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.
Priority
The filing date for the instant application is 27 June 2025. The instant application is a continuation application to application 17/811,840, filed 11 July 2022, which itself was a continuation application to application 16/573,284, filed 17 September 2019, which was the US national application corresponding to PCT/US19/51511, filed 17 September 2019, claiming domestic benefit of provisional application 62/883,310, filed 06 August 2019. As such, the effective filing date of each of the instant application's claims under examination may be as recent as the instant application's filing date of 27 June 2025, the parent application 17/811,840 filing date of 11 July 2022, or earlier (presuming there is appropriate specification support for each particular claim in that earlier-filed specification). In the case that a prior art rejection to one or more claims made in an Office action during prosecution of the instant application includes one or more prior art references that fall somewhere between 06 August 2019 and 27 June 2025, if Applicant can specifically identify appropriate specification support for each of these claims in an earlier filed portion of this complex continuity chain, then the Examiner may determine that one or more of these prior art rejections against one or more of these claims will need to be withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant has submitted an information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 03 September 2025 which is 11 pages long that includes 5 pages of US Patent or Pre-Grant Publications followed by a list of approximately 50 foreign references and approximately 60 Non-Patent Literature (NPL) references, totaling approximately 250 references, likely totaling thousands of pages to potentially review. In accordance with dicta from Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995), stating that forcing the Examiner to find "a needle in a haystack" is "probative of bad faith." Id. [The Molins] case presented a situation where the disclosure was in excess of 700 pages and contained more than fifty references. Likewise, the instant application’s IDS includes more than even what was found to be excessive in the Molins case, and this IDS does not include any concise explanation of the relevance of any of the listed references nor cite any pages, columns, and lines (or paragraph numbers) where relevant passages or relevant figures appear. According to MPEP Section 2004 “Aids to Compliance With Duty of Disclosure [R-08.2012]”, “It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to Applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance.” Additionally, per MPEP Section 609.04(a)(III): “applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability.” See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v.Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
As such, even though this IDS has been placed in the application file with the list of references marked as considered, and the compilation of those listed US Patents and Pre-Grant Publications have at least been key-word searched and/or classification searched for relevant prior art, and the compilation of foreign and/or NPL references have at least been briefly reviewed (for example, abstracts and drawings reviewed), the information referred to therein for each individual reference has admittedly been considered only within the reasonable time period allocated by the Examiner out of the total normal examination time given for any given application with a similar classification picture. If Applicant wishes to have one or more references considered more in depth, the Examiner requests resubmitting the IDS with a reasonable number of references that are known to be pertinent for the determination of patentability as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, along with the concise explanations as to relevance and citations explaining the locations of relevant passages or figures, as per 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) and 37 CFR § 1.105.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 13, 14, 18 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,287,826 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing (POSITA) would have recognized that the instant claims are merely more generic versions of the claims presented in the reference US Patent.
A comparison of the claims of interest are provided below:
Instant Application 19/253,323
Reference US Patent US 11,287,826 B2
Claim 1: A method comprising:
receiving, at data processing hardware, sensor data from at least one sensor of a robot, the sensor data corresponding to an environment of the robot;
Claim 1: A method comprising : receiving , at data processing hardware of a robot, image data of an environment about the robot from at least one image sensor, the robot comprising a body and legs coupled to the body
identifying, by the data processing hardware, that a body of the robot may interfere with a first obstacle in the environment based on the sensor data and one or more first parameters;
identifying, by the data processing hardware, from the image data, objects present in the environment
…
that is not safe for the body of the robot to travel through
classifying, by the data processing hardware, the first obstacle as a body obstacle based on identifying that the body of the robot may interfere with the first obstacle;
for each respective object identified from the image data: determining, by the data processing hardware, whether the respective object is a body obstacle that is not safe for the body of the robot to travel through; and
identifying, by the data processing hardware, that a stepping down of a foot of the robot may interfere with a second obstacle in the environment based on the sensor data and one or more second parameters;
identifying, by the data processing hardware, from the image data, objects present in the environment
…
a step obstacle where the legs of the robot should not step
classifying, by the data processing hardware, the second obstacle as a step obstacle based on identifying that the stepping down of the foot of the robot may interfere with the second obstacle;
determining, by the data processing hardware, whether the respective object is a step obstacle where the legs of the robot should not step
generating, by the data processing hardware, one or more maps based on the body obstacle and the step obstacle, wherein the one or more maps indicate locations of the body obstacle and the step obstacle within the environment; and
generating, by the data processing hardware, a body obstacle map including the body obstacles, a ground height map, and a step - obstacle map including the step obstacles based on the image data; generating, by the data processing hardware, without using the step - obstacle map, a body path for movement of the body of the robot from a body path start point to a body path target point based on the body obstacles of the body - obstacle map; and
instructing, by the data processing hardware, the robot to move according to the one or more maps.
