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
The applicant’s claim to priority of PCT/CN2022/090607 on 4/29/2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant filed an IDS on 10/29/2024 and 8/14/2025. Each has been annotated and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 13-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 13 and 14), the Applicant claims a legged robot. As written, the robot can have any number of legs. However, according to Specification and drawings, only a four-legged version of a legged robot is disclosed. 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)(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 1, 4, 13-14, 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CN112327869 (hereinafter ‘69A).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 13 and 14), ‘69A teaches a legged robot control method (See at least: Figs. 2-3), comprising:
obtaining locomotion data of the legged robot;
determining a torso locomotion trajectory and foot placement of the legged robot according to the locomotion data and a preset inverted pendulum model corresponding to the legged robot (See at least: “The invention maps the diagonal gait motion model of the four-footed robot to a new inertial coordinate space, in one plane of the space, the robot is equivalent to inverted pendulum model, realizing the trunk attitude control and speed following, ensuring the balance and stability of the trunk.”); and
controlling the legged robot to perform lateral step locomotion based on the torso locomotion trajectory, such that feet of the legged robot move to the foot placement (See at least: As shown in FIG. 1, the present embodiment provides a four-footed robot based joint speed planning of the four-footed robot diagonal gait motion control method, comprising: mapping the robot diagonal gait motion model to the inertial coordinate space; in one plane of the inertial coordinate space, selecting the foot drop point according to the lateral speed of the trunk target, so as to control the lateral speed of the trunk; according to the target height of the body, forward speed and steering speed to obtain the hip joint position of the leg part; according to the position of the hip joint the transformation matrix of the inertial coordinate space to the trunk coordinate space, obtaining the position coordinate of the foot in the trunk coordinate space; controlling the diagonal gait motion of the robot according to the joint velocity of the leg of the foot obtained by the position coordinate of the foot and the selected foot drop point.).
Regarding claim 4 (and similarly 18 and 24), teaches wherein obtaining the locomotion data of the legged robot comprises: obtaining lateral disturbance data of a torso of the legged robot, wherein the lateral disturbance data includes lateral velocity and lateral displacement; and in response to the lateral disturbance data exceeding a preset disturbance threshold, determining that the lateral disturbance data is the locomotion data, wherein the preset disturbance threshold comprises a preset velocity threshold or a preset displacement threshold (See at least: “the second test is the anti-disturbance ability of the test algorithm; in the process of the robot to the diagonal gait, applying impact force to the body side; the robot is capable of actively adjusting leg movement after being impacted by lateral impact, ensuring balance and stability of the body.”).
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.
Claims 2, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘69A in view of Zhang (US 20190184575 hereinafter Zhang) and further in view of Takenaka et al. (US 20050021176 hereinafter Takenaka).
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly 16 and 22), ‘69A fails to teach the following limitations but teaches wherein obtaining the locomotion data of the legged robot comprises:
obtaining a working mode of the legged robot, wherein the working mode includes a dancing mode; and
in response to the lateral step locomotion in the dancing mode, obtaining a locomotion amplitude and a direction corresponding to the lateral step locomotion, and using the locomotion amplitude and the direction as the locomotion data.
However, Zhang teaches obtaining a working mode of the legged robot, wherein the working mode includes a dancing mode (See at least: [0025] FIG. 4 is a flowchart of a method for controlling the service robot to dance following the beats of a song in a regular dance mode according to another embodiment of the present disclosure;).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify ‘69A in view of Zhang to teach obtaining a working mode of the legged robot, wherein the working mode includes a dancing mode so the legged robot can be controlled specifically according to motions required in a dance mode which may go beyond standard lateral stepping.
Modified ‘69A further fails to teach in response to the lateral step locomotion in the dancing mode, obtaining a locomotion amplitude and a direction corresponding to the lateral step locomotion, and using the locomotion amplitude and the direction as the locomotion data.
However, Takenaka teaches obtaining a locomotion amplitude and a direction corresponding to the lateral step locomotion, and using the locomotion amplitude and the direction as the locomotion data (See at least: [0516] Then, the process proceeds to step S1302, where a characteristic quantity, such as amplitude or phase, of the reference body vertical position trajectory is calculated (extracted) in order to determine the floor reaction force vertical component trajectory which allows generation of a desired body vertical position trajectory resembling the reference body vertical position trajectory as closely as possible. For example, the amplitude of the reference body vertical position trajectory (that is, the difference between the minimum value and the maximum value thereof) is calculated as a characteristic quantity.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified ‘69A in view of Takenaka to teach in response to the lateral step locomotion in the dancing mode, obtaining a locomotion amplitude and a direction corresponding to the lateral step locomotion, and using the locomotion amplitude and the direction as the locomotion data so that the amplitude of the legged robot can be measured and tracked to generate the proper force with the floor in order to maintain stable control of the body while moving.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657