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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits, claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 03/04/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the IDS is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11, and 16-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8788096 B1, to Sokol et al (hereinafter Sokol), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9796078 B2, to Angle et al. (hereinafter Angle).
Regarding claim 1, and commensurate claims 19, and 20, Sokol teaches, An information processing device comprising: circuitry configured to control an operation of an autonomous mobile object having a wheel (See [Section 1, Lines 41-45]“a base supported on wheels, a head joined to the base by a shaft extending therebetween, and a control system configured to maintain balance of the robotic system on the wheels.”). Further, (See [Section 5, Lines 8-14 ] “a base supported on wheels, a head joined to the base by a shaft extending therebetween, and a control system configured to maintain balance of the robotic system on the wheels.”).
and a second state mode, (See [Section 4, Lines 5-11] “The base 110 is configured to be able to balance in place on the wheels 150, to move the robot 100 to different locations while balancing on the wheels 150, as well as enter a resting state in which the robot 100 is no longer self-balancing. An exemplary resting state is the one shown in FIG. 2 where the wheels 150 and tail 140 comprise a tripod on which the robot 100 can rest.”).
the second state mode performs stop control of the autonomous mobile object when the autonomous mobile object is in a seated state, (See [Section 4, Lines 5-11] “The base 110 is configured to be able to balance in place on the wheels 150, to move the robot 100 to different locations while balancing on the wheels 150, as well as enter a resting state in which the robot 100 is no longer self-balancing. An exemplary resting state is the one shown in FIG. 2 where the wheels 150 and tail 140 comprise a tripod on which the robot 100 can rest.”).
and the circuitry is further configured to rotate the wheel during transition from the seated state to the standing state, based on an amount of deviation between the center of gravity of the autonomous mobile object and a rotation axis of the wheel. (See [Section 2, Lines 37-40 ] “During the transition to the balancing state, the stabilizer is used to rotate the base around the axis of rotation to push the robot up towards the point where the center of gravity is over an axis of rotation defined between the two wheels.”).
Sokol fails to explicitly disclose, However Angle discloses, and a transparent or translucent cover (See [Section 21, Lines 55-64] “The display 26 implements an eyes-brow-nose-mouth object display which is animated in synchronization with speech and interaction to express the changing affect and non-verbal behavior of the robot 10. The display 26 may be only backlit during interaction with a resident, if the backlight consumes a more power than desired. Alternatively, the display 26 may be a reflective panel, or backlit by ambient room light filtered in through the (translucent) head 16”). Further, (See [Section 20, Lines 24-25 ] “The rear portion of the head 16 may be smooth and/or translucent,”).in a first state mode (See [Section 24, Lines 29-44] “The robot R3 balances on two coaxial wheels (or a ball) using inverted pendulum balancing (i.e., active or dynamic balancing via servo control of the wheels using gyroscopic sensing), and is self-righting. Near the top of the robot is a display or teleconferencing screen 18 as described herein. On top of the robot, pointing at the ceiling, a combination camera 28, 29 handles teleconferencing functions and navigation functions. The combination camera may be oriented at the ceiling for following ceiling and/or light fixture and/or door and corner edges, features, indicia, or fiducials, and may be tilted by, e.g., 90 degrees to face forward for teleconferencing or additional modes of navigation. More than half of the weight of the robot is arranged near the wheels, such that the center of gravity of the entire robot is as close as possible to the axis of the wheels or ball. ”).
and controls expression of the autonomous mobile object which is visible through the cover, (See [Section 24, Lines 29-43] “The display 26 implements an eyes-brow-nose-mouth object display which is animated in synchronization with speech and interaction to express the changing affect and non-verbal behavior of the robot 10. The display 26 may be only backlit during interaction with a resident, if the backlight consumes a more power than desired. Alternatively, the display 26 may be a reflective panel, or backlit by ambient room light filtered in through the (translucent) head 16, backlit by one or more white light emitting diodes (LEDs) and an appropriate diffuser, or any combination of these. The display 26 also may be an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) panel, which may require no backlight (although one may be used) and could consume less power if light-on-dark facial patterns are used.”).
Sokol as modified by Angle, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotic systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sokol to incorporate the teachings of Angle because both robots of Sokol and Angle use the same servo controlled two wheel balancing architecture.
Regarding claim 2, Sokol as modified by Angle disclose the claimed features of claim 1, Sokol fails to explicitly disclose, However Angle discloses, wherein the autonomous mobile object includes two eye parts on an upper part of a main body.(See [Section 10, Lines 21-25] “a robot capable of human-robot interaction, including a head assembly including a head having a face on one side, the face comprising a matrix panel electronically controllable to show different configurations of left and right eyes”). Further, (See [Section 20, Lines 5-7] “Cameras 28 may be located proximate (in this case, less than four inches from) animated matrix or segment “eyes” 304 near the display 26”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sokol to incorporate the teachings of Angle for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Sokol as modified by Angle disclose the claimed features of claim 2, Sokol fails to explicitly disclose, However Angle discloses, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control the two eye parts to express a glance or a blink.(See [Section 45, Lines 25-26] “Specialty expressions may include Wink, Blink, Curious, Inquisitive (e.g., one flat eyebrow with sideways glance)”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sokol to incorporate the teachings of Angle for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Sokol as modified by Angle disclose the claimed features of claim 2, Sokol fails to explicitly disclose, However Angle discloses,wherein the autonomous mobile object includes motors to drive a substrate on which the two eye parts are arranged, (See [Section 20, Lines 33-35] “The display 26 may be affixed to a main printed circuit board (PCB) housed within the head 16”). Further, (See [Section 19, Lines 16-20] “The head 16 may be articulated via a pan joint 315 including a pan motor and position encoder 314 and a tilt joint or hollow pivot 302 including a tilt motor and position encoder 340.”).
and the circuitry is further configured to control the motors to control motions of the two eye parts.(See [Section 21, Lines 38-44] “movement of the head 16 allows movement of the camera 28 and display 26 located thereon, giving the robot 10 both a wide range of camera vision and a wide range of display viewability, in a particular embodiment, the articulated head/neck combination provides four degrees of freedom.”). Further, (See [Section 19, Lines 27-29 ] “a differential drive mechanism using one motor and a clutch may be used to drive the head about two axes.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sokol to incorporate the teachings of Angle for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Sokol as modified by Angle disclose the claimed features of claim 2, Sokol fails to explicitly disclose, However Angle discloses,wherein each of the eye parts includes a central part and a peripheral part. (See [Section 44, Lines 20-24] “As displayed, mouth, eye, and eyebrow objects (such as those exemplary expressions depicted in FIG. 10A) can be arbitrarily formed from a multiplicity of pixels using a matrix display, or can be formed in set shapes from a number of segments using a segment display.”). Further, (See [Section 45, Lines 1-5] “Eye gaze direction may provide, for example, 16 different positions of direct gaze from right to left. Additionally provided may be two positions upward-left and upward-right, and two positions downward-left and downward-right. Reflection-indicators on the eyes may be omitted”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sokol to incorporate the teachings of Angle for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Sokol as modified by Angle disclose the claimed features of claim 5, Sokol fails to explicitly disclose, However Angle discloses,wherein the central part expresses an arbitrary color (See [Section 22, Lines 34-43] “When describing the display 26, the term “segment” panel means, in one instance, a panel made up of discretely shaped elements, rather than an X-Y matrix of pixels. The use of the term “matrix” panel means, in one instance, a panel made up of an X-Y matrix of pixels. The potential benefits of a matrix panel are that it can be used as an alternative (or the sole) informational display, and that the faces or facial expressions to be displayed thereon can be completely changed in software”). and the peripheral part expresses a predetermined color. (See [Section 21, Lines 43-47] “display 26 is a facial segment or matrix panel and is a monochrome, backlit or non-backlit liquid crystal display (LCD) including between about 100 and about 1000 segments individually shaped as portions of facial features on a neutral gray field.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sokol to incorporate the teachings of Angle for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Sokol as modified by Angle disclose the claimed features of claim 1, Sokol fails to explicitly disclose, However Angle discloses,wherein the first state mode moves the autonomous mobile object using the wheel and adjusts the center of gravity of the autonomous mobile object to control a posture of the autonomous mobile object for maintaining a forward leaning posture, (See [Section 24, Lines 29-34] “The robot R3 balances on two coaxial wheels (or a ball) using inverted pendulum balancing (i.e., active or dynamic balancing via servo control of the wheels using gyroscopic sensing), and is self-righting.”). Further, (See [Section 24, Lines 42-44] “center of gravity of the entire robot is as close as possible to the axis of the wheels or ball”).
the circuitry is further configured to make the autonomous mobile object make a moving motion in which the forward leaning posture is maintained, (See [Section 45, Lines 36-41] “the form of the head and torso of the robot may be designed to provide shrugging, nodding, head shaking, looking away (change of subject) and other gestural cues; the mobility system permits approach and recede motions (personal space and conversational attention cues).”).
and the moving motion includes at least one of forward/backward movement, turning movement, or rotational movement. (See [Section 18, Lines 47-50] “The robot may include a wheeled mobility system such as two drive wheels and a passive caster”). Further, (See [Section 18, Lines 34-39] “The form of the head and torso of the robot may be designed to provide shrugging, nodding, head shaking, looking away (change of subject) and other gestural cues; the mobility system permits approach and recede motions (personal space and conversational attention cues); ”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sokol to incorporate the teachings of Angle for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Sokol as modified by Angle disclose the claimed features of claim 2, and Sokol further discloses, wherein the wheel is configured to be stored inside a main body and can be protruded to an outside of the main body.(See [Section 2, Lines 11-13] “the base includes a retractable stabilizer that can retract into the base, where the robot can stably rest on the wheels and the stabilizer when the stabilizer is extended”).
Regarding claim 9, Sokol as modified by Angle disclose the claimed features of claim 8, Sokol fails to explicitly disclose, However Angle discloses, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control the autonomous mobile object in such a manner that the center of gravity of the autonomous mobile object is placed in a vertical direction with respect to the rotation axis of the wheel in the standing state. (See [Section 24, Lines 41-44] “the center of gravity of the entire robot is as close as possible to the axis of the wheels or ball.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sokol to incorporate the teachings of Angle for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Sokol as modified by Angle disclose the claimed features of claim 9, and Sokol further discloses,wherein the circuitry is further configured to rotate the wheel, in the transition from the seated state to the standing state, based on the amount of deviation between the center of gravity of the autonomous mobile object and the rotation axis of the wheel, in the vertical direction.(See [Section 2, Lines 36-40] “the stabilizer is used to rotate the base around the axis of rotation to push the robot up towards the point where the center of gravity is over an axis of rotation defined between the two wheels.”).
Regarding claim 11, Sokol as modified by Angle disclose the claimed features of claim 9, and Sokol further discloses, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control the autonomous mobile object, in the transition from the seated state to the standing state, in such a manner that the center of gravity of the autonomous mobile object is placed in the vertical direction with respect to the rotation axis of the wheel by rotating the wheel based on the amount of deviation when the wheel comes into contact with a traveling surface. (See [Section 2, Lines 40-45 ] “The stabilizer achieves this by first extending further beyond the first length, and once the robot is able to balance can then retract into the base.”). Further, (See [Section 8, Lines 1-5] “Deploying the stabilizer 900 can comprise extending the stabilizer 900 to reach the ground, or in some instances short of the ground, at which point the robot will stop balancing and pitch backwards until the stabilizer contacts the ground”).
Regarding claim 16, Sokol as modified by Angle disclose the claimed features of claim 1, and Sokol further discloses, and the circuitry is further configured to make the autonomous mobile object remain still with the forward leaning posture being maintained in the seated state. (See [Section 4, Lines 7-9] “enter a resting state in which the robot 100 is no longer self-balancing.”). Further, (See [Section 7, Lines 12-19] “The robot posture of FIG. 9 represents a non-balancing state of the robot. In this non-balancing state the stabilizer 900 is extended and the robot rests on a tripod formed by the stabilizer 900 and the wheels 150, a center of gravity of the robot being positioned between the distal end of the stabilizer 900 and the axle 410. The robot can be stationary or driven while in the-balancing state.”)
Sokol fails to explicitly disclose, However Angle discloses,wherein the first state mode moves the autonomous mobile object using the wheel and adjusts the center of gravity of the autonomous mobile object to control a posture of the autonomous mobile object for maintaining a forward leaning posture, (See [Section 24, Lines 29-30] “The robot R3 balances on two coaxial wheels (or a ball) using inverted pendulum balancing ”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sokol to incorporate the teachings of Angle for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Sokol as modified by Angle disclose the claimed features of claim 1, and Sokol further discloses, wherein the circuitry is further configured to make the autonomous mobile object remain still with an upright attitude being maintained in the seated state.(See [Section 4, Lines 9-11] “An exemplary resting state is the one shown in FIG. 2 where the wheels 150 and tail 140 comprise a tripod on which the robot 100 can rest. ”). Further, (See [Section 3, Lines 18-20] “The robots of the present invention are human-like in that they are mobile, include a "head" and a generally upright posture”).
Regarding claim 18, Sokol as modified by Angle disclose the claimed features of claim 1, and Sokol further discloses,wherein the information processing device is the autonomous mobile object. (See [Section 5, Lines 16-18] “The electronics 440 may be disposed within the base 110, the head 120, or distributed across both.”).
Claims 12-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8788096 B1, to Sokol et al (hereinafter Sokol), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9796078 B2, to Angle et al. (hereinafter Angle), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110010013, to Ruan et al. (hereinafter Ruan).
Regarding claim 12, Sokol as modified by Angle disclose the claimed features of claim 3, Sokol fails to explicitly disclose, However Ruan discloses,wherein the autonomous mobile object includes a flywheel inside the main body, (See at least paragraph [0011] “ Design a single wheel robot systems, including mechanical body and control systems; mechanical body including the lower balance components with a balanced single wheel (14) and an adjustable upper and lower bracket (13) for debugging; the upper balance components includes the inertia flywheel (17) and the flywheel motor (18)”).
and the circuitry is further configured to perform attitude control of the autonomous mobile object by rotating the flywheel based on an attitude state of the autonomous mobile object. (See at least paragraph [0018-0020] “2) In a motion control cycle, the motion controller (10) reads the feedback signal of the inclinometer on the robot base (19), gyroscopes (20), and compare the value of zero inclination angle to calculate the error signal of the angle and angle speed; the feedback signal obtained by the following steps: motion controller (10) Multiply acquire output signal of the inclinometer (19) and the Gyro (20), and DSP calculate the feedback signal through signal processing algorithms 3) Motion Controller (10) reads the feedback signal of motor encoders, calculates robot speed, and derives error signal through comparing the control command given by the main controller (3); 4) According to the error signal, Motion Controller (10) calculates the control value of motors according to the balance control algorithm and then sends to the servo drive controller; The motion balance control algorithm: with the use of decoupling control theory, the inclination will be decomposed to the robot's pitch degree of freedom and the roll degree:”).
Sokol as modified by Ruan, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotic systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sokol as modified by Angle to incorporate the teachings of Ruan because the improvement gyroscopic stabilization of the axis that is difficult to control thereby improving the balance of the robustness.
Regarding claim 13, Sokol as modified by Angle, and Ruan disclose the claimed features of claim 12, Sokol fails to explicitly disclose, However Ruan discloses,wherein in a case where the autonomous mobile object falls, the circuitry is further configured to make the autonomous mobile object return to the standing state by rotation control of the flywheel. (See at least paragraph [0011] “The two servo-drive controllers receives control instruction, respectively, through the single wheel motor (12) and flywheel motor (18) controls rotation of the single wheel (14) and the inertia flywheel (17) to balance the robot.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0016] “the instruction of the master controller will not become the actual control command and the actual control command will be zero, that is, first adjust the robot balance”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sokol as modified by Angle to incorporate the teachings of Ruan for the same motivation reasons in claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Sokol as modified by Angle, and Ruan disclose the claimed features of claim 12, Sokol fails to explicitly disclose, However Ruan discloses,wherein in a case where the autonomous mobile object falls, the circuitry is further configured to make the autonomous mobile object return to the standing state by inclining the rotated flywheel in a tilt direction. (See at least paragraph [0065] “Upper balance of components (upper the shaft components) includes: inertial flywheel 17, the flywheel motor 18, reducer, encoder (speed sensor), as well as ball bearings and so on. The Inertia flywheel 17 is fixed left and right direction to balance Left direction of the robot of the roll DOF. ”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sokol as modified by Angle to incorporate the teachings of Ruan for the same motivation reasons in claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, Sokol as modified by Angle, and Ruan disclose the claimed features of claim 12, Sokol fails to explicitly disclose, However Ruan discloses,wherein in a case where the autonomous mobile object falls, the circuitry is further configured to adjust a direction, in which rotational force of the flywheel due to a gyro effect is generated, by inclining the flywheel in a pan direction. (See at least paragraph [0065] “Upper balance of components (upper the shaft components) includes: inertial flywheel 17, the flywheel motor 18, reducer, encoder (speed sensor), as well as ball bearings and so on. The Inertia flywheel 17 is fixed left and right direction to balance Left direction of the robot of the roll DOF. ”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sokol as modified by Angle to incorporate the teachings of Ruan for the same motivation reasons in claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesam Almadhrhi whose telephone number is (571) 270-3844. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESAM NMN ALMADHRHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights