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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 05/20/2026.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11-12, 14, 16, 23, 25 have been amended.
Claim 32 has been added.
Claims 2-5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17-22, 24, and 26-31 were canceled.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11-12, 14, 16, 23, 25, 32 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserted on page 2 that “[the claim] provides a specific, technological improvement to existing technology, then that claim integrates any abstract idea that is allegedly recited in the claim into a practical application”. The applicant cited Enfish. The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and those of Enfish. In Enfish, the claims describe the steps of configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table, in both method and system claims. The focus of the claims in Enfish is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database). Specifically, the claimed invention in Enfish achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Hence, the Enfish claims were not directed to an abstract idea. On the other hand, the Applicant’s claims do not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The invention in Enfish was a technological solution to a technological problem (using self-referential table for a computer database rather than using conventional table for a computer database), whereas the Applicants’ invention is a business solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea.
Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer "specialized," nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
In Bilski and in Alice, the specific features of the claimed method/system did not change the fact that the claims were drawn to an abstract idea. This interpretation of this abstract idea is based in light of the Alice decision and the updates in the MPEP. Hence the claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the applicant alleged that the claim invention is similar to McRo. The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and those of McRo (McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., 2015-1080 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)). In McRo the patents relate to “automating part of a preexisting 3-D animation method”, which were to be done manually before the issuance of the patent. The claims were directed to an asserted improvement in computer animation technology such as directed to a patentable technological improvement over the existing, manual 3D animation techniques. In other words, “the claims are limited to rules with specific characteristics” which allow for the improvement realized by the invention. Specifically at McRo *22, “As the specification confirms, the claimed improvement here is allowing computers to produce “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters” that previously could only be produced by human animators. ’576 patent col. 2 ll. 49–50.” Hence the claims in McRo were patent eligible because they recited significantly more than an abstract idea. However, the Applicants’ invention is a business solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea as stated multiple times above. The claimed limitations and the claimed computing functionality does not incorporate a complex set of rules which allow the computer to be improved. In contrast, the claimed functions such as “providing humanoid robot.. . performing a plurality of tasks at the operating location”, “first party is compensated with a specified amount of currency” are functions of a humanoid robot. The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented.
Also, the claims are not similar to that of BASCOM. The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and those of Bascom. In Bascom, the claims describe a filtering system by providing customized filters at a remote server. Specifically, in Bascom an ISP server receives a request to access a website, associates the request with a particular user, and identifies the requested website. The filtering tool then applies the filtering mechanism associated with the particular user to the requested website to determine whether the user associated with that request is allowed access to the website. The filtering tool returns either the content of the website to the user, or a message to the user indicating that the request was denied. In Bascom another group of claims describe a hybrid filtering scheme implemented on the ISP server comprised of a master-inclusive list, an individual-customizable set of exclusive lists, and an individual-customizable set of inclusive lists. The focus of the claims in Bascom is on the specific asserted improvement in filtering technology by providing individually customizable filtering at the remote ISP server by taking advantage of the technical capability of certain communication networks. Specifically, the claimed invention in Bascom achieves other benefits over conventional filtering by providing Internet-content filtering in a manner that can be customized for a person attempting to access such content while avoiding the need for (potentially millions of) local servers or computers to perform such filtering and while being less susceptible to circumvention by the user, and structuring a filtering scheme not just to be effective, but also to make user-level customization administrable as users are added instead of becoming intractably complex. Hence the Bascom claims are not directed to an abstract idea. On the other hand the Applicant’s claims do not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The invention in Bascom was a technological solution to a technological problem (using an improved filtering technology rather than using conventional filtering technology). Whereas the Applicants’ invention is a business solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea. The arrangement of using a humanoid robot to perform a plurality of tasks and then charge a specify an amount of currency when the robot is located at the operating location. is an improvement in the business process of generating a damage estimate. It does not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself.
Based on these reasoning, under step 2A Prong Two, Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant rolled up claim 6 and incorporated into the independent claim. However, the cited reference Ly still disclosed the claim limitations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot (abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references. Hence, the rejection is maintained.
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, 8-9, 11-12, 14, 16, 23, 25 and 32 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1, 8-9, 11-12, 14, 16, 23, 25 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites, in part, A method of obtaining compensation for tasks performed by a humanoid robot associated with a first party, wherein the humanoid robot comprises (i) a torso, (ii) an arm actuator coupled to the torso, and (iii) a coronal plane, said method comprising the steps of: a first party provides a humanoid robot for use at an operating location, wherein the arm actuator of the humanoid robot comprises: a proximal end; a distal end; and an arm rotational axis, and wherein the arm rotational axis is angled rearward in relation to the coronal plane, therefore causing an intersection of the arm rotational axis and the distal end of the arm actuator to be positioned rearward of an intersection of the arm rotational axis and the proximal end of the arm actuator when humanoid robot is in a neutral position; the humanoid robot engages in performing a plurality of tasks at the operating location, wherein at least one task in the plurality of tasks involves the humanoid robot utilizing the arm actuator; and the first party is compensated with a specified amount of currency for a pre-determined time interval during which said humanoid robot is located at the operating location. The limitations are directed to “business relations” (commercial interactions - see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Hence, they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a humanoid robot, a first party to perform receiving, performing. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (receiving and performing) such that it is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least a computing device to perform receiving and identifying data are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) see MPEP 2106.05(d). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device used to transmit a payment is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. The additional elements are a This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as a torso, a distal end, an arm axis, etc.) are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. The additional elements are a This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (such as a torso, a distal end, an arm axis, etc.) are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. The additional elements are a This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as a torso, a distal end, an arm axis, etc.) are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as a right leg, a left leg) are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) hip pivot actuator. The additional elements are a This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as a hip pivot actuator) are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as a leg twist actuator) are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. The additional elements are a This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as a deformable cover) are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. The additional elements are a This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as sensors) are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. The additional elements are a This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as sensors) are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MBL Limited (WO 2017/103682 A2) in view of Michalakis (US 2018/0281179 A2) in further view of Ly et al. (US 2019/0374161).
Claim 1. MBL Limited discloses: A method of obtaining compensation for tasks performed by a humanoid robot associated with a first party, wherein the humanoid robot comprises (i) a torso, (ii) an arm actuator coupled to the torso, and (iii) a coronal plane, said method comprising the steps of: a first party provides a humanoid robot for use at an operating location, wherein the arm actuator of the humanoid robot comprises:(see at least par. [0709] “. . . The storage arrangements in the kitchen module 1 store the plurality of containers in predetermined positions which are known to the robot. The positions of the other components of the kitchen module 1, such as the rotatable oven 130, the hob 5, sink 6 and the dishwasher unit 6A are all predetermined and their positions are known to the robot. A robot, such as the robot arms 13, can therefore perform operations within the kitchen module 1 and interact with the components of the kitchen module 1 easily and without error . . ”; a humanoid robot engages in performing a plurality of tasks at the operating location, wherein at least one task in the plurality of tasks involves the humanoid robot utilizing the arm actuator (MBL Limited, see at least par. [0550] “ These input sources make the humanoid robot situationally aware and thus able to carry out its tasks, from direct low level actuator commands 3020 to high level robotic end-to-end task plans from the robotic planner 3022 that can reference a large electronic library of component minimanipulations 3024, which are then interpreted to determine whether their preconditions permit application and converted to machine-executable code from a robotic interpreter module 3026 and then sent as the actual command-and-sensing sequences to the robotic execution module 3028”.
MBL Limited does not disclose the following; however, Michalakis teaches:
and the first party is compensated with a specified amount of currency (Michalakis, see at least par. [0054] “. . . Thus, the secondary user may perform one or more tasks for the primary user using the robot, for example, for payment, under certain limitations such that the primary user may limit the robotic movements that the secondary user may instruct the robot to perform and may limit the locations that the secondary may instruct the robot to enter . . .”) for a pre-determined time interval during which said humanoid robot is located at the operating location (see at least par. [0037] “. . . One or more task specific robotic operation constraints comprise a set of rules stored in the robotic operation library 105 that limit operation of the robot 120 when the remote user is controlling the robot 120 during each specific task. Further, the robotic operation constraints may comprise constraints regarding the dates and times that the secondary user 116″ may operate the robot 120”) The robot Is set to work for a pre-determined time interval, or within certain date and time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited by compensating with a specified amount of money as taught by Michalakis, because modifying MBL limited using elements taught by Michalakis helps to provide instructions to the robot by one of the owner (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
MBL Limited in view of Michalakis does not disclose the following; however, Ly teaches:
wherein the humanoid robot includes: (i) a torso, (Ly, see at least par. [0148] “. . . For example, the exosuit 1500 can be configured to transmit motions, forces, and/or torques generated by a user to a robotic system (e.g., a robotic arm, leg, torso, humanoid body, or some other robotic system) and the robotic system can be configured to mimic the activity of the wearer and/or to map the activity of the wearer into motions, forces, or torques of elements of the robotic system . . .”) (ii) an arm actuator coupled to the torso and having: (a) a proximal end, (d) a distal end, and (c) an arm axis, and (iii) a coronal plane, and wherein the arm axis is angled rearward in relation to the coronal plane (see at least Claim 2 “The exosuit system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors are 6-axis inertial measurement units (IMUs), and wherein first, second, and third sensors of the plurality of sensors are located on the torso, left leg, and right leg, respectively, of the exosuit . . .”) the axes allow the motion to go rearward, therefore causing a portion of the distal end of the arm actuator to be positioned rearward of a portion of the proximal end of the arm actuator when humanoid robot is in neutral position (see at least par. [0049] “. . . For example, one or more FLAs may connect the back of the torso to the back of the legs, thus approximating the wearer's hip extensor muscles. Actuators approximating the hip extensors may assist with activities such as standing from a seated position, sitting from a standing position, walking, or lifting. Similarly, one or more actuators may be arranged approximating other muscle groups, such as the hip flexors, spinal extensors, abdominal muscles or muscles of the arms or legs.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot (abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 8. MBL Limited in view of Michalakis in further view of Ly teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Ly teaches: wherein the humanoid robot further comprises an upper arm twist actuator with an upper arm twist rotational axis and a lower arm twist actuator with a lower arm twist axis, and wherein the upper arm twist rotational axis is co-linear with the lower arm twist axis, when the humanoid robot is in the extended position (Ly, see at least par. [0067] “Base layer 100 can include upper arm LDMs 120 and 122 and lower arm LDMs 124 and 126. Upper arm LDMs 120 and 122 may be secured around bicep/triceps region of the arm and can occupy space between the shoulder and the elbow. Lower arm LDMs 124 and 126 may be secured around the forearm region of the arm and can occupy the space between the elbow and the wrist. If desired, upper arm LDM 120 and lower arm LDM 124 may be integrated to form an arm LDM, and upper arm LDM 122 and lower arm LDM 126 may be integrated to form another arm LDM. In some embodiments, arm LDMS 120, 122, 124, and 126 may form part of upper torso LDM 112.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 9. MBL Limited in view of Michalakis in further view of Ly teaches: The method of claim 8. Ly, however teaches: wherein the humanoid robot further comprises an elbow actuator with an elbow rotational axis, and wherein the elbow rotational axis is offset from a line that extends between the upper arm twist axis and the lower arm twist axis (Ly, see at least par. [0108] “There can be three general classes of sensors available for use in detecting and analyzing bending and lifting movements. The class of sensors determines which algorithms are used to analyze the bending and lifting movements. A first class of sensors includes only one or more 3-axis accelerometers. A second class of sensors includes at least three 6-axis inertial motion units (IMUs), where each IMU includes a three axis gyroscope and a three axis accelerometer. A third class of sensor includes only one 6-axis IMU. A fourth class of sensors can include one or more 9-axis IMUs (e.g., an IMU that include a gyroscope, an accelerometer, and a magnetometer).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 11. (Currently Amended). MBL Limited in view of Michalakis in further view of Ly teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Ly teaches: wherein the humanoid robot comprises a left leg that is interchangeable with a right leg (Ly, see at least par. [0036] “. . . In one example, the torso circumference may be tightened with corset-style lacing, the legs tightened with hook-and-loop in a double-back configuration, and the length and shoulder height adjusted with webbing and tension-lock fasteners such as cam-locks, D-rings or the like. The size adjustment features in the base layer may be actuated by the power layer to dynamically adjust the base layer to the wearer's body in different positions, in order to maintain consistent pressure and comfort for the wearer. For example, the base layer may be required to tighten on the thighs when standing, and loosen when sitting such that the base layer does not excessively constrict the thighs when seated. The dynamic size adjustment may be controlled by the sensor and controls layer, for example by detecting pressures or forces in the base layer and actuating the power layer to consistently attain the desired force or pressure.”)The body parts can be removed and put in the robot .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 14. Ly in view of Michalakis teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Ly teaches: wherein the humanoid robot includes a hip pivot actuator having a hip pivot axis, and wherein an interior acute angle is formed between said hip pivot axis and a transverse plane of the humanoid robot, when the robot is in the extended position (Ly, see par. [0049] “] The powered actuators, or FLAs, are arranged on the base layer, connecting different points on the body, to generate forces for assistance with various activities. The arrangement can often approximate the wearer's muscles, in order to naturally mimic and assist the wearer's own capabilities. For example, one or more FLAs may connect the back of the torso to the back of the legs, thus approximating the wearer's hip extensor muscles. Actuators approximating the hip extensors may assist with activities such as standing from a seated position, sitting from a standing position, walking, or lifting. Similarly, one or more actuators may be arranged approximating other muscle groups, such as the hip flexors, spinal extensors, abdominal muscles or muscles of the arms or legs.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 16. MBL Limited in view of Michalakis in further view of Ly teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Ly teaches: wherein the humanoid robot comprises: (i) a leg twist actuator that is positioned a first distance from a support surface, and (ii) both of a hip pivot actuator and a hip flex actuators are positioned at least a second distance from the support surface; and wherein the first distance is less than the second distance (Ly, see at least par. [0044] “. . . For example, elastic elements approximating hip flexors and hip extensors may provide stability to the wearer in a standing position. As the wearer deviates from the standing position, the elastic elements are deformed, generating forces that stabilize the wearer and assist maintaining the standing position. In another example, as a wearer moves from a standing to seated posture, energy is stored in one or more elastic elements, generating a restorative force to assist the wearer when moving from the seated to standing position. Similar passive, elastic elements may be adapted to the torso or other areas of the limbs to provide positional stability or assistance moving to a position where the elastic elements are in their least-energy state.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis in further view of Ly using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 23. MBL Limited in view of Michalakis teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Li teaches: wherein the humanoid robot comprises a deformable cover that is configured to prevent objects from contacting portions of a head of the humanoid robot (Ly, see at least par. [0062] “. . . Base layer 100 and any LDMs thereof can cover or occupy any part of the human body as desired. The LDMs shown in FIGS. 1A-IC are merely illustrative of a few potential locations and it should be appreciated that additional LDMs may be added or certain LDMs may be omitted.”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 25. MBL Limited in view of Michalakis in further view of Ly teaches: The method of claim 1. Furthermore, MBL Limited teaches: wherein the humanoid robot includes: (i) sensors that capture natural language and contextual information, and(ii) at least one transformer-based model (MBL Limited (WO 2017/103682 A2), see at least par. [0356] “. . . The breakdown or boundary between low- and high-level behaviors can be somewhat arbitrary, but one way to think of it is that movements or actions or behaviors that humans tend to carry out without much conscious thinking (such as curling ones fingers around a tool/utensil until contact is made and enough contact-force is achieved) as part of a more human-language task-action (such as "grab the tool"), can and should be considered low-level. In terms of a machine-language execution language, all actuator-specific commands, which are devoid of higher-level task awareness, are certainly considered low-level behaviors.”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MBL Limited (WO 2017/103682 A2) in view of Michalakis (US 2018/0281179 A2) in further view of Ly et al. (US 2019/0374161) in further view of Universal Robots (WO 2025/103557 A1).
Claim 12. MBL Limited in view of Michalakis in further view of Ly teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Universal Robots teaches: wherein the humanoid robot comprises a number of degrees of freedom NDoF and an upper portion of the humanoid robot, wherein the upper portion comprises: (a) a head and neck assembly, (b) an upper portion of the torso, (c) a left arm assembly, (d) a right arm assembly, (e) a left hand, and (f) a right hand, and wherein said upper portion of the humanoid robot comprises more than 70% of the NDoF (Universal Robots, see at least “. . . The operational parameters may relate to one or more .sub.of the following: input/output ports in the robotic system or an end effector or tool connected to the robotic arm. The operations may include, prior to controlling the robotic arm to move the component into alignment, controlling the robotic arm to enable manual movement of the robotic arm in multiple degrees of freedom. Controlling the robotic arm to move the component into alignment may be performed automatically absent manual intervention. Controlling the robotic .sub.arm to move the component into alignment may be performed in combination with manual movement of the robotic arm. T.sub.he component may include a tool connected to the robotic arm. .sub.The component may include a part of the robotic arm. The robotic system may include a vision system associated with .sub.the robotic arm to capture the sensor data . . .”) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the degree of freedom for movement as taught by Universal Robots, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Universal Robots helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 32 do not have art applied to the currently. However, other rejections are still outstanding such as the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101; set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of withdrawing art: wherein the hip pivot actuator is (i) configured to control roll rotations of the leg assembly and, when the humanoid robot is in the neutral position, positioned below at least a portion of the hip flex actuator, below the transverse plane, and rearward of the coronal plane, and arm actuator to be positioned upward of an intersection of the arm rotational axis. However, the claims still do not overcome 101 rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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, Michael W. Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
