www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/906,393
`
`09/15/2022
`
`RYOICHI TSUZAKI
`
`SYP334627US01
`
`9574
`
`CHIP LAW GROUP
`505 N. LAKE SHORE DRIVE
`SUITE 250
`CHICAGO, IL 60611
`
`KHAYER, SOHANA T
`
`3657
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/17/2025
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`docketing @chiplawgroup.com
`eofficeaction @appcoll.com
`sonydocket @evalueserve.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/906,393
`TSUZAKI, RYOICHI
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`SOHANA T KHAYER
`3657
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 12/17/2024.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-10 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C) Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected.
`Claim(s) 6 is/are objectedto.
`C) Claim(s
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)2) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 1-10 is/are: a)f¥) accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)(¥) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)() None ofthe:
`b)( Some**
`a) All
`1.@) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20250113
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/906,393
`Art Unit: 3657
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Remarks
`
`1.
`
`This Final office action is in response to the amendmentsfilled on 12/17/2024. Claims 1-
`
`7 and 9-10 are amended. Claims 1-10 are pending and examined below.
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`2.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013,
`
`is being examined underthe
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`3.
`
`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 forthin 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.
`
`4.
`
`Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`US 2020/0117214 (“Jonak”), and further in view of US 2018/0281191 (“Sinyavskiy”).
`
`5.
`
`Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 9 and 10), Jonak discloses a control apparatus
`
`for arobot (see at least [0028], where “The computing hardware 110 is configured to control a
`
`robot traversal system 116”), comprising:
`
`a central processing unit (CPU) configured to (see at least fig 5):
`
`create a cost map for each gait of multiple gaits of the robot, to allow selection from
`
`amongthe multiple gaits (forthe examination purposesgaitis interpreted as footstep. See
`
`Jonak at least [0028], where “the behavior system 102 controls different footstep patterns, leg
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/906,393
`Art Unit: 3657
`
`Page 3
`
`patterns, body movement patterns, or vision system sensing patterns.”; robotis controlled at
`
`different footstep/leg patterns. So, multiple gaits are available and one gaitis selected out of
`
`many available gaits. See also [0012], where “The method includes receiving...image data of an
`
`environment about a robot maneuvering in the environment. The method also includes
`
`executing...an iterative closest points (ICP) algorithm configured to localize to a first waypoint of
`
`a waypoint map based on the received image data.”; see also fig 3 and fig 4. Waypoint mapis
`
`interpreted as map. Per submitted specification of the current application, cost mapis a travel
`
`cost for each gait. The cost maps are generated based on land form, stepped place, an obstacle
`
`on the road etc. Wheel cannot ride over stepped place so high travel cost for wheel gait
`
`comparesto a walking gait, an obstacle on the road will give high travel cost, see at least [0079]
`
`and [0095] of PGPUB of submitted specification. );
`
`create a path for the robot based on the created eest map for each gait of the multiple
`
`gaits, wherein the path includesagait switching point (see at least [0012], where “a traversal
`
`path from the first waypoint of the waypoint map to a second waypoint of the waypoint map
`
`and updating...a localization to the second waypoint of the waypoint map”; see also [0027],
`
`where “The robotic environment 10 generally refers to a spatial area associated with some type
`
`of terrain that may be traversed by a robot 100 according to a map 200. For example, the
`
`terrain is an urban terrain, such as buildings, streets, sidewalks, parks, alleys, stairs, ramps,
`
`tunnels, etc., a rural terrain, such as roads,fields, hills, mountains, caves, etc., a subterranean
`
`terrain, such as caves, tunnels, etc., or any combination thereof. The robot 100 includes
`
`locomotion based structures such as legs and/or wheels attached to a body that enable the
`
`robot 100 to move about the robotic environment 10.”; see also [0034], where “the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/906,393
`Art Unit: 3657
`
`Page 4
`
`robot 100 may autonomously navigate the robotic environment 10 using the map 200”; gait
`
`switching is interpreted as changingfootstep. Jonak discloses a system wherein the robot
`
`autonomously travels through an environment. The environment includes roads,hills, stairs,
`
`rampsetc. In order to travel through that kind of environment, the robotis required to switch
`
`gait. E.g., the gaitis different on a stair compareto the road.);and
`
`control the robot to switch a gait at the gait switching point on the created path (see
`
`at least [0028], where “The behavior system 102 is generally responsible for controlling (i.e.,
`
`executing) behaviors of the robot 100. For example, the behavior system 102 controls different
`
`footstep patterns, leg patterns, body movement patterns, or vision system sensing patterns.
`
`The robot traversal system 116 operates the behavior system 102 based on at least one
`
`map 200 provided to the robot traversal system 116.”).
`
`Jonak does not disclose the following limitation:
`
`create a cost map for each of gait of multiple gaits.
`
`However, Sinyavskiy discloses a system wherein create a cost map for each of gait of
`
`multiple gaits (see at least [0024], where “generate a cost map associated with an environment
`
`of the robot”; See also fig 4; see also [0121], where “there can bea plurality of actuators
`
`controlling various DOFs of robot 200, whether robot 200 is a robotic arm, multi-
`
`wheelvehicle, walking robot, and/or any other robot.”. Sinyavskiy discloses a system that
`
`determine cost map forrobot movement (fora particular gait). Since robot is moving thereis a
`
`gait of the robot. Sinyavskiy also discloses that the robot could be walking robot or wheeled
`
`robot. It is obvious to determine cost map for various gaits. Sinyavskiy does not limit to create
`
`cost mapfora specific gait.).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/906,393
`Art Unit: 3657
`
`Page 5
`
`Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have beenobvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jonak to incorporate the teachings of Sinyavskiy
`
`by including the above feature for providing control instruction based on the surrounding
`
`situation so that slowness and being stuck on the route is avoided.
`
`6.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Jonak furtherdiscloses a system wherein perform search for the gait
`
`switching point on the shertest path found out (see citation above); and
`
`re-search, in a case wherethereis the gait switching point, for the path on the cest
`
`map of a gait selected by an objective function, by using the gait switching point as a sub goal
`
`(see at least [0034], where “modifying waypoints 210 or edges 220 of the map 200”; see also
`
`[0049}).
`
`Jonak does not disclose the following limitation:
`
`search for ashortest path based on the cost map ofa gait that is high in traversing
`
`performance amongthe multiple gaits.
`
`However,Sinyavskiy discloses a system wherein search for a shortest path based on the
`
`cost mapof a gait that is high in traversing performance among the multiple gaits (see at least
`
`[0133], where “As another example, the shortest path field can be computed. For example, an
`
`end point can be determined for robot 200. For every path, the shortest path to the end point
`
`can be determined given the present orientation of the robot. In this way, the shortest path can
`
`be determined for every point in a map. Such shortest path to the end point can be used to
`
`adjust values of the cost map thereby making shorter paths (and/or realistic paths) more
`
`favorable.”; fig 8E and 8F).
`
`Same motivation of claim 1 applies.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/906,393
`Art Unit: 3657
`
`Page 6
`
`7.
`
`Regarding claim 4, Jonak furtherdiscloses a system wherein the CPU is configured to
`
`provide an instruction to switch the gait, of the robot, at the gait switching point based on
`
`the eest map (see at least [0028], where “The computing hardware 110 is configured
`
`to control a robot traversal system 116...The behavior system 102 is generally responsible
`
`for controlling (i.e. executing) behaviors of the robot 100. For example, the behavior
`
`system 102 controls different footstep patterns, leg patterns, body movementpatterns, or
`
`vision system sensing patterns. The robot traversal system 116 operates the behavior
`
`system 102 based on at least one map 200 provided to the robot traversal system 116.”; robot
`
`is traversing throughan environment that include various types of paths e.g., stair, hill, road,
`
`sidewalk etc. gait switching is essential part of traversing when the robot encountervariation in
`
`path e.g., road to stair.).
`
`Jonak does not disclose the following limitation:
`
`switch the gait...based on the cost map.
`
`However,Sinyavskiy further discloses a system wherein switch the gait...based on the
`
`cost map(see at least [0102], where “controller 204, to give robot 200 a relative preference to
`
`go to alocation basedon acost map.”; see also [0119-121]. Jonak discloses switching gaits
`
`based on map,see citation above. Sinyavskiy discloses generating cost map and control robot
`
`based on cost map.).
`
`Same motivation of claim 1 applies.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/906,393
`Art Unit: 3657
`
`Page 7
`
`8.
`
`Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
`
`2020/0117214 (“Jonak”), and in view of US 2018/0281191 (“Sinyavskiy”), as applied to claim 1
`
`above, and further in view of US 2020/0338733 (“Dupuis”).
`
`9.
`
`Regarding claim 3, Jonak in view of Sinyavskiy does not discloses the following
`
`limitation:
`
`the gait switching point based on a physical property of the robot, and
`
`the physical property includes at least one of a width or a thickness of the robot.
`
`However, Dupuis discloses a system wherein the gait switching point based ona
`
`physical property of the robot, and
`
`the physical property includes at least one of a width or a thickness of the robot (see
`
`at least [0011], where “The swept region can be determined based on the characteristics of
`
`the robot, such as the width, size, and potential reach of the robot. The swept region can also
`
`incorporate information about the shape of the robotas it travels. For example,
`
`the robot may changeits configuration or pose (e.g., by picking up a tool, raising or lowering an
`
`arm, etc.), and the swept region can be calculated on the shape or profile of the robot with
`
`those different configurations.”; change in configuration or poseis interpreted as gait
`
`switching).
`
`Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jonak in view of Sinyavskiy to incorporate the
`
`teachings of Dupuis by including the above feature for providing appropriate gait based on the
`
`robot physical propertyso that collision can be avoided.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/906,393
`Art Unit: 3657
`
`Page 8
`
`10.
`
`Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
`
`2020/0117214 (“Jonak”), and in view of US 2018/0281191 (“Sinyavskiy”), as applied to claim 4
`
`above, and further in view of US 2021/0107163 (“Klingensmith”).
`
`11.
`
`Regarding claim 5, Jonak furtherdiscloses a system wherein the CPU is configured to
`
`provide, to the robot, an instruction regarding a-transition-time-periedforthe switch of the
`
`gait switching point (see citation above).
`
`Jonak in view of Sinyavskiy does not disclose the following limitation:
`
`an instruction regarding a transition time period for the switch.
`
`However, Klingensmith discloses a system wherein an instruction regarding a transition
`
`time period for the switch (see at least [0052], where “the UI 200 sends the robot 100 the
`
`maneuver script 202 as a configuration file along with a current system time 204 of the
`
`UI 200 (e.g.,a time stamp according to a clock of the user device 20) and a start time 206 at
`
`which the robot 100 should start the movement routine (e.g., as indicated by the position of
`
`the slider bar 228). Here, the robot 100, upon receiving the maneuverscript 202 with the
`
`system time 204 of the UI 200 and the start time 206 forthe movement routine, will wait the
`
`amount of time specified by the UI 200 and then begin the movement routine (e.g., start
`
`dancing).”; wait time is interpreted as transition time).
`
`Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jonak in view of Sinyavskiy to incorporate the
`
`teachings of Klingensmith by including the above feature for avoiding wear and tear of the
`
`robotic parts and also continue the next movementsafely following the instruction.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/906,393
`Art Unit: 3657
`
`Page 9
`
`12.
`
`Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
`
`2020/0117214 (“Jonak”), and in view of US 2018/0281191 (“Sinyavskiy”), as applied to claim 1
`
`above, and further in view of US 9,969,086 (“Whitman”).
`
`13.
`
`Regarding claim 7, Jonak discloses a robot includes legs and traverse autonomously
`
`through various situation e.g., hills, roads. Different gaits are used for hills and roads, see
`
`citation above. Sinyavskiy discloses a system for cost map creation for robot movement, see
`
`citation above. Jonak in view of Sinyavskiy does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
`
`the robot allows the selection from amongthe multiple gaits that differin a cycle.
`
`However, Whitman discloses a system wherein the robot allowsthe selection from
`
`amongthe multiple gaits that differin acycle (see at least fig 5A-B, where two different
`
`sequences of gaits are shown. See also col 16, lines 32-38, where “the operations of FIG. 8 may
`
`continuously repeatin a loop tens or hundreds of times per second. This may result in the robot
`
`switching gait controllers mid-stride one or more times. Alternatively, the robot may maintain
`
`the same gait for one or morefull cycles of a gait. Other possibilities exist.”).
`
`Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jonak in view of Sinyavskiy to incorporate the
`
`teachings of Whitman by including the above feature for providing a humanoid movement to
`
`the robot.
`
`14.
`
`Regarding claim 8, Jonak in view of Sinyavskiy does notdisclose the following limitation:
`
`the multiple gaits include at least two of a crawl gait, a trot gait, and a gallop gait.
`
`However, Whitman further discloses a system wherein the multiple gaits include at
`
`least two of a crawlgait, a trot gait, and a gallop gait (see at least fig 5A-B, wheretrot gaits of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/906,393
`Art Unit: 3657
`
`Page 10
`
`a robot are shown. See also col 10, lines 45-47, where “ Quadruped robots may support a
`
`number of gaits including, but not limited to, standing, walking, trotting, cantering, galloping,
`
`and bounding.”).
`
`Same motivation of claim 7 applies to claim 8.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`15.
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-10 have been considered but are moot
`
`because the arguments do not apply to the new combination used in the current rejection that
`
`is due to the newly added claim amendments.
`
`Examiner Note
`
`16.
`
`It appears from the submitted argument on 12/17/2024 that, multiple gaits are referring
`
`one gait with wheel another gait with walking robot or leg gait. However,it is not positively
`
`recited on the claim language. Based on the submitted specification, multiple gaits can be
`
`interpreted as gaits with different pace or gaits at different pathways,or gaits with different way
`
`of movinge.g., leg gait wheel gait.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`17.
`
`Claims 6 is/are objected to as being dependent upona rejected base claim, but would
`
`be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim
`
`and any intervening claims.
`
`Conclusion
`
`18.
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this
`
`Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is
`
`reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/906,393
`Art Unit: 3657
`
`Page 11
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is setto expire THREE MONTHS
`
`from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the eventa first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of
`
`the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until afterthe end of
`
`the THREE-MONTHshortened statutory period, thenthe shortened statutory period will expire
`
`on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a)
`
`will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however,will the
`
`statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date ofthis final action.
`
`19,
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whosetelephone number is (408)918-
`
`7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
`
`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
`
`
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on 5712703976. The fax phone number forthe
`
`organization wherethis application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/906,393
`Art Unit: 3657
`
`Page 12
`
`to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
`
`free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to
`
`the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (INUSA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
`
`