support legs, respectively. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method for trajectory planning of a turning motion of a spider-type quadruped robot, the method comprising:
Acquiring a desired turning angle of the spider-type quadruped robot in a floating base coordinate system during a current gait cycle;
Calculating a desired displacement for each support leg of the spider-type quadruped robot in the floating base coordinate system during the current gait cycle based on the desired turning angle; and
Performing discrete trajectory planning in the floating base coordinate system based on the desired displacements of the support legs, to obtain a desired turning motion trajectory for each of the support legs of the spider-type quadruped robot in the floating base coordinate system during the current gait cycle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the limitation of “acquiring a desired turning angle of the spider-type quadruped robot,” the examiner asserts that this amounts to insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above, with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “acquiring a desired turning angle of the spider-type quadruped robot,” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 7 and 13 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are similarly not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 2, dependent claim 2 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 2 merely provides further description of the “gait cycle” of the robot, and provides additional mental processes in the form of “determining a target diagonal leg support period,” and “calculating a target hip joint turning displacement,” which the examiner asserts could be reasonably performed with pen and paper. Hence, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 8 and 14 are similar in scope to dependent claim 2, and are similarly not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 3, dependent claim 3 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 3 merely amounts to a mathematical process corresponding to the mental process of “determining a target diagonal leg support period,” which as previously discussed, could be reasonably performed with pen and paper. Hence, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 9 and 15 are similar in scope to dependent claim 3, and are similarly not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 4, dependent claim 4 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 4 merely recites a plurality of mathematical processes in the form of an equation for “coordinate system conversion,” and a plurality of definitions for the components of the equation. Hence, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 10 and 16 are similar in scope to dependent claim 4, and are similarly not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 5, dependent claim 5 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 5 merely recite further mental processes in the form of “determining a target diagonal leg support period,” “constraining the desired displacements,” and “performing trajectory planning,” which as indicated above, could be reasonably performed with pen and paper. Hence, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 11 and 17 are similar in scope to dependent claim 5, and are similarly not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 6, dependent claim 6 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 6 merely recites performing mathematical processes in the form of “performing coordinate system transformation,” and “performing linear trajectory superposition,” both of which are mere mathematical processes. Hence, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12 and 18 are similar in scope to dependent claim 6, and are similarly not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 could be overcome by amending the independent claims to recite, e.g., “controlling the spider-type quadruped robot based on the desired turning motion trajectory for each of the support legs of the spider-type quadruped robot,” or the like.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. ("Implementation of omnidirectional crawl for a quadruped robot"), hereafter Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a computer-implemented method for trajectory planning of a turning motion of a spider-type quadruped robot, the method comprising:
Acquiring a desired turning angle of the spider-type quadruped robot in a floating base coordinate system during a current gait cycle (Page 177, Section 2.2 - Page 179, Section 2.2.2, Standstill turning gaits about the geometric center of the robot, assume the turning angle φ abides by the right-hand rule, See also Fig. 6a, reproduced below, wherein φ corresponds to the "desired turning angle");
PNG
media_image1.png
251
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Calculating a desired displacement for each support leg of the spider-type quadruped robot in the floating base coordinate system during the current gait cycle based on the desired turning angle (Page 177, Section 2.2 - Page 179, Section 2.2.2, First, the formulation of the next footholds for every leg of the quadruped robot in a gait cycle can be derived. As shown in Fig. 6a, the initial posture of the robot is presented by the solid line and the robot returns to the next initial posture drawn by the dotted line after standstill-turning with turning angle φ and the robot center c); and
Performing discrete trajectory planning in the floating base coordinate system based on the desired displacements of the support legs, to obtain a desired turning motion trajectory for each of the support legs of the spider-type quadruped robot in the floating base coordinate system during the current gait cycle (Page 177, Section 2.2 - Page 179, Section 2.2.2, determination of position vectors of each of the next footholds of the four legs in the gait cycle, See also Equations (22), (23), (24), and (25) which correspond to the desired positions after turning for each of the feet in the world coordinate system, Examiner's note, although the position vectors are shown in the world coordinate system, it would have been trivial to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the position vectors in the robot’s coordinate system by using Equation (37) using the inverse of the orientation matrix as shown on Page 182, and reproduced below).
PNG
media_image2.png
103
619
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 7 and 13 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein a single gait cycle of the spider-type quadruped robot comprises a continuous first diagonal leg support period and a second diagonal leg support period, the first diagonal leg support period is a period when a left front leg and a right hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot are in a support state, and the second diagonal leg support period is a period when a front right leg and a left hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot are in a support state (Page 177, Section 2.2 - Page 179, Section 2.2.2, Similar to the analysis process of the straight-going gait, the sequence of the swing leg of a left standstill-turning gait is briefly described as follows. The fourth leg can be selected as the first swing leg. As shown in Fig. 6b, the second leg should be the next swing leg. After the fourth and second legs, only the first leg can be selected as the next swing leg as shown in Fig. 6c. Finally, the third leg takes a footstep from the position as Fig. 6d, then the robot returns to the initial posture drawn by the dotted line in Fig. 6a. Therefore, the sequence of swing legs for left turning is 4 -> 2 -> 1-> 3->. See also Figs. 6a-6d reproduced below);
PNG
media_image3.png
327
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and wherein calculating the desired displacement for each support leg of the spider-type quadruped robot in the floating base coordinate system during the current gait cycle based on the desired turning angle comprises:
Determining a target diagonal leg support period to which a current diagonal leg support state of the spider-type quadruped belongs in the current gait cycle (Page 177, Section 2.2 - Page 179, Section 2.2.2, Similar to the analysis process of the straight-going gait, the sequence of the swing leg of a left standstill-turning gait is briefly described as follows. The fourth leg can be selected as the first swing leg. As shown in Fig. 6b, the second leg should be the next swing leg. After the fourth and second legs, only the first leg can be selected as the next swing leg as shown in Fig. 6c. Finally, the third leg takes a footstep from the position as Fig. 6d, then the robot returns to the initial posture drawn by the dotted line in Fig. 6a. Therefore, the sequence of swing legs for left turning is 4 -> 2 -> 1-> 3.);
Based on a hip joint turning displacement calculation strategy that matches the target diagonal leg support period, calculating a target hip joint turning displacement corresponding to the desired turning angle in a world coordinate system of the spider-type quadruped robot (Page 179, see equations 22-25, reproduced below, Examiner's note: note that equations 22-25 are generalized solutions for any given φ, and any given support period, and although the solutions are indicative of the foot positions, it would be trivial for a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the desired hip positions by merely setting
L
0
=
0
, note that
A
1
corresponds to the "left front" leg,
A
2
corresponds to the "right front" leg,
A
3
corresponds to the "left hind leg" and
A
4
corresponds to the "right hind leg");
PNG
media_image4.png
267
620
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Acquiring a target rotation matrix of the floating base coordinate system of the spider-type quadruped robot relative to the world coordinate system when the desired turning angle is achieved (Page 181, Section 3 - Page 182, Section 3.2, see Equation (37) below, wherein
0
R
c
-
1
is the rotation matrix from the world coordinate system to the robot’s coordinate system); and
Performing coordinate system conversion on the target hip joint turning displacement according to the target rotation matrix to acquire the desired displacement (Page 181, Section 3 - Page 182, Section 3.2, Equation 37, reproduced below, wherein
R
c
-
1
0
is the rotation matrix, and
ρ
c
A
i
is the position vector relative to the center of gravity of the robot).
PNG
media_image2.png
103
619
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 14 are similar in scope to claim 2, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the method of claim 2, and further discloses wherein when the target diagonal leg support period is the first diagonal leg support period, the hip joint turning displacement calculation strategy corresponding to the target diagonal leg support period is expressed as follows:
∆
x
(
L
F
,
R
H
)
=
-
W
i
d
2
s
i
n
γ
-
L
e
n
2
(
1
-
c
o
s
γ
)
∆
y
(
L
F
,
R
H
)
=
L
e
n
2
s
i
n
γ
-
W
i
d
2
(
1
-
c
o
s
γ
)
(Page 179, see equations 22-25, reproduced below, Examiner's note: note that equations 22-25 are generalized solutions for any given φ, and any given support period, though organized by change in foot position rather the displacement between opposite hip joints, and although the solutions are indicative of the foot displacements, it would be trivial for a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the hip positions by merely setting L0 = 0, note that the values between opposite foot positions have inverse signs, further note that each foot displacement contains individual x, y, and z components, rather than the combined components claimed, further still, note that A1 corresponds to the "left front" leg, A2 corresponds to the "right front" leg, A3 corresponds to the "left hind leg" and A4 corresponds to the "right hind leg");
When the target diagonal leg support period is the second diagonal leg support period, the hip joint turning displacement calculating strategy corresponding to the target diagonal leg support period is expressed as follows:
∆
x
(
R
F
,
L
H
)
=
W
i
d
2
s
i
n
γ
-
L
e
n
2
(
1
-
c
o
s
γ
)
∆
y
(
R
F
,
L
H
)
=
L
e
n
2
s
i
n
γ
+
W
i
d
2
(
1
-
c
o
s
γ
)
(Page 179, see equations 22-25, reproduced below, Examiner's note: note that equations 22-25 are generalized solutions for any given φ, and any given support period, though organized by change in foot position rather the displacement between opposite hip joints, and although the solutions are indicative of the foot displacements, it would be trivial for a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the hip positions by merely setting L0 = 0, note that the values between opposite foot positions have inverse signs, further note that each foot displacement contains individual x, y, and z components, rather than the combined components claimed, further still, note that A1 corresponds to the "left front" leg, A2 corresponds to the "right front" leg, A3 corresponds to the "left hind leg" and A4 corresponds to the "right hind leg);
PNG
media_image4.png
267
620
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where
∆
x
(
L
F
,
R
H
)
represents components of turning displacements in a forward direction in the world coordinate system for hip joints corresponding to the left front leg and right hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot when the left front leg and right hind leg are in the support state (Examiner’s note: a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the above equations which portions of the displacement matrices correspond to the “x” displacement),
∆
y
(
L
F
,
R
H
)
represents components of turning displacements in a lateral direction in the world coordinate system for hip joints corresponding to the left front leg and right hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot when the left front leg and right hind leg are in the support state (Examiner’s note: a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the above equations which portions of the displacement matrices correspond to the “y” displacement),
∆
x
(
R
F
,
L
H
)
represents components of turning displacements in a forward direction in the world coordinate system for hip joints corresponding to the right front leg and left hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot when the right front leg and left hind leg are in the support state (Examiner’s note: a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the above equations which portions of the displacement matrices correspond to the “x” displacement),
∆
y
(
R
F
,
L
H
)
represents components of turning displacements in a lateral direction in the world coordinate system for hip joints corresponding to the right front leg and the left hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot when the right front leg and left hind leg are in the support state (Examiner’s note: a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the above equations which portions of the displacement matrices correspond to the “x” displacement), γ represents the desired turning angle of the spider-type quadruped robot in the floating base coordinate system during the current gait cycle (Page 177, Section 2.2 - Page 179, Section 2.2.2, Standstill turning gaits about the geometric center of the robot, assume the turning angle φ abides by the right-hand rule, See also Fig. 6a, reproduced below, wherein φ corresponds to the "desired turning angle” γ as claimed corresponds to φ as disclosed in Chen),
L
e
n
represents a distance between the hip joints corresponding to the left front leg and the left hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot, or a distance between the hip joints corresponding to the right front leg and the right hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot (Page 172, Fig. 2, the “length” of the robot corresponds to “2n”, therefore the term “n” in Equations (22) – (25) shown above corresponds to
L
e
n
2
, see Fig. 3),
W
i
d
represents a distance between the hip joints corresponding to the left front leg and the right front leg of the spider-type quadruped robot, or a distance between the hip joints corresponding to the left hind leg and the right hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot (Page 172, Fig. 2, the “width” of the robot corresponds to “2m”, therefore the term “m” in Equations (22) – (25) shown above corresponds to
W
i
d
2
, see Fig. 2 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image5.png
363
540
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 9 and 15 are similar in scope to claim 3, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the desired turning motion trajectories for the support legs of the spider-type quadruped robot comprise desired turning motion trajectories of two current support legs of the spider-type quadruped robot in the current gait cycle in the floating base coordinate system (Page 179, Equations (22), (23), (24), and (25), corresponding to the desired foot placement for each foot in the world coordinate system, Page 182, Equation 37, corresponding to the conversion equation between the foot placement in the world coordinate system and the foot placement in the robot's coordinate system); and wherein performing discrete trajectory planning in the floating base coordinate system based on the desired displacements of the support legs, to obtain the desired turning motion trajectory for each of the support legs of the spider-type quadruped robot in the floating base coordinate system during the current gait cycle, comprises:
Determining a target diagonal leg support period to which a current diagonal leg support state of the spider-type quadruped robot belongs in the current gait cycle (Page 178, Figs. 6a - 6d, plurality of leg support periods, Page 179, Similar to the analysis process of the straight-going gait, the sequence of the swing leg of a left standstill-turning gait is briefly described as follows. The fourth leg can be selected as the first swing leg. As shown in Fig. 6b, the second leg should be the next swing leg. After the fourth and second legs, only the first leg can be selected as the next swing leg as shown in Fig. 6c. Finally, the third leg takes a footstep from the position as Fig. 6d, then the robot returns to the initial posture drawn by the dotted line in Fig. 6a. Therefore, the sequence of swing legs for left turning is 4 -> 2 -> 1-> 3.);
Constraining the desired displacements for the support legs to the target diagonal leg support period for displacement discretization to obtain a corresponding displacement discretization result (Page 179, Section 2.2.2, From Fig. 6, we can easily find that the third and fourth legs are stretched further than the first and second legs, when the robot takes a left turn. In Fig. 6b, the fourth leg will take its longest stretch in the horizontal
L
4
*
in a gait cycle, if the robot achieves a left turning gait with the maximum turning angle
φ
m
a
x
); and
According to a relative position relationship and a relative motion relationship between the two current support legs of the spider-type quadruped robot, performing trajectory planning on the two support legs based on the displacement discretization result to acquire the desired turning motion trajectories of the two support legs in the current gait cycle in the floating base coordinate system (Page 179, Equations (22), (23), (24), and (25), corresponding to the desired foot placement for each foot in the world coordinate system, Page 182, Equation 37, corresponding to the conversion equation between the foot placement in the world coordinate system and the foot placement in the robot's coordinate system).
Claims 11 and 17 are similar in scope to claim 5, and are similarly rejected.
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.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses the method of claim 2, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the coordinate system conversion is performed according to the following equation:
∆
F
P
f
o
o
t
=
-
R
γ
∙
∆
W
P
h
i
p
where
∆
F
P
f
o
o
t
represents the desired placement for each support leg of the spider-type quadruped robot in the floating base coordinate system during the current gait cycle,
∆
W
P
h
i
p
represents the target hip joint turning displacement corresponding to the desired turning angle in the world coordinate system of the spider-type quadruped robot,
R
γ
represents the target rotation matrix of the floating base coordinate system of the spider-type quadruped robot relative to the world coordinate system when the desired turning angle is achieved;
When the target diagonal leg support period is the first diagonal leg support period,
∆
W
P
h
i
p
=
∆
x
L
F
,
R
H
∆
y
L
F
,
R
H
T
, and
∆
F
P
f
o
o
t
=
∆
x
L
F
,
R
H
'
∆
y
L
F
,
R
H
'
T
, where
∆
x
L
F
,
R
H
represents components of turning displacements in a forward direction in the world coordinate system for hip joints corresponding to the left front leg and right hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot when the left front leg and right hind leg are in the support state,
∆
y
L
F
,
R
H
represents components of turning displacements in a lateral direction in the world coordinate system for hip joints corresponding to the left front leg and the right hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot when the left front leg and right hind leg are in the support state,
∆
x
L
F
,
R
H
'
represents components of desired support leg placements of the left front leg and the right hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot in the forward direction in the floating base coordinate system when the left front leg and the right hind leg are in the support state, and
∆
y
L
F
,
R
H
'
represents components of desired support leg placements of the left front leg and the right hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot in the lateral direction in the floating base coordinate system when the left front leg and the right hind leg are in the support state;
When the target diagonal leg support period is the second diagonal leg support period,
∆
W
P
h
i
p
=
∆
x
R
F
,
L
H
∆
y
R
F
,
L
H
T
, and
∆
F
P
f
o
o
t
=
∆
x
R
F
,
L
H
'
∆
y
R
F
,
L
H
'
T
,, where
∆
x
R
F
,
L
H
represents components of turning displacements in a forward direction in the world coordinate system for hip joints corresponding to the right front leg and left hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot when the right front leg and left hind leg are in the support state,
∆
y
R
F
,
L
H
represents components of turning displacements in a lateral direction in the world coordinate system for hip joints corresponding to the right front leg and left hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot when the right front leg and left hind leg are in the support state,
∆
x
R
F
,
L
H
'
represents components of desired support leg displacements of the right front leg and the left hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot in the forward direction in the floating base coordinate system when the right front leg and the left hind leg are in the support state,
∆
y
R
F
,
L
H
'
represents components of desired support leg displacements of the front right leg and the left hind leg of the spider-type quadruped robot in the lateral direction in the floating base coordinate system when the right front leg and the left hind leg are in the support state.
The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have arrived at the claimed equation, because Chen already discloses each of the requisite parts. Specifically, Chen discloses the desired placement in the floating base coordinate system for each support leg as
ρ
c
A
i
in Equation (37), the desired hip displacement in the world coordinate system as
ρ
o
B
i
in Equation (27), and the orientation matrix as
R
o
c
in Equation (20). Therefore, the examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, to have arrived at the claimed equation because to relate
ρ
o
B
i
to
ρ
c
A
i
using an orientation matrix would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
Claims 10 and 16 are similar in scope to claim 4, and are similarly rejected.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, and further in view of Chen et al. ("Path Tracking Based on Closed-Loop Control for a Quadruped Robot in a Cluttered Environment"), hereafter Chen II.
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses it further comprising:
Performing coordinate system transformation on the desired turning motion trajectory for each of the support legs of the spider-type quadruped robot in the floating base coordinate system during the current gait cycle, to obtain target turning motion trajectories of the support legs of the spider-type quadruped robot in the current gait cycle in the world coordinate system (Page 179, Equations (22), (23), (24), and (25), corresponding to the desired foot placement for each foot in the world coordinate system, Page 182, Equation 37, corresponding to the conversion equation between the foot placement in the world coordinate system and the foot placement in the robot's coordinate system).
Chen fails to explicitly disclose, however, performing linear trajectory superposition based on a forward motion trajectory and the target turning motion trajectories of the support legs of the spider-type quadruped robot in the current gait cycle in the world coordinate system, to obtain a desired composite motion trajectory of the spider-type quadruped robot in the current gait cycle in the world coordinate system.
Chen II, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach performing linear trajectory superposition based on a forward motion trajectory and the target turning motion trajectories of the support legs of the spider-type quadruped robot in the current gait cycle in the world coordinate system, to obtain a desired composite motion trajectory of the spider-type quadruped robot in the current gait cycle in the world coordinate system (Page 274, Fig. 5, reproduced below, Page 275, Equations (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9), reproduced below, wherein Equation 9 corresponds to a generalized trajectory in a world trajectory system accounting for both straight-going gait and standstill-turning gait).
PNG
media_image6.png
333
346
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
286
697
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Chen and Chen II are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., quadrupedal robotic trajectory generation systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the generalized trajectory generation system of Chen 2 in order to provide a means of generating composite trajectories. The motivation to combine is to allow the robot to combine straight-line moving with turning movement to reach a specific location in a specific orientation.
Claims 12 and 18 are similar in scope to claim 6, and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adekunle (US 20180256989 A1) teaches a quadrupedal spider-like “gaming” robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas 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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658