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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The examiner received amendments to the claims and specification in addition to accompanying arguments dated 21 July 2026 in response to the non-final rejection office action dated 23 April 2026 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding objections”, “outstanding rejections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered by way of amendment.
Regarding the outstanding specification objection, the examiner notes that the minor informality has been addressed by way of amendment. All outstanding specification objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, the examiner notes that applicant has removed the instance of “wheel-type” from claim 11 but retained the instance of “foot type” in claim 11 in addition to adding “-type” language in each independent claim (1, 12, 20). The examiner notes that use of “-type” in this fashion remains indefinite as it falls under the guidance of MPEP 2173.05(b).III.E. since further explicit guidance as to what constitutes each “type” of movement is not provided. The examiner recommends removal of the word “type” from the claim language as the simplest path forward.
Regarding the outstanding double patenting rejections, the examiner appreciates the efforts of the applicant to file terminal disclaimers, however the examiner notes that the terminal disclaimers filed 21 July 2026 were disapproved on 03 August 2026 since the incorrect form was noted on the submitted terminal disclaimer forms. The examiner recommends re-uploading the applicable terminal disclaimers with the corrected form identifier.
Regarding the outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 102/103) rejections, the examiner first notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claim set. However, the examiner reviewed the arguments presented on pages [13-15] (at least) of the remarks, noting in particular the failure of the primary prior art of note to disclose elements such as 1) an interconnecting member attached to the rear wheels and 2) “locking” a mechanism for one of the modes. Regarding the former point, the examiner agrees that the primary prior art of note does not reasonably disclose an interconnecting member to attach the wheels. However, the examiner has provided art below (necessitated by amendment) which reads upon this modification. Regarding the latter point, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the prior art of note does not disclose this limitation; the primary prior art of note discloses purely walking modes (locking the mode of rolling) and simultaneous walking-rolling modes; the primary prior art continues to read upon this limitation. New grounds of rejection, necessitated by claim amendment, are provided below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 21 July 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent claims. All pending claims (1-20) are rejected as noted further below.
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 1-20 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.
All independent claims (1, 12, and 20) in addition to dependent claim 11 reference a “type” of motion (wheel-type or foot-type) without providing explicit guidance as to what reasonably reads upon each “type” of motion. In ascertaining the effect of the word "type" on the claim language, the examiner consulted the specification. While paragraphs [41-44] generally describes the modes of operation, the term "type" is not necessarily limited by the disclosure of the specification. As the word "type" is not explicitly limited to a particular known set of operating conditions/component configurations, the examiner notes that the terms render the claims indefinite under the guidance of MPEP 2173.05(b).III.E. The language does not particularly limit the mode of operation, as a shuffle may be a foot-type motion, or a rolling of a wheel attached to a foot of a robot, or any other “related” action. Ultimately, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand what may constitute one “type” of motion over another, since movement of a wheel attached to a foot may reasonably be either “type” of motion, for instance.
Therefore, the examiner notes that this phrase is indefinite and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
As all independent claims (1, 12, 20) recite the indefinite claim language, all dependent claims which depend upon the rejected base claims and do not resolve the issue are rejected due to dependency. Thus, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US 2025/0291353 A1; filed 21 Apr 2023, hereinafter Nguyen) in view of Wang et al. (US 2025/0353195 A1; filed 27 July 2025, claiming priority to 14 July 2023, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding independent claims 1 (method), 12 (apparatus), and 20 (non-transitory memory apparatus): Nguyen discloses A method of controlling motions of a robot, wherein the robot is a wheel-foot composite robot, and the method comprises: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0043, 0055, 0091] and Figure [1-2, 5], Nguyen discloses a control method for a robot, the robot including four legs (motion mechanisms) attached to the robot torso, the legs comprising two rear wheels (rollers) and two front legs) / A robot comprising: (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0055], Nguyen discloses a robot) / A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program, wherein the computer program causes a computer to perform operations comprising: (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0063-0065, 0091], Nguyen discloses memory housing instructions)
a processor and a memory, wherein the robot is a wheel-foot composite robot, and wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor is configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to perform operations comprising: (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0049, 0063-0065, 0091], Nguyen discloses memory housing instructions and a processor to execute the instructions for control of a wheel-foot/wheel-legged composite robot)
obtaining a to-be-performed task of the wheel-foot composite robot, (per claims 1, 12) / obtaining a two-be-performed task of a wheel-foot composite robot, (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0067-0068], Nguyen discloses obtaining an input corresponding to a task to be performed)
wherein the wheel-foot composite robot comprises a robot body, two front leg mechanisms, and a rear leg mechanism that includes two rear rollers [disposed at two ends of a connecting member], (per claims 1, 12, 20) (As a preliminary matter, the examiner notes that applicant claims quantities of components (such as “two front leg mechanism”) as a positive limitation but does not provide a negative limitation preventing a number greater than the quantity from reading upon the language. Put plainly, by disclosing four legs, two legs are disclosed. Paragraph [0043, 0055, 0091] and Figure [1-2, 5], Nguyen discloses a control method for a robot, the robot including four legs (thus, two of them are “two front leg mechanisms” / motion mechanisms) attached to the robot torso, the legs comprising two rear wheels (rollers) and two front legs)
wherein a motion mode of the wheel- foot composite robot is a wheel-foot composite motion mode, and wherein the wheel-foot composite motion mode is obtained by locking at least one of the two front leg mechanisms to switch the at least one of the two front leg mechanism from a wheel-type motion mode to a foot-type motion mode; (per claims 1, 12, 20) (Paragraph [0054, 0067-0068, 0089, 0123], Nguyen discloses obtaining a control input (to-be-performed task). Further, “the wheel-legged robot is capable of utilizing different locomotion modes such as rolling, simultaneous walking-rolling, and pure walking modes”, any of which comprises a “wheel-foot composite motion mode”, as the term “wheel-foot composite” is merely interpreted as a generic title, and any method of motion by the robot comprising the disclosed motion means may read upon this language. However, the examiner notes that Nguyen also meets the intended language of a combination of wheel-driven and foot-driven locomotion through disclosure of “simultaneous walking-rolling”. Finally, “locking at least one of the two front leg mechanisms” is met by disclosure of “pure walking”, as this is “locking” in just one mode)
determining a first motion task of the robot body, a second motion task of at least one of the two front leg mechanisms in the foot-type motion mode that is in a lifted state, and a third motion task of the two rear rollers in the rear leg mechanism based on the to-be-performed task; and (per claims 1, 12, 20) (Paragraph [0015, 0089], Nguyen discloses determining a desired set of parameters (position, velocity, angle, etc.) of the robot (the body, first motion task) and calculating desired metrics for the four motion mechanisms (second and third motion tasks))
controlling whole-body motion of the wheel-foot composite robot based on the first motion task, the second motion task, and the third motion task. (per claim 1, 12, 20) (Paragraph [0015, 0087-0090], Nguyen discloses controlling the robot by sending the commanded values to the corresponding joint controllers)
Nguyen does not explicitly disclose that the rear rollers are disposed at ends of an interconnecting member.
However, Wang, in a similar field of endeavor of wheel-foot composite robot control, teaches disposed at two ends of a connecting member (Paragraph [0044-0045] and Figure [2], Wang teaches a wheel-foot composite robot with a member connecting two wheels at each end (piece 202 of Figure [2]), wherein the inner leg mechanism 202 may be implemented as a single piece to result in a tripedal wheel-legged robot)
Nguyen and Wang are in a similar field of endeavor of wheel-foot composite robot control. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Nguyen with a single linked connection element for two of the wheels as taught by Wang, as this is a matter of design choice. Nguyen discloses that the particular number and arrangement of legs is not particularly limited (Paragraph [0061] of Nguyen), consistent with the teachings of Wang (Paragraph [0042] of Wang). Merely changing the layout of walking members to two, three, or four legs (bipedal, tripedal, or quadrupedal) is merely a matter of design choice. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement the control method of Nguyen on a robot satisfying the structural criteria of Wang as neither is particularly limited by number and arrangement of propulsion elements. This constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 2 and 13: Parent claims 1 and 12 are unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Wang. Nguyen further discloses wherein the controlling whole-body motion of the wheel-foot composite robot based on the first motion task, the second motion task and the third motion task comprises: determining a target torque of each joint in each motion mechanism based on the first motion task, the second motion task, and the third motion task; and (per claims 2 and 13) (Paragraph [0013, 0015, 0089], Nguyen discloses determining a desired set of parameters for each joint, including a target torque for each joint based on the input)
controlling the whole-body motion of the wheel-foot composite robot based on the target torque of each joint in the each motion mechanism. (per claims 2 and 13) (Paragraph [0013, 0015, 0087-0090], Nguyen discloses controlling the robot based on the torque determined for the joints by sending the commanded values to the corresponding joint controllers)
Regarding claims 3 and 14: Parent claims 2 and 13 are unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Wang. Nguyen further discloses wherein the determining a target torque of each joint in each motion mechanism based on the first motion task, the second motion task, and the third motion task comprises: editing the first motion task, the second motion task and the third motion task into a quadratic programming form, and solving by using a convex optimization algorithm to obtain the target torque of each joint in each motion mechanism. (per claims 3 and 14) (Paragraph [0087, 0089, 0102], Nguyen discloses control architecture using quadratic programming (in this “form”) in addition to solving an optimization algorithm to determine output torque)
Regarding claims 4 and 15: Parent claims 2 and 13 are unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Wang. Nguyen further discloses wherein each joint in the each motion mechanism corresponds to one motor, and the controlling the whole-body motion of the wheel-foot composite robot based on the target torque of each joint in the each motion mechanism comprises: controlling each motor to output the target torque to a corresponding joint based on the target torque of each joint, so as to implement whole-body motion control of the wheel-foot composite robot. (per claims 4 and 15) (Paragraph [0013, 0015, 0057, 0072, 0087-0090] and Claim [1], Nguyen discloses a plurality of motors for the joints and controlling each motor to output the desired torque)
Regarding claims 5 and 16: Parent claims 1 and 12 are unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Wang. Nguyen further discloses wherein the determining the first motion task of the robot body, the second motion task of the two front leg mechanisms, and the third motion task of the two rear rollers based on the to- be-performed task comprises: determining a whole-body motion trajectory of the wheel-foot composite robot based on the to-be- performed task; and determining the first motion task of the robot body, the second motion task of the two front leg mechanisms, and the third motion task of the two rear rollers based on the whole-body motion trajectory. (per claims 5 and 16) (Paragraph [0017, 0054, 0067-0068, 0088, 0089], Nguyen discloses determining a whole-body trajectory/route through an input, and based on the input, determine control parameters for each of the robot body, front legs, and rear wheels/legs)
Regarding claims 6 and 17: Parent claims 5 and 16 are unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Wang. Nguyen further discloses wherein the first motion task is a motion task of a center point of the robot body; (per claims 6 and 17) (Paragraph [0093, 0097-0104] and Figure [6A-6B], Nguyen discloses control based upon a center of mass of the body (roll/pitch/yaw, etc.))
the second motion task is a motion task of a lifted leg mechanism in the two front leg mechanisms; and (per claims 6 and 17) (Paragraph [0089, 0093, 0097-0104] and Figure [6A-6B], Nguyen discloses control based upon front legs)
the third motion task is a motion task of a center point of the two rear rollers. (per claims 6 and 17) (Paragraph [0089, 0093, 0097-0104] and Figure [6A-6B], Nguyen discloses control based upon rear rollers, wherein the calculations rely upon center point of the rear wheels (see Figure [6A, 6B] showing the origin of force calculation in the centerline of the wheels))
Regarding claims 7 and 18: Parent claims 6 and 17 are unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Wang. Nguyen further discloses wherein the whole-body motion trajectory comprises: a motion trajectory of the robot body, a motion trajectory of a lifted foot corresponding to the lifted leg mechanism, and a motion trajectory of the center point of the two rear rollers; (per claims 7 and 18) (Paragraph [0015, 0087-0089], Nguyen discloses desired position and velocity of the robot, including control of each leg for desired positions/torques/etc.)
wherein the motion trajectory of the robot body comprises at least one expected position, at least one expected posture, at least one expected velocity, and at least one expected angular velocity; (per claims 7 and 18) (Paragraph [0015, 0089, 0093, 0101], Nguyen discloses an expected body center of mass position, velocity, pitch angle (the combination of position and angle is a pose), and angular velocity)
the motion trajectory of the lifted foot corresponding to the lifted leg mechanism comprises at least one expected position and at least one expected velocity; (per claims 7 and 18) (Paragraph [0011, 0015, 0089, 0104], Nguyen discloses relative (expected) foot position and expected angular velocity (an angular velocity is a velocity))
the motion trajectory of the center point of the two rear roller comprises at least one expected position, at least one expected posture, at least one expected velocity, and at least one expected angular velocity. (per claims 7 and 18) (Paragraph [0011, 0015, 0069, 0089, 0104-0105], Nguyen discloses an expected wheel angular velocity, forward velocity, relative foot position (including the wheels), and overall pose)
Regarding claims 8 and 19: Parent claims 7 and 18 are unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Wang. Nguyen further discloses wherein the determining a first motion task of the robot body based on the whole-body motion trajectory comprises: determining an actual position corresponding to each expected position, an actual velocity corresponding to each expected velocity, an actual posture corresponding to each expected posture, and an actual angular velocity corresponding to each expected angular velocity of the robot body; (per claims 8 and 19) (Paragraph [0074, 0076-0077, 0089-0090, 0104], Nguyen discloses that the system may include sensors including torque sensors, velocity sensors, acceleration sensors, position sensors, motion sensors, etc. Nguyen discloses obtaining measured position and angles (pose) of limbs, position of each actuator, overall location/position, measured angular velocity, etc. for comparison to desired values)
determining a position motion sub-task of the robot body corresponding to each timestamp based on the expected position, the actual position, the expected velocity, and the actual velocity at a same timestamp; and (per claims 8 and 19) (Paragraph [0069, 0092, 0097-0104, 0112], Nguyen discloses comparison of values obtained and estimated on a time step basis in real time, including the position and velocity of the robot)
determining a posture motion sub-task of the robot body corresponding to each timestamp based on the expected posture, the actual posture, the expected angular velocity and the actual angular velocity at the same timestamp; and (per claims 8 and 19) (Paragraph [0069, 0092, 0097-0104, 0112], Nguyen discloses comparison of values obtained and estimated on a time step basis in real time, including the position and angles (pose) and angular velocity of the robot)
obtaining the first motion task of the robot body corresponding to each timestamp based on the posture motion sub-task and the position motion sub-task of the robot body corresponding to each timestamp. (per claims 8 and 19) (Paragraph [0069, 0092, 0097-0104, 0112], Nguyen discloses real time motion optimization control based upon the differences obtained between commanded and measured values for position and posture)
Regarding claim 9: Parent claim 7 is unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Wang. Nguyen further discloses wherein the determining the second motion task of the lifted leg mechanism in the two front leg mechanisms based on the whole-body motion trajectory comprises: determining an actual position corresponding to each expected position, and an actual velocity corresponding to each expected velocity of the lifted foot; and (Paragraph [0011, 0015, 0089-009, 0104], Nguyen discloses relative (expected) foot position and expected angular velocity (an angular velocity is a velocity) and obtaining measured position and angles of the limbs in addition to a measurement of angular velocity)
determining the second motion task of the lifted leg mechanism in the two front leg mechanisms [corresponding to each timestamp] based on the expected position, the actual position, the expected velocity and the actual velocity at a same timestamp. (Paragraph [0015, 0089, 0104], Nguyen discloses calculating desired metrics for the four motion mechanisms (second and third motion tasks) and comparing the desired metrics to the measured metrics)
While Nguyen does not explicitly disclose comparing the leg metrics at each time stamp, this is implicitly disclosed, as Nguyen discloses “The joint angle and pitch angle trajectory are linearly interpolated from an initial pose to intermediate optimal poses, and then to the final pose. The general interpolation equation at time t from pose I (qi and Oi) to pose i+1 (qi+1 and Oi+1) with a transition phase deltat is as follows…” (Paragraph [0112]) and generally discloses feedback control throughout the disclosure, including in the discussion of the limb control elements (Paragraph [0104]). Finally, Nguyen discloses “The sensor(s) 322 may measure activity of systems of the robotic system 300 and receive information based on the operation of the various features of the robotic system 300, such the operation of extendable legs, arms, or other mechanical and/or electrical features of the robotic system 300. The data provided by the sensor(s) 322 may enable the control system 310 to determine errors in operation as well as monitor overall operation of components of the robotic system 300.” (Paragraph [0076]). Thus, the examiner submits that while Nguyen does not explicitly use the language that leg metrics are compared at each timestamp, this is implicitly disclosed with the overall robot calculations performed at each time step, and is an obvious variant of the disclosure of Nguyen.
Regarding claim 10: Parent claim 7 is unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Wang. Nguyen further discloses wherein the determining the third motion task of the center point of the two rear rollers based on the whole-body motion trajectory comprises: determining an actual position corresponding to each expected position, an actual velocity corresponding to each expected velocity, an actual posture corresponding to each expected posture, and an actual angular velocity corresponding to each expected angular velocity of the center point of the two rear rollers; (Paragraph [0011, 0015, 0069, 0077, 0089-0090, 0104-0105], Nguyen discloses an expected wheel angular velocity, measured wheel joint angular velocity, forward velocity, relative foot position (including the wheels), measured position, and overall pose including measured pose (angle plus position))
determining, based on the expected position, the actual position, the expected velocity, and the actual velocity at a same timestamp, a position motion sub-task of the center point of the two rear rollers corresponding to each timestamp; (Paragraph [0076, 0089, 0093, 0097-0104] and Figure [6A-6B], Nguyen discloses control based upon rear rollers, wherein the calculations rely upon center point of the rear wheels (see Figure [6A, 6B] showing the origin of force calculation in the centerline of the wheels) including the difference between actual and expected values, of position control of the legs)
determining, based on the expected posture, the actual posture, the expected angular velocity and the actual angular velocity of the same timestamp, a posture motion sub-task of the center point of the two rear rollers corresponding to each timestamp; and (Paragraph [0076, 0089, 0093, 0097-0104] and Figure [6A-6B], Nguyen discloses control based upon rear rollers, wherein the calculations rely upon center point of the rear wheels (see Figure [6A, 6B] showing the origin of force calculation in the centerline of the wheels) including the difference between actual and expected values, of pose control of the legs (angles included with position, as noted))
obtaining the third motion task of the center point of the two rear rollers [corresponding to each timestamp] based on the posture motion sub-task and the position motion sub-task of the center point of the two rear rollers corresponding to each timestamp. (Paragraph [0015, 0089, 0104], Nguyen discloses calculating desired metrics for the four motion mechanisms (second and third motion tasks) and comparing the desired metrics to the measured metrics)
While Nguyen does not explicitly disclose comparing the leg metrics at each time stamp, this is implicitly disclosed, as Nguyen discloses “The joint angle and pitch angle trajectory are linearly interpolated from an initial pose to intermediate optimal poses, and then to the final pose. The general interpolation equation at time t from pose I (qi and Oi) to pose i+1 (qi+1 and Oi+1) with a transition phase deltat is as follows…” (Paragraph [0112]) and generally discloses feedback control throughout the disclosure, including in the discussion of the limb control elements (Paragraph [0104]). Finally, Nguyen discloses “The sensor(s) 322 may measure activity of systems of the robotic system 300 and receive information based on the operation of the various features of the robotic system 300, such the operation of extendable legs, arms, or other mechanical and/or electrical features of the robotic system 300. The data provided by the sensor(s) 322 may enable the control system 310 to determine errors in operation as well as monitor overall operation of components of the robotic system 300.” (Paragraph [0076]). Thus, the examiner submits that while Nguyen does not explicitly use the language that leg metrics are compared at each timestamp, this is implicitly disclosed with the overall robot calculations performed at each time step, and is an obvious variant of the disclosure of Nguyen.
Regarding claim 11: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Wang. Nguyen further discloses wherein the wheel-foot composite motion mode is obtained based on locking the two front leg mechanisms to switch to a foot-type motion of the two front leg mechanisms. (Paragraph [0054, 0067-0068, 0089, 0123] and Figure [7A-7B, 8A-8B, 9A-9B], Nguyen discloses obtaining a control input (to-be-performed task). Further, “the wheel-legged robot is capable of utilizing different locomotion modes such as rolling, simultaneous walking-rolling, and pure walking modes”, showing a configuration described in the noted figures. The examiner notes that a “wheel-type motion mode” and “foot-type motion mode” are not particularly limiting, as movement with the legs at all constitute both of the aforementioned terms since the legs comprise both the ability to “step” as “feet” in addition to roll as “wheels”. However, the examiner notes that Nguyen also meets the intended language of a combination of wheel-driven and foot-driven locomotion through disclosure of “simultaneous walking-rolling”. Finally, “locking at least one of the two front leg mechanisms” is met by disclosure of “pure walking”, as this is “locking” in just one mode)
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 CFR 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 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights