DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 19/033,415 filed on July 8, 2026 in which claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, , 13, 15-18, and 20 were amended and claims 5, 12, and 19 were cancelled.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are pending, of which claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1); and claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 20, the term “suitable for wheeled motion” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable for wheeled motion” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As used in this claim, it is clear that Applicant does not intend a level of perfect evenness to be required, but does not provide a standard of determining what amount of unevenness is allowed for terrain to be considered “suitable for wheeled motion.” Therefore, these claims are indefinite.
In order to overcome this rejection, the examiner recommends amending the previous “determining” limitations to include that whether or not the region is “suitable for wheeled motion” is determined as part of that step, thereby indicating that suitability for wheeled motion is decided by the computer algorithm and is not a matter of opinion.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, these claims depend from one of the above claims and, therefore, inherit the rejection of that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
(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, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bewley et al., US Publication 2012/0215355 (hereinafter Bewley), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated April 16, 2026.
Regarding claim 1, Bewley discloses a method of controlling motion of a robot, “wherein the robot is a wheel-foot composite robot comprising at least one environmental sensing sensor [Bewley ¶ 90], a leg mechanism [Bewley ¶ 70], and a roller [Bewley ¶ 69]” (Bewley ¶¶ 69, 70, 90) where the leg mechanism is “leg 16” of Bewley and the rollers are “independent driven wheels 6, 8” of Bewley. Additionally, Bewley discloses “the method comprises: controlling the at least one environmental sensing sensor to acquire surrounding environmental information of an environment” (Bewley ¶ 90) where the sensors are “used to provide input into an adaptive system controller” (i.e., acquire information for the system controller) and because these sensors include “environmental sensors,” the input would necessarily be about the environment (i.e., surrounding environmental information of an environment). Further, Bewley discloses “determining a to-be-executed task of the wheel-foot composite robot based on the surrounding environmental information” (Bewley ¶ 90) by planning a path (i.e., a to-be-executed task) based on the environmental sensors. Moreover, Bewley discloses “determining a motion mode of the wheel-foot composite robot based on the surrounding environmental information and the to-be-executed task of the wheel-foot composite robot; and controlling the motion of the wheel-foot composite robot based on the motion mode” (Bewley ¶15) by giving an example of determining that the surrounding environment is stairs and using a leg based method of motion. Finally, Bewley discloses “wherein controlling the motion comprises controlling a centroid projection position of the wheel-foot composite robot to be located within a support polygonal region of the environment, wherein the support polygonal region is formed by support points of the leg mechanism and the roller, and wherein the leg mechanism is separate from the roller” (Bewley ¶¶ 15, 69-70, Fig. 2) where leg 16 is shown separate from wheels 6 and 8, along with various support points.
Regarding claim 8, it merely recites a robot for performing the method of claim 1. The robot comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the various functions. Bewley comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 8 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, it merely recites a computer-readable storage medium for performing the method of claim 1. The medium comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. Bewley comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Bewley discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1, 8, and 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Bewley discloses “wherein the motion mode comprises one of a wheeled motion mode and a wheel-foot composite motion mode” (Bewley ¶¶ 76, 91) where Bewley ¶ 76 describes a wheeled motion mode and Bewley ¶ 91 describes a wheel-foot composite mode.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bewley in view of Wang et al., US Publication 2025/0328140 (hereinafter Wang), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated April 16, 2026.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Bewley discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 2, 9, and 16 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Bewley does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the determining a motion mode of the wheel-foot composite robot based on the surrounding environmental information comprises: determining a state of an intended motion region of the wheel-foot composite robot based on the surrounding environmental information; in response to the state of the intended motion region being suitable for wheeled motion and free of obstacles, determining that the motion mode of the wheel-foot composite robot is a wheeled motion mode; in response to the state of the intended motion region being at least one of suitable for wheeled motion and presence of an obstacle, determining that the motion mode of the wheel-foot composite robot is a wheel-foot composite motion mode.”
However, Wang discloses “wherein the determining a motion mode of the wheel-foot composite robot based on the surrounding environmental information comprises: determining a state of an intended motion region of the wheel-foot composite robot based on the surrounding environmental information” (Wang ¶ 51) by obtaining environment information (i.e., a state) of the current environment of the robot. Further Wang discloses “in response to the state of the intended motion region being suitable for wheeled motion and free of obstacles, determining that the motion mode of the wheel-foot composite robot is a wheeled motion mode” (Wang ¶ 93) by determining the current motion of the robot is “four-wheel mode” (i.e., a wheeled motion mode) when on “flat ground” (i.e., region being even terrain and free of obstacles). Finally, Wang discloses “in response to the state of the intended motion region being at least one of suitable for wheeled motion and presence of an obstacle, determining that the motion mode of the wheel-foot composite robot is a wheel-foot composite motion mode” (Wang ¶ 127) by determining the current motion of the robot is “two-wheel and bipedal mode” (i.e., a wheel-foot composite mode) when ascending or descending a staircase (i.e., uneven terrain).
Bewley and Wang are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of multi-modal robots.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bewley and Wang before him or her to modify the path planning based on the environment of Bewley to include the specific path planning of Wang.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Bewley differs from the claimed invention by including a generic statement that the path is planned based on the environmental sensors in place of the claimed method of path planning. Further, Wang teaches the claimed method of planning a path was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the specific method of path planning for the undisclosed method because both perform the same function and Bewley must plan its path using some process.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Bewley discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 2, 9, and 16 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Bewley does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the wheel-foot composite robot further comprises four motion mechanisms, the four motion mechanisms comprise two rear rollers and two front leg mechanisms, wherein an end of each of the front leg mechanisms is provided with a roller; correspondingly, the wheel-foot composite motion mode comprises: based on wheeled motions of the two rear rollers, a foot type motion of a left front leg mechanism, and a wheeled motion of a right front leg mechanism, obtaining a first wheel-foot composite motion mode; or based on wheeled motions of the two rear rollers, a wheeled motion of a left front leg mechanism, and a foot type motion of a right front leg mechanism, obtaining a second wheel- foot composite motion mode; or based on wheeled motions of the two rear rollers and foot type motions of the two front leg mechanisms, obtaining a third wheel-foot composite motion mode.”
However, Wang discloses “wherein the wheel-foot composite robot further comprises four motion mechanisms, the four motion mechanisms comprise two rear rollers and two front leg mechanisms, wherein an end of each of the front leg mechanisms is provided with a roller.” (Wang ¶ 52 and Fig. 4A). Further, Wang discloses “correspondingly, the wheel-foot composite motion mode comprises: based on wheeled motions of the two rear rollers, a foot type motion of a left front leg mechanism, and a wheeled motion of a right front leg mechanism, obtaining a first wheel-foot composite motion mode; or based on wheeled motions of the two rear rollers, a wheeled motion of a left front leg mechanism, and a foot type motion of a right front leg mechanism, obtaining a second wheel-foot composite motion mode; or based on wheeled motions of the two rear rollers and foot type motions of the two front leg mechanisms, obtaining a third wheel-foot composite motion mode” (Wang ¶¶ 99-100 and Fig. 4D) by giving an example of the rear legs using a wheel mode while forward legs use a foot-type motion to ascend the stairs for the claimed third wheel-foot composite motion mode.
Bewley and Wang are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of multi-modal robots.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bewley and Wang before him or her to modify the wheels and legs of Bewley to include the additional wheeled legs of Wang.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the additional wheeled legs of Wang would provide additional stability for the robot.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, the combination of Bewley and Wang discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 4, 11, and 18 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bewley and Wang discloses “wherein the determining a target motion mode of the wheel-foot composite robot based on the surrounding environmental information and the to-be-executed motion task comprises: in response to determining that the state of the intended motion region of the wheel-foot composite robot is suitable for wheeled motion and free of obstacles based on the surrounding environmental information, and the to-be-executed motion task being a motion task, determining that the motion mode of the wheel-foot composite robot is the wheeled motion mode” (Wang ¶ 93) by determining the current motion of the robot is “four-wheel mode” (i.e., a wheeled motion mode) when on “flat ground” (i.e., region being even terrain and free of obstacles). Further, the combination of Bewley and Wang discloses “in response to determining that the state of the intended motion region of the wheel-foot composite robot is at least one of suitable for wheeled motion and presence of an obstacle based on the surrounding environmental information, and the to-be-executed motion task being a motion task, determining that the motion mode of the wheel-foot composite robot is the first wheel-foot composite motion mode, the second wheel-foot composite motion mode, or the third wheel-foot composite motion mode” (Wang ¶¶ 99-10 and Fig. 4D) by giving an example of the rear legs using a wheel mode while forward legs use a foot-type motion to ascend the stairs (i.e., uneven terrain) for the claimed third wheel-foot composite motion mode. Finally, the combination of Bewley and Wang discloses “in response to determining that the state of the intended motion region of the wheel-foot composite robot is suitable for wheeled motion and free of obstacles, or at least one of suitable for wheeled motion and presence of an obstacle, based on the surrounding environmental information, and the to-be-executed motion task being an interactive task, determining that the motion mode of the wheel-foot composite robot is the third wheel-foot composite motion mode” (Wang ¶¶ 99-100, 147) where the tasks discussed above may also include interaction tasks in the form of tactile touching by the hand of the robot.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the combination of Bewley and Wang discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 6 and 13 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bewley and Wang discloses “wherein the motion task comprises one of a forward task, a backward task, or a steering task” (Wang ¶ 156) where a path is at least a forward task.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 8, 2026, with respect to the objection to the abstract; the objections to claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 20; and the rejection of claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Remarks 11-12) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the abstract; the objections to claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 20; and the rejection of claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed July 8, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (Remarks 13-15) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that, as amended, “the claims now use functional language that is directly tied to the robot's operational capabilities as described in the specification, rather than a subjective characterization of the terrain's flatness.” (Remarks 12-13). The examiner disagrees.
The concept of “suitability” as claimed within the present claims, is still a subjective characterization. Whether a surface is suitable for wheeled motion is tied directly to subjective opinions based on how much degradation in performance is acceptable. For example, in an icy condition, a vehicle might be deemed suitable without traction accessories, such as tire changes, while others may not deem those same tires on the same vehicle to be suitable for the icy conditions. Additionally, although the claims have been amended to recite “suitable for wheeled motion,” this suitability is not “tied to the robot’s operational capabilities,” as argued but is, instead, open to any wheeled motion. Nothing in the claims make a requirement that the suitability is based on the robot’s operational capabilities.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights