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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 3-5, 7, 10-11, 23-26 is 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 1 recites the limitation “substantially circular cross-section” and “substantially uniform non-circular cross-sections”. The Examiner has reviewed the specification and drawings and it remains unclear to the Examiner what degree of circular and non circular meets the claim language due to the ambiguity of the term “substantially”. Examiner review of the specification does not provide any detail as to what degree of circular and non circular are sufficient to meet the claims.
Claims 3-5, 7, 10-11, and 23-26 are rejected based off their dependency of independent claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, 24, 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzumori et al., U.S. Patent 4,976,191 (hereinafter “Suzumori”).
In Reference to Claim 1:
Suzumori discloses a soft robotic manipulator (See, All Figures) adapted to be activated by a pressurized fluid having a first end, a second end, an outer wall and an axis (See, Figure 31-33), and comprising a plurality of segments extending co-axially along the manipulator, wherein the outer wall of each segment forms part of the outer wall of the manipulator (see, Figure 34) and has a substantially circular cross section such that in a non-deployed state, the manipulator is substantially cylindrical (Figure 31), each segment having a first end and a second end and an outer wall and further comprising a plurality of chambers (421, 423, 425) contained within the outer wall, each of which chambers extends from the first end to the second end, wherein each manipulator segment further comprises a central element (428) extending along the axis of the manipulator segment, and a plurality of partition walls (Formed via 427) joined to and extending from the central element to the outer wall, the chambers having substantially uniform non-circular cross sections (wedge shapes) defined by the partition walls and outer wall, wherein the central element is inextendible ( wire 428), and wherein the wall of the plurality of partition walls has a stiffness to facilitate cross section al deformation of the chambers when at least one of the chambers is pressurized by the pressurized fluid (via aramid fibers: “the fiber 427 is wound with fine pitches so that any expanding motion in the radial direction 431 cannot occur.”).
In Reference to Claim 3:
Suzumori further discloses wherein the central element 428 is a rod (via a solid wire formed of aramid). See, Figure 34.
In Reference to Claim 7:
Suzumori further discloses wherein the outer wall has a pleated structure. Examiner notes the aramid fibers of layer 427 wrapped helically around the outside of the actuator create a pleated structure. See, Figure 31 which shows the location of the plates created by 427.
In Reference to Claim 10:
Suzumori further discloses wherein the total cross section of the device occupies all available space in a selected application.
In Reference to Claim 11:
Suzumori further discloses wherein the central element acts as a stiff wall in extending devices and as the protruding wall in contracting devices, whereby resulting device combines extending and contracting operation into a fully integrated devices. Examiner notes such condition is inherent in the operation of Suzumori.
In Reference to Claim 24:
Suzumori further discloses wherein the outer wall is made from a rubber. See, rubber may be coated over the framework, whereupon elastic partitions may be formed in the framework
In Reference to Claim 25:
Suzumori further discloses wherein the outer wall contains fibers (27; 427- aramid fibers, but also discloses use of nylon fibers).
In Reference to Claim 26:
Suzumori further discloses wherein the outer wall and the partition walls are made from the same material. See, Figure 34 which shows the chamber being surrounded by an outer layer 427.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzumori et al., U.S. Patent 4,976,191 (hereinafter “Suzumori”) in view of Applicant's Admitted Prior art.
In Reference to Claim 4 and 5:
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have the partition walls formed from a material having a Youngs Modulus in the range of 104 to 106 and/or the partition walls having a thickness between 1/20 and ¼ of the total diameter of the manipulator and wherein the outer wall is made of a material having a Young’s Modulus in the range of 104 to 106 and/or a thickness of between 1/20 an ¼ of the total diameter of the manipulator because such choices are merely a design choice during the process of achieving optimization of the apparatus for the given environment in which the manipulator is to operate.
In Reference to Claim 23:
Suzumori discloses all the limitations set forth in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the tubular structures has notches and optionally the tubular structure is formed from a metallic material, optionally nitinol.
However, in Applicant’s Admitted prior art the structure is tubular in nature and contains notches. See, Figure 1 and 2.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Suzumori with the teachings of Applicant’s Admitted Prior art, specifically to modify the tubular structure of Suzumori with the notched tubular structure as taught in Applicant’s admitted prior art because such a modification is a simple substitution of one known actuator type for another providing the same predictable results.
Examiner notes that as claim 23 is currently constructed the only required limitation is the tubular structure containing notches, the language that follows such limitation are not required due to Applicant stating that the limitations are optional.
Conclusion
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).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745