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 . Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “robot controller” in claims 1-15, “data acquisition module” in claim 13, “terrain recognition module” in claim 13, and “gait control module” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “robot controller” in claims 1-15, “data acquisition module” in claim 13, “terrain recognition module” in claim 13, and “gait control module” in claim 13 all use a generic placeholder “controller” or “module” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 13 recite “robot controller” while claim 13 recites “data acquisition module”, “terrain recognition module”, and “gait control module”. The specification doesn’t recite the structural elements of said limitations. The specification describes the robot controller as a control unit in paragraph [0051], but that does not impart sufficient structure as a control unit could be interpreted as software. The specification also describes a different embodiment including a computer, processor, and memory in paragraphs [0236-0238], but does not directly link these embodiments and therefore provides no clear structure for these limitations.
Claims 2-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-15 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.
Claim limitations “robot controller” in claims 1 and 13, “data acquisition module” in claim 13, “terrain recognition module” in claim 13, and “gait control module” in claim 13. invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 7 recites “a desired foot forces” and it is unclear if this is intended to refer to a single desired foot force or multiple desired foot forces. The limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to read desired foot forces.
Claim 7 recites “the matrix U” and “the matrix H” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to read a matrix U and a matrix H.
Claim 7 includes variables that are present in the equations/problems that do not appear to be defined in the claim (for example,
PNG
media_image1.png
22
63
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
27
24
media_image2.png
Greyscale
UT, S) and includes variables that are defined in the claim that do not appear to be present in the equations/problems (for example,
PNG
media_image3.png
40
149
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
30
88
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
36
35
media_image5.png
Greyscale
). It is unclear what all of the variables in the equations/problems represent because the variables defined in the claim and the variables in the equations/problems do not appear to align and therefore it is unclear what is being claimed. The limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. The specification does not clarify these issues, therefore the examiner requests clarification on any of the variables that do not align between the variables defined in the claim and the equation/problems.
Claim 11 recites “the roll angles, the pitch angles, and estimated foot force data”. Since the limitation refers to the roll angles and the pitch angles, it appears to be referring to the sample datasets introduced in claim 1. The sample datasets introduced in claim 1 also include foot forces. However, it is unclear if “estimated foot force data” in claim 11 is intended to be the same as or different from the foot forces in the sample datasets of claim 1. The limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to read the foot forces so as to be referring to the foot forces of claim 1.
Claim 12 recites an expression but does not define the variables in the expression. The claim also defines k≠i but this variable does not appear to be present in the expression. It is unclear what all of the variables in the expression represent because the variables defined and the variables in the expression do not appear to align and therefore it is unclear what is being claimed. The limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. The specification does not clarify these issues, therefore the examiner requests clarification on any of the variables that do not align between the variables defined in the claim and the expression.
Claim 14 recites “wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, operations in the robot perception based terrain recognition and gait control method of claim 1 are implemented”. Claim 15 recites “wherein when the computer program is executed, the processor implements operations in the robot perception based terrain recognition and gait control method of claim 1”. Operations are not defined in claim 1, and so it is unclear if this is referring to a portion of the method recited in claim 1 or an entirety of the method recited in claim 1. The limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claims indefinite. As best understood, the claims will be interpreted to read that the computer program is executed by a processor to implement the robot perception based terrain recognition and gait control method of claim 1.
Claims 2-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not appear to explicitly disclose or render obvious the following limitations of independent claim 1 (and similar limitations in independent claim 13) in their entirety:
“a robot perception based terrain recognition and gait control method, comprising: acquiring pitch angle data and foot force data of a robot based on optimal foot forces; inputting the pitch angle data and the foot force data into a trained k-nearest neighbor (KNN) model; and adjusting a step frequency and a gait of the bipedal robot based on the terrain recognition result according to a preset gait control strategy; wherein a training process of the KNN model includes: acquiring a sample dataset D1 and a sample dataset D2 including roll angles, pitch angles, and foot forces, respectively; extracting a coefficient of variation and a variance of each sample data in the sample dataset D1 and the sample dataset D2 as features, and dividing the sample dataset D1 and the sample dataset D2 into a training set and a validation set, wherein a sliding window algorithm is used to determine the coefficient of variation and the variance, and a window size and an interval are determined according to a data printing frequency”
Villemure (Terrain Classification for the Spot Quadrupedal Mobile Robot Using Only Proprioceptive Sensing, a copy of which is attached and is being relied upon) appears to be the closest prior art of record, and discloses a robot perception based terrain recognition (see at least page 448 – robot able to identify different terrain types), comprising: acquiring angle data and foot force data of a robot based on optimal foot forces (see at least page 448 - measured proprioceptive signals describing the motions of the robot and its four legs (e.g., foot penetration, forces, joint angles, etc.)); inputting the angle data and the foot force data into a trained k-nearest neighbor (KNN) model to recognize a terrain on which the robot is currently walking, and obtaining a terrain recognition result (see at least page 449 – collect and process raw data from the robot’s proprioceptive sensors to classify the terrain with a K nearest neighbors (KNN) classifier); wherein a training process of the KNN model includes: driving the robot to perform autonomous navigation on a flat terrain and a rough terrain, and acquiring a sample dataset D1 and a sample dataset D2 including angles, and foot forces, respectively (see at least pages 448 and 451 - measured proprioceptive signals describing the motions of the robot and its four legs (e.g., foot penetration, forces, joint angles, etc.)… three terrain types including concrete, grass, and rocks); a window size and an interval are determined (see at least page 449 – window size N and stride S); and using a KNN algorithm for training, selecting a feature combination with a highest classification accuracy rate for experimental validation (see at least page 451 – validation data included in the training process… the classifier has tunable parameters, the parameters were tuned to optimize accuracy on the validation dataset), recording a success rate of each group of tests (see at least page 452 – Fig. 4 showing the classifier performance for each terrain type at different speeds), and determining an optimal k value to optimize model performance of the KNN model (see at least page 451 – the classifier has tunable parameters including the number of neighbors for the KNN classifier, the parameters were tuned to optimize accuracy on the validation dataset).
Wu (Tactile Sensing and Terrain-Based Gait Control for Small Legged Robots, a copy of which is attached and is being relied upon) teaches the following limitations: a robot perception based terrain recognition and gait control method comprising: obtaining a terrain recognition result; and receiving, by a robot controller, the terrain recognition result, and adjusting a step frequency and a gait of the robot based on the terrain recognition result according to a gait control strategy (see at least pages 15-16 – identify terrain type and perform gait adjustments… adjust their gait and speed… gait adjustments may consist of variations in timing, leg stiffness, and swing angle).
Luo (Real-Time Surface Identification System for Variable Walking Speeds of Biped Robots, a copy of which is attached and is being relied upon) teaches the following limitations: a bipedal robot (see at least page 130 – biped robot); extracting a variance, wherein a sliding window algorithm is used to determine and the variance, and a window size and an interval are determined (see at least page 131 – variance is extracted from the raw sensor-data stream inside a sliding window… the window size indicates the number of sequential voltage points used in the preprocessing stage to calculate each of the features points for the above four time-domain features… an overlapped window strategy, which slides the window by one voltage point at a time is applied).
However, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Villemure, Wu, Luo, and the other prior art of record to arrive at the recited invention. Villemure teaches robot perception based terrain recognition for a quadruped robot using angle data and foot force data input into a trained k-nearest neighbor (KNN) model to recognize a terrain. However, Villemure is not applied to a bipedal robot, does not acquire a sample dataset D1 and a sample dataset D2 including roll angles, pitch angles, and foot forces, respectively, does not extract a coefficient of variation and a variance of each sample data in the sample dataset D1 and the sample dataset D2 as features, does not divide the sample dataset D1 and the sample dataset D2 into a training set and a validation set, and does not use a sliding window algorithm to determine the coefficient of variation and the variance. Wu does adjust a step frequency and gait in response to the terrain recognition result, and Luo does teach a bipedal robot that uses a sliding window algorithm to extract a variance and also determines a window size and interval. However, the prior art still does not appear to teach acquiring the sample datasets D1 and D2 including roll angles, pitch angles, and foot forces and dividing these datasets as recited for robot terrain recognition purposes. The prior art also does not appear to teach using a sliding window algorithm to determine the coefficient of variation and variance for robot terrain recognition purposes. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to bridge the gap between the prior art of record and the claimed invention. Thus, modifying or combining the prior art of record to arrive at the claimed invention would require impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