generating, by the data processing hardware, a step path for the legs of the robot from the body path start point to the body path target point based on the body path, the body - obstacle map, the ground height map, and the step - obstacle map, the step path avoiding step obstacles encountered by the legs of the robot as the body of the robot travels along the body path.
Instant Application 19/253,323
Reference US Patent US 11,287,826 B2
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more maps are further based on a voxel map.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the image data comprises three - dimensional point cloud data captured by a three-dimensional volumetric image sensor.
Claim 6: The method of claim 4, wherein the three - dimensional space occupancy map comprises a voxel map having voxels, each voxel representing a three-dimensional space of the environment.
Instant Application 19/253,323
Reference US Patent US 11,287,826 B2
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying one or more footstep locations on a ground surface of the environment for placement of the foot of the robot based on the one or more maps, wherein instructing the robot to move is based on the one or more footstep locations.
Claim 1: a step path for the legs of the robot
Claim 9: The method of claim 1, wherein generating the step path is based on adjusting a nominal step pattern of a nominal gait for the robot and step constraints
Instant Application 19/253,323
Reference US Patent US 11,287,826 B2
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more first parameters indicate a movement of the body of the robot.
Claim 1: that is not safe for the body of the robot to travel through
Instant Application 19/253,323
Reference US Patent US 11,287,826 B2
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more second parameters indicate at least one of a slope of the environment, a pit within the environment, or a movement of the foot of the robot.
Claim 1: a step obstacle where the legs of the robot should not step
Instant Application 19/253,323
Reference US Patent US 11,287,826 B2
Claim 9: The method of claim 1, wherein identifying that the stepping down of the foot of the robot may interfere with the second obstacle comprises identifying that the foot may not step on the second obstacle.
Claim 1: a step obstacle where the legs of the robot should not step
Instant Application 19/253,323
Reference US Patent US 11,287,826 B2
Claim 13: The method of claim 1, further comprising: classifying a first plurality of obstacles as a plurality of body obstacles; and classifying a second plurality of obstacles as a plurality of step obstacles.
Claim 1: for each respective object identified from the image data: determining, by the data processing hardware, whether the respective object is a body obstacle that is not safe for the body of the robot to travel through; and determining, by the data processing hardware, whether the respective object is a step obstacle where the legs of the robot should not step
Instant Application 19/253,323
Reference US Patent US 11,287,826 B2
Claim 15: A system comprising:
memory storing instructions; and
data processing hardware, wherein execution of the instructions by the data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to:
receive sensor data from at least one sensor of a robot, the sensor data corresponding to an environment of the robot;
Claim 13: A robot comprising:
a body;
legs coupled to the body and configured to maneuver the robot about an environment;
data processing hardware in communication with the legs; and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving image data of an environment about the robot from at least one image sensor;
identify that a body of the robot may interfere with a first obstacle in the environment based on the sensor data and one or more first parameters;
identifying, from the image data, objects present in the environment
…
that is not safe for the body of the robot to travel through
classify the first obstacle as a body obstacle based on identifying that the body of the robot may interfere with the first obstacle;
for each respective object identified from the image data: determining whether the respective object is a body obstacle that is not safe for the body of the robot to travel through; and
identify that a stepping down of a foot of the robot may interfere with a second obstacle in the environment based on the sensor data and one or more second parameters;
identifying from the image data, objects present in the environment
…
a step obstacle where the legs of the robot should not step
classify the second obstacle as a step obstacle based on identifying that the stepping down of the foot of the robot may interfere with the second obstacle;
determining whether the respective object is a step obstacle where the legs of the robot should not step
generate one or more maps based on the body obstacle and the step obstacle, wherein the one or more maps indicate locations of the body obstacle and the step obstacle within the environment; and
generating a body obstacle map including the body obstacles, a ground height map, and a step - obstacle map including the step obstacles based on the image data; generating, by the data processing hardware, without using the step - obstacle map, a body path for movement of the body of the robot from a body path start point to a body path target point based on the body obstacles of the body - obstacle map; and
instruct the robot to move according to the one or more maps.
generating a step path for the legs of the robot from the body path start point to the body path target point based on the body path, the body - obstacle map, the ground height map, and the step - obstacle map, the step path avoiding step obstacles encountered by the legs of the robot as the body of the robot travels along the body path.
Instant Application 19/253,323
Reference US Patent US 11,287,826 B2
Claim 16: The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more maps comprise a body obstacle map and a step obstacle map.
Claim 13: generating a body - obstacle map including the body obstacles, a ground height map, and a step - obstacle map including the step obstacles based on the image data
Instant Application 19/253,323
Reference US Patent US 11,287,826 B2
Claim 18: A robot comprising:
a body;
at least one sensor;
at least two legs coupled to the body of the robot, the at least two legs comprising at least two feet;
memory storing instructions; and
data processing hardware, wherein execution of the instructions by the data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to:receive sensor data from at least one sensor of a robot, the sensor data corresponding to an environment of the robot;
Claim 13: A robot comprising:
a body;
legs coupled to the body and configured to maneuver the robot about an environment;
data processing hardware in communication with the legs; and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving image data of an environment about the robot from at least one image sensor;
identify that a body of the robot may interfere with a first obstacle in the environment based on the sensor data and one or more first parameters;
identifying, from the image data, objects present in the environment
…
that is not safe for the body of the robot to travel through
classify the first obstacle as a body obstacle based on identifying that the body of the robot may interfere with the first obstacle;
for each respective object identified from the image data: determining whether the respective object is a body obstacle that is not safe for the body of the robot to travel through; and
identify that a stepping down of a foot of the robot may interfere with a second obstacle in the environment based on the sensor data and one or more second parameters;
identifying from the image data, objects present in the environment
…
a step obstacle where the legs of the robot should not step
classify the second obstacle as a step obstacle based on identifying that the stepping down of the foot of the robot may interfere with the second obstacle;
determining whether the respective object is a step obstacle where the legs of the robot should not step
generate one or more maps based on the body obstacle and the step obstacle, wherein the one or more maps indicate locations of the body obstacle and the step obstacle within the environment; and
generating a body obstacle map including the body obstacles, a ground height map, and a step - obstacle map including the step obstacles based on the image data; generating, by the data processing hardware, without using the step - obstacle map, a body path for movement of the body of the robot from a body path start point to a body path target point based on the body obstacles of the body - obstacle map; and
instruct the robot to move according to the one or more maps.
generating a step path for the legs of the robot from the body path start point to the body path target point based on the body path, the body - obstacle map, the ground height map, and the step - obstacle map, the step path avoiding step obstacles encountered by the legs of the robot as the body of the robot travels along the body path.
Instant Application 19/253,323
Reference US Patent US 11,287,826 B2
Claim 20: The robot of claim 18, wherein the one or more maps are further based on a voxel map.
Claim 14: The robot of claim 13, wherein the image data comprises three - dimensional point cloud data captured by a three-dimensional volumetric image sensor.
Claim 18: The robot of claim 16, wherein the three - dimensional space occupancy map comprises a voxel map having voxels, each voxel representing a three-dimensional space of the environment.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 13, 14, 18 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,287,826 B2 as evidenced by the comparisons shown above.
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.
Claims 1, 15, and 18 reference "one or more first parameters" and "one or more second parameters", invoking a variable that has an infinite number of possibilities in order to determine obstacles in the robot environment. The examiner performed a review of the specification and was unable to locate any mention (let alone a reasonable representative list) of what may or may not be considered a "parameter". A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would not have reasonably understood what may or may not have qualified as a "parameter", as any of an infinite number of possibilities may read upon this language. Dependent claim 6 specifies the "first parameter" of parent claim 1 but does not resolve the "second parameter". Dependent claim 7 specifies the "second parameter" but does not resolve the "first parameter". Further, even if both claims 6 and 7 were to be incorporated into the independent claims (as a hypothetical situation), merely "indicating" a movement also does not distinctly claim the subject matter; a power exerted by an actuator indicates movement, a displacement indicates movement, an internal component movement may indicate a movement of the body or legs, among an infinite number of other possibilities. Thus, none of the dependent claims completely resolve the noted indefiniteness. As all independent claims (1, 15, 18) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the corresponding dependent claims fail to cure every deficiency, all dependent claims are rejected as well due to dependency. Thus, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuchi et al. (US 2006/0241827 A1; published 26 Oct 2006, hereinafter Fukuchi).
Regarding independent claims 1 (method), 15 (system), and 18 (apparatus): Fukuchi discloses A method comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0059, 0075] and Figure [9, 13], Fukuchi discloses a method) / A system comprising: memory storing instructions; and data processing hardware, wherein execution of the instructions by the data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to: (per claim 15) (Paragraph [0106-0109, 0113] and Figure [4], Fukuchi discloses a processor and memory storing instructions to be carried out) / A robot comprising: a body; at least one sensor; at least two legs coupled to the body of the robot, the at least two legs comprising at least two feet; memory storing instructions; and data processing hardware, wherein execution of the instructions by the data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to: (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0014, 0040-0041, 0096, 0106-0109, 0113] and Figure [2, 4, 20-22], Fukuchi discloses robot with a body, a plurality of sensors, at least two legs with corresponding feet, and a processor and memory storing instructions to be carried out)
receiving, at data processing hardware, sensor data from at least one sensor of a robot, the sensor data corresponding to an environment of the robot; (per claim 1) / receive sensor data from at least one sensor of a robot, the sensor data corresponding to an environment of the robot; (per claim 15) / receive sensor data from the at least one sensor, the sensor data corresponding to an environment of the robot; (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0042, 0045, 0108], Fukuchi discloses receiving sensor/camera data of the environment including a plurality of objects)
identifying, by the data processing hardware, that a body of the robot may interfere with a first obstacle in the environment based on the sensor data and one or more first parameters; (per claim 1) / identify that a body of the robot may interfere with a first obstacle in the environment based on the sensor data and one or more first parameters; (per claim 15) / identify that the body of the robot may interfere with a first obstacle in the environment based on the sensor data and one or more first parameters; (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0046-0047, 0060-0066, 0096], Fukuchi discloses a plurality of grids that correspond to a plurality of heights modeled against the robot in sections, such as the legs and torso sections shown for instance in Figure [6] (grid 1 corresponds to cylinder 1, the “legs” and grid 2 corresponds to cylinder 2, the “body”), and objects are detected corresponding to each of the cylinders/grids. The “parameter” may reasonably be the height of the obstacle and/or the model of the robot corresponding to cylinders 1 and 2)
classifying, by the data processing hardware, the first obstacle as a body obstacle based on identifying that the body of the robot may interfere with the first obstacle; (per claim 1) / classify the first obstacle as a body obstacle based on identifying that the body of the robot may interfere with the first obstacle; (per claim 15) / classify the first obstacle as a body obstacle based on identifying that the body of the robot may interfere with the first obstacle; (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0046-0047, 0060-0071, 0096] and Figure [10A-10B, 11A-11B], Fukuchi discloses determining the height of the obstacle and classifying it as either pertaining to grid 1 (legs) or grid 2 (torso))
identifying, by the data processing hardware, that a stepping down of a foot of the robot may interfere with a second obstacle in the environment based on the sensor data and one or more second parameters; (per claim 1) / identify that a stepping down of a foot of the robot may interfere with a second obstacle in the environment based on the sensor data and one or more second parameters; (per claim 15) / identify that a stepping down of a foot of the robot of the at least two feet of the robot may interfere with a second obstacle in the environment based on the sensor data and one or more second parameters; (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0046-0047, 0060-0066, 0096, 0109, 0113], Fukuchi discloses a plurality of grids that correspond to a plurality of heights modeled against the robot in sections, such as the legs and torso sections shown for instance in Figure [6] (grid 1 corresponds to cylinder 1, the “legs” and grid 2 corresponds to cylinder 2, the “body”), and objects are detected corresponding to each of the cylinders/grids. The “parameter” may reasonably be the height of the obstacle and/or the model of the robot corresponding to cylinders 1 and 2. The examiner notes that as the cylinder corresponds to the legs and range of motion (explicitly disclosed), that this includes both the up-motion of feet and the down-motion, thus encompassing “stepping down”)
classifying, by the data processing hardware, the second obstacle as a step obstacle based on identifying that the stepping down of the foot of the robot may interfere with the second obstacle; (per claim 1) / classify the second obstacle as a step obstacle based on identifying that the stepping down of the foot of the robot may interfere with the second obstacle; (per claim 15) / classify the second obstacle as a step obstacle based on identifying that the stepping down of the foot of the robot may interfere with the second obstacle; (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0046-0047, 0060-0071, 0096] and Figure [10A-10B, 11A-11B], Fukuchi discloses determining the height of the obstacle and classifying it as either pertaining to grid 1 (legs) or grid 2 (torso))
generating, by the data processing hardware, one or more maps based on the body obstacle and the step obstacle, wherein the one or more maps indicate locations of the body obstacle and the step obstacle within the environment; and (per claim 1) / generate one or more maps based on the body obstacle and the step obstacle, wherein the one or more maps indicate locations of the body obstacle and the step obstacle within the environment; and (per claim 15) / generate one or more maps based on the body obstacle and the step obstacle, wherein the one or more maps indicate locations of the body obstacle and the step obstacle within the environment; and (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0042, 0067-0071] and Figure [10A-10B, 11A-11B, 12], Fukuchi discloses generating a plurality of maps corresponding to the multitude of grids (the body and leg obstacle maps) to indicate locations of obstacles and combining them)
instructing, by the data processing hardware, the robot to move according to the one or more maps. (per claim 1) / instruct the robot to move according to the one or more maps. (per claim 15) / instruct the robot to move according to the one or more maps. (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0055, 0072], Fukuchi discloses operating the robot to move through the environment using the maps)
Regarding claims 2 and 19: Parent claims 1 and 18 are anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi further discloses wherein the one or more maps further indicate a location of a boundary of a nearest obstacle relative to the robot. (per claim 2) / wherein the one or more maps further indicate a location of a boundary of a nearest obstacle relative to the robot. (per claim 19) (Paragraph [0067-0071, 0084-0085] and Figure [10A-10B, 11A-11B, 12], Fukuchi discloses maps (akin to an occupancy grid) showing nearest obstacles to the robot and the surrounding grid encompassing the obstacle)
Regarding claims 3 and 20: Parent claims 1 and 18 are anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi further discloses wherein the one or more maps are further based on a voxel map. (per claim 3) / wherein the one or more maps are further based on a voxel map. (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0045-0046, 0059, 0076], Fukuchi discloses three-dimensional maps with three-dimensional occupancy, analogous to a voxel map)
Regarding claim 5: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi further discloses wherein the one or more maps further indicate one or more locations within the environment where the body of the robot may not interfere with the first obstacle and the stepping down of the foot may not interfere with the second obstacle. (Paragraph [0058, 0067] and Figure [10A-10B, 11A-11B, 12], Fukuchi discloses that the maps contain areas where the robot can freely move)
Regarding claim 6: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi further discloses wherein the one or more first parameters indicate a movement of the body of the robot. (Paragraph [0047, 0056, 0096-0097] and Figure [6], Fukuchi discloses that the cylinder 2 pertains to the body of the robot (and movement thereof, such as arm movement))
Regarding claim 7: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi further discloses wherein the one or more second parameters indicate at least one of a slope of the environment, a pit within the environment, or a movement of the foot of the robot. (Paragraph [0047, 0056, 0096-0097] and Figure [6], Fukuchi discloses that the cylinder 1 pertains to the legs/feet of the robot (and movement thereof, such as leg movement))
Regarding claim 8: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi further discloses wherein the foot is associated with a leg of the robot, and wherein identifying that the stepping down of the foot of the robot may interfere with the second obstacle comprises identifying that a swinging movement of the leg may interfere with the second obstacle. (Paragraph [0047, 0056, 0096-0097] and Figure [6], Fukuchi discloses that the cylinder 1 pertains to the legs/feet of the robot (and movement thereof, such as leg movement))
Regarding claim 9: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi further discloses wherein identifying that the stepping down of the foot of the robot may interfere with the second obstacle comprises identifying that the foot may not step on the second obstacle. (Paragraph [0011, 0043, 0046, 0095], Fukuchi discloses avoiding the obstacles identified)
Regarding claim 12: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi further discloses wherein at least one of classifying the first obstacle as the body obstacle or classifying the second obstacle as the step obstacle is based on at least one of a pose or a position of the robot. (Paragraph [0044, 0046-0047, 0054, 0059-0066, 0111], Fukuchi discloses that obstacle detection depends upon robot pose (relation of obstacles to the robot), as the height of the obstacle is relative to the robot)
Regarding claim 13: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi further discloses further comprising: classifying a first plurality of obstacles as a plurality of body obstacles; and classifying a second plurality of obstacles as a plurality of step obstacles. (Paragraph [0042, 0067-0071] and Figure [10A-10B, 11A-11B, 12], Fukuchi discloses generating a plurality of maps corresponding to the multitude of grids (the body and leg obstacle maps) to indicate locations of obstacles)
Regarding claim 14: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi further discloses further comprising: assigning a plurality of weights to the sensor data, wherein at least one of classifying the first obstacle as the body obstacle or classifying the second obstacle as the step obstacle is based on the plurality of weights. (Paragraph [0048-0052], Fukuchi discloses associating a probability that a grid cell is occupied with the observation data (sensor data) for each cell of each grid)
Regarding claim 16: Parent claim 15 is anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi further discloses wherein the one or more maps comprise a body obstacle map and a step obstacle map. (Paragraph [0042, 0067-0071] and Figure [10A-10B, 11A-11B, 12], Fukuchi discloses generating a plurality of maps corresponding to the multitude of grids (the body and leg obstacle maps) to indicate locations of obstacles)
Regarding claim 17: Parent claim 15 is anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi further discloses wherein the one or more maps comprise a body obstacle map and a step obstacle map, wherein the body obstacle map and the step obstacle map indicate different obstacles. (Paragraph [0042, 0057-0058, 0067-0071] and Figure [8, 10A-10B, 11A-11B, 12], Fukuchi discloses generating a plurality of maps corresponding to the multitude of grids (the body and leg obstacle maps) to indicate locations of obstacles, indicating different obstacles such as that shown in Figure [8], where the bottom step pertains to a first obstacle for the legs and the next step is a second obstacle for the torso)
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 4, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuchi in view of Swilling (US 9,586,316 B1, published/patent date 07 Mar 2017, hereinafter Swilling).
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi does not explicitly disclose determining individual footstep locations.
However, Swilling, in a similar field of endeavor of robot path planning, teaches further comprising: identifying one or more footstep locations on a ground surface of the environment for placement of the foot of the robot based on the one or more maps, wherein instructing the robot to move is based on the one or more footstep locations. (Column [15] Lines [5-27], Swilling teaches utilization of a model of the robot to plot touchdown points of the feet on surfaces in the environment per the environmental map created (one or more maps))
Fukuchi and Swilling are in a similar field of endeavor of robot path planning. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing (POSITA), with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Fukuchi to include particular stepping locations as taught by Swilling, as this is implicitly taught in Fukuchi. Fukuchi discloses that the motion patterns of the robot including motions of the limbs are considered in the trajectory planning (Paragraph [0113] of Fukuchi), implying that the stepping locations of the robot are considered. Swilling is utilized as a reference in an analogous art solving a similar problem where it is explicitly taught that particular stepping points are tracked and planned. A POSITA would have been motivated to clarify how exactly the motions of Fukuchi are carried out and relied upon the teachings of Swilling to resolve the difference, constituting a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi further discloses wherein the robot comprises [four] legs and [four] feet, wherein classifying the second obstacle as the step obstacle comprises classifying the second obstacle as a step obstacle for each of the [four] feet. (Paragraph [0046-0047, 0060-0071, 0096] and Figure [10A-10B, 11A-11B], Fukuchi discloses a robot with a plurality of legs/feet and determining the height of the obstacle and classifying it as either pertaining to grid 1 (legs) or grid 2 (torso), the obstacles in grid 1 pertaining to both (each) of the feet/legs)
Fukuchi does not explicitly disclose a robot with particularly four legs and feet. However, Swilling, in a similar field of endeavor of robot path planning, teaches a robot with four legs and feet (Column [4] Lines [41-43], Column [8] Lines [50-55] and Figure [2], Swilling teaches a quadruped (four legged) robot)
Fukuchi and Swilling are in a similar field of endeavor of robot path planning. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing (POSITA), with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Fukuchi to include applicability to a robot with a different number of legs as taught by Swilling as this is an obvious modification of Fukuchi. Merely changing the number of legs of the robot from one well-known type of robot (biped) to another well-known type of robot (quadruped) is an obvious variant, the teachings of Swilling showing that similar robot path planning systems may be implemented in a variety of configurations of robots (Column [4] Lines [39-46] of Swilling). A POSITA would have recognized that merely incorporating the known path planning system/method of Fukuchi on a known robot type of Swilling was an obvious variant thereof, merely changing an intended use (and therefore, rationale to use) of the system on a certain robot. This constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11: Parent claim 1 is anticipated by Fukuchi. Fukuchi further discloses wherein the robot comprises [four] legs and [four] feet, wherein classifying the second obstacle as the step obstacle comprises classifying the second obstacle as a step obstacle for a [first] portion of the [four] feet, the method further comprising classifying a portion of the environment corresponding to the second obstacle as a step region for a [second] portion of the [four] feet. (Paragraph [0046-0047, 0060-0071, 0096] and Figure [10A-10B, 11A-11B], Fukuchi discloses a robot with a plurality of legs/feet and determining the height of the obstacle and classifying it as either pertaining to grid 1 (legs) or grid 2 (torso), the obstacles in grid 1 pertaining to both (each) of the feet/legs)
Fukuchi differs from the claimed invention in that 1) Fukuchi does not explicitly disclose a robot with particularly four legs and feet and 2) Fukuchi does not split obstacle detection for each leg.
Regarding 1), Swilling, in a similar field of endeavor of robot path planning, teaches a robot with four legs and feet (Column [4] Lines [41-43], Column [8] Lines [50-55] and Figure [2], Swilling teaches a quadruped (four legged) robot)
Fukuchi and Swilling are in a similar field of endeavor of robot path planning. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing (POSITA), with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Fukuchi to include applicability to a robot with a different number of legs as taught by Swilling as this is an obvious modification of Fukuchi. Merely changing the number of legs of the robot from one well-known type of robot (biped) to another well-known type of robot (quadruped) is an obvious variant, the teachings of Swilling showing that similar robot path planning systems may be implemented in a variety of configurations of robots (Column [4] Lines [39-46] of Swilling). A POSITA would have recognized that merely incorporating the known path planning system/method of Fukuchi on a known robot type of Swilling was an obvious variant thereof, merely changing an intended use (and therefore, rationale to use) of the system on a certain robot. This constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding 2), this is an obvious variant of the disclosure of Fukuchi as this would merely modify the examples of the detection cylinders of Fukuchi to include separate cylinders for each leg, reasonably constituting a duplication of parts falling under the guidance of MPEP 2144.04.IV.B. A POSITA would have recognized that the number and configuration of detection cylinders of Fukuchi was not limited, proved by the large number of alternatives shown in Figures [6, 17A-19C]. Merely modifying Fukuchi to duplicate the leg cylinder to have one cylinder correspond to each leg is an obvious variant of Fukuchi.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2005/0131581 A1
ENVIRONMENT RECOGNIZING DEVICE,
ENVIRONMENT RECOGNIZING METHOD,
ROUTE PLANNING DEVICE, ROUTE
PLANNING METHOD AND ROBOT
Sabe et al.
Filed: 16 Sep 2004
Pub: 16 Jun 2005
Discusses robotic environment modelling with obstacles detected at various heights.
2
US 2020/0340826 A1
MAP CONSTRUCTION AND NAVIGATION
METHOD , AND DEVICE AND SYSTEM
Li
Filed: 24 Dec 2018
Pub: 29 Oct 2020
Discusses a system/method/apparatus for robot navigation wherein an obstacle is detected, the obstacle is classified via type, and a map is built with the position of the obstacle.
3
US 2019/0375103 A1
NAVIGATION METHOD , NAVIGATION
SYSTEM , MOVEMENT CONTROL SYSTEM
AND MOBILE ROBOT
CUI et al.
Filed: 10 Sep 2018
Pub: 12 Dec 2019
Discusses a navigation system where a robot system detects an object, classifies the object, determines relative positioning, and updating a map with the object information.
4
US 2022/0207883 A1
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS ,
INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD ,
AND PROGRAM
Watanabe et al.
Filed: 27 Apr 2020
Pub: 30 Jun 2022
Priority: 28 Oct 2021
Discusses a robot mapping system/apparatus/method that detects objects, classifies them based upon a type, and maps them.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights