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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/21/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have removed the language which raised Examiner’s 35 USC 112(b) rejection. As such, Examiner has withdrawn his 112(b) rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the newly amended limitations overcome the prior art. Specifically that the newly amended limitation of “the central element being inextendible and has a bending stiffness that is a combination of the parts with negligible bending stiffness and rigid parts” is a distinguishing feature not found in the prior art. Examiner does not agree. Examiner believes the prior art has the analogous structure of Applicant’s claim language and as such teaches the newly amended limitation. Furthermore, within Applicant’s remarks, Applicant mentions in the remarks but ignores the language that illustrates the same structure as Applicant’s and only touches upon the alternative embodiment suggested by the prior art which would have differed structure and likely would have made their argument persuasive. It is for this reason the Examiner is not persuaded and has maintained his rejections.
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, such that the outer wall of each segment forms part of the outer wall of the manipulator (see, Figure 34, 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 being defined by the partition walls and outer wall, wherein the outer wall of manipulator comprises the outer wall of each segment (See, Figure 31-33) and wherein the central element is inextendible (metal wire 428), and has a bending stiffness that is a combination of parts with negligible bending stiffness and rigid parts, whereby when a differential pressure is applied in the chambers, the increase in volume in the pressurised chambers is maximised for a given increase in bending, and thus the force of the device is maximized. Examiner notes that the prior art has the analogous structure as Applicant’s claimed invention and as such would therefore operate and function the same and therefore meet the newly amended limitation.
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
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
Prosecution Insights