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 is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 8-12 are currently pending and addressed below.
Preliminary amendments filed and received on 06/12/2025 and have been accepted and approved.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/02/2025 has been received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Gleaning from the teachings of the specification it appears that the surface is meant to be one of deep sand, loose gravel, shifting rocks, or silt rather than a surface made up of all of these materials. Clarification/correction on the record is earnestly solicited.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The language “knee joint comprises of revolute joints” suggests that each knee joint includes a plurality of revolute joints. Clarification/correction on the record is earnestly solicited.
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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said knee joint" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blankespoor et al. (US 20210171135 A1), hereinafter Blankespoor in view of Boone et al. (Reflexive Responses to Slipping in Bipedal Running Robots), hereinafter Boone.
Regarding claim 8, Blankespoor teaches:
8. A method for improving the walking performance of a quadruped over a soft surface, the method comprising of:
detecting characteristics of a soft surface and deformable surface for a legged robot to walk on depending on movements and packing of granular media by way of a contact algorithm, (Paragraph 0080, "At block 502, a robot having at least one foot may determine a representation of a coefficient of friction GO between the foot and a ground surface. FIG. 6A depicts an example foot 602 of a robot, such as the robot 200 shown in FIG. 2, in contact with a ground surface 604. In some cases, the determined representation of μ might not estimate the actual, or “true” value of the coefficient. Rather, the robot 200 may determine a representation of μ that is within a probable range and then adjust the representation as necessary as the robot 200 walks on the ground surface. For instance, the robot 200 may initially determine a representation of μ within a range of 0.4 to 0.6, representing a coefficient of friction between the robot's foot 602 and many commonly encountered types of ground surfaces. The robot 200 may then adjust that initial value either upward or downward based on any number of factors. For example, the robot 200 may increase or decrease the representation of μ based on the frequency that slips are detected of the robot's foot 602. Other examples are also possible.")
detecting a toe slip of a legged robot,
ascertaining if a legged robot's joint is displaced as a result of said toe slip, (Paragraphs 0040-0041, "An example robot may be configured to detect when slips of its feet occur. For instance, some robots may have two feet on the ground at the same time for a given gait, such as a quadruped robot that is moving at a trotting gait. The robot may, via sensors in its legs, be able to determine the positions of its feet. Based on this determination, the robot may be able to further determine the distance between its feet during a given step. If the feet maintain ground contact and do not slip, the distance between them should not change. Thus, the robot may monitor the distance between the pair of feet throughout the step, and any deviation from the starting distance that exceeds a certain threshold may indicate that a significant slip has occurred, and the robot may react accordingly.
Other methods of detecting slips of a robot's foot are possible as well. For instance, the robot may compare two different estimates of the position of the robot's body. The first estimate may determine the position of the robot's body in relation to a foot based on kinematic odometry. If it is assumed that the foot is in continuous contact with the ground and does not slip, then the position of the robot's body with respect to the foot may approximate the body's position with respect to the ground.")
determining whether the displacement of said legged robot's joint passes a preset threshold greater than an expected displacement in a stance phase of said legged robot, triggering a surface slip event, (Paragraph 0042, "The second estimate may be based on an inertial measurement of the robot's body, without regard to the stance position of the robot's foot. When the two estimates, determined at approximately the same time(s), are compared, they may be approximately equal if the assumption underlying the first estimate is true. If the estimates differ by an amount greater than a certain threshold, it may indicate that the assumption is not true, and that a significant slip of the robot's foot may have occurred. The robot may react accordingly. Further, a robot may utilize either or both of the methods for detecting slips described herein, among other techniques.")
… and
causing the slipped legged robot's joint and its other legs to lift off prior to a normal time of liftoff after completing said stance phase, (Paragraph 0132, "In some cases, the rapid step down of a foot that ends its swing early based on a detected slip may result in a relatively hard contact with the ground surface. This may lead to the detection of additional slips, particularly where the terrain is relatively loose, such as sand. This may result in another rapid step of the robot, and thus a cycle of slip detections and reactions. Thus, in some cases, the robot's reaction to the initial determination that the threshold has been exceeded (i.e., a slip) may additionally or alternatively include increasing the threshold.") and wherein said prior lift off results in an increased stepping speed. (Paragraph 0064, "Although the robot 200 includes four legs 204a-204d in the illustration shown in FIG. 2, the robot 200 may include more or less legs within other examples. Further, the configuration, position, and/or structure of the legs 204a-204d may vary in example implementations. The legs 204a-204d enable the robot 200 to move and may be configured to operate in multiple degrees of freedom to enable different techniques of travel to be performed. In particular, the legs 204a-204d may enable the robot 200 to travel at various speeds through mechanically controlling the legs 204a-204d according to the mechanics set forth within different gaits. A gait is a pattern of movement of the limbs of an animal, robot, or other mechanical structure. As such, the robot 200 may navigate by operating the legs 204a-204d to perform various gaits that the robot 200 is configured to perform. The robot 200 may use a variety gaits to travel within an environment, which may involve selecting a gait based on speed, terrain, the need to maneuver, and/or energy efficiency." as well as Paragraph 0183, "In some instances, the robot 1100 may adjust the timing of a mechanically timed gait to handle detected disturbances to the gait, among other possible responses. Some example disturbances have been discussed above, such as a slip of the robot's foot, or an indication that a leg actuator has reached a range of motion limit. Other examples are also possible.")
While Blankespoor discusses controlling a second leg to contact the ground early and to follow this with rapidly stepping as a reaction to an identified slip event, they do not specifically say that the slipping leg is lifted early. However, Boone, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
… initiating a swing phase in response to said surface slip event by lifting said legged robot's joint off said soft and deformable surface; … (Page 5, Column 1, Paragraph 1, "The step on which the initial slip occurred may be abandoned by immediately lifting the foot; the resulting flight phase provides a brief opportunity to prepare for another landing on the slippery surface.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system and methods of operation as taught by Blankespoor with the slip event response as taught by Boone. This method of "abandoning" the step cycle when a slip is detected would allow the robot to reposition the leg without allowing the slip event to finish and prevent the robot from falling.
Regarding claim 9, where all the limitations of claim 8 are discussed above, Blankespoor further teaches:
9. The method according to claim 8, wherein said soft and said deformable surface includes deep sand, loose gravel, shifting rocks, and silt. (Paragraph 0075, "Further, the term ground surface as used herein is meant to encompass any possible surfaces and terrain that the robot may encounter, and is not meant to be limiting. For instance, the ground surface may be indoors or outdoors, may be rigid or loose, such as sand or gravel, and may include discontinuities or irregularities such as stairs, rocks, fallen trees, debris, and the like. Numerous other examples exist.")
Regarding claim 10, where all the limitations of claim 8 are discussed above, Blankespoor further teaches:
10. The method according to claim 8, wherein said legged robot's joint enables extension. (0052, "Mechanical components 110 represent possible hardware of the robotic system 100 that may enable the robotic system 100 to operate and perform physical operations. As a few examples, the robotic system 100 may include actuator(s), extendable leg(s) (“legs”), arm(s), wheel(s), one or more structured bodies for housing the computing system or other components, and other mechanical components. The mechanical components 110 may depend on the design of the robotic system 100 and may also be based on the functions and/or tasks the robotic system 100 may be configured to perform. As such, depending on the operation and functions of the robotic system 100, different mechanical components 110 may be available for the robotic system 100 to utilize. In some examples, the robotic system 100 may be configured to add and/or remove mechanical components 110, which may involve assistance from a user and/or other robot. For example, the robotic system 100 may be initially configured with four legs, but may be altered by a user or the robotic system 100 to remove two of the four legs to operate as a biped. Other examples of mechanical components 110 may be included within some implementations.")
Regarding claim 11, where all the limitations of claim 8 are discussed above, Blankespoor further teaches:
11. The method according to claim 8, wherein said knee joint comprises of revolute joints. (Paragraph 0111, "The set of sensors may include position sensors in the legs of the robot 200. The sensors may detect and relay position and velocity data to a control system, and possibly other systems, of the robot 200. The set of sensors may include one or more sensors 830 located in the knee joints of the legs that detect the movements on the knee joint. The set of sensors may also include one or more sensors 832 located in the hip joints of the legs that detect movements of the hip joint. Other sensors may be included in the set of sensors, and the location of these sensors on the robot 200 may be varied." Examiner Note: A knee joint is known to be a type of hinge or revolute joint.)
Regarding claim 12, where all the limitations of claim 8 are discussed above, Blankespoor further teaches:
12. The method according to claim 8, wherein said soft surface is detected by a user or a higher-level algorithm (Paragraph 0056, "The sensor(s) 112 may provide information indicative of the environment of the robot for the controller 108 and/or computing system to use to determine operations for the robotic system 100. For example, the sensor(s) 112 may capture data corresponding to the terrain of the environment or location of nearby objects, which may assist with environment recognition and navigation, etc. In an example configuration, the robotic system 100 may include a sensor system that includes RADAR, LIDAR, SONAR, VICON®, one or more cameras, a global positioning system (GPS) transceiver, and/or other sensors for capturing information of the environment of the robotic system 100. The sensor(s) 112 may monitor the environment in real-time and detect obstacles, elements of the terrain, weather conditions, temperature, and/or other parameters of the environment for the robotic system 100.") and the robot is instructed to enter a mode for locomoting over said soft surface. (Paragraph 0070, "During operation, the computing system may communicate with other systems of the robot 200 via wired or wireless connections and may further be configured to communicate with one or more users of the robot. As one possible illustration, the computing system may receive an input from a user indicating that the user wants the robot to perform a particular gait in a given direction. The computing system may process the input and may perform an operation that may cause the systems of the robot to perform the requested gait. Additionally, the robot's electrical components may include interfaces, wires, busses, and/or other communication links configured to enable systems of the robot to communicate." as well as Paragraph 0116, "The threshold difference may be represented by a variable £, and may be a predetermined or default value. Further, the threshold difference c may be different between different robot configurations (e.g., the size of the robot). In some cases, the threshold difference may be between 1 and 50 centimeters. Other threshold differences are also possible. Further, the robot 200 may adjust c at various times based on the gait of the robot 200, the ground surface conditions detected by the robot 200, or slips or other disturbances detected by the robot 200, among other factors.")
Conclusion
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the referencesapplied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations arerepresentative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER KENIRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5468. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
/H.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights