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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-25 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to the nonelected species B, C, D, E, & F, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/30/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that each species includes similarities such as two structures are actuated to be brought together to grasp an object and therefore, the election of species requirement should be removed. This is not found persuasive because applicant fails to articulate how the patentably distinct features outlined in the election of species requirement are not distinct.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciocarlie (US Patent 8,833,827 B2) in view of Keplinger (WO 2018175741 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the robot hand of Ciocarlie teaches a system for grasping an object (Abstract), the system comprising:
first and second actuators (motor 434; Col. 17 ln 7-10); and first and second structures (202a, 202b; Col. 5 ln 53-59), the first structure being mechanically connected with the first actuator and the second structure being mechanically connected with the second actuator (Fig 4; Col. 7 ln 21-29; Col. 9 ln 18-22),
wherein the first and second structures is configured for cooperating with each other such that, when the first and second actuators are activated, the first and second structure grasp the object therebetween (Fig 4; Col. 5 ln 53-59).
Ciocarlie does not teach actuators using a shell, dielectric fluid and electrodes. However, the Keplinger disclosure teaches an actuator connected to a string and a lifting arm (Fig 30A-30C) comprising
a compliant shell defining an enclosed cavity (Claim 1),
a dielectric fluid disposed within the enclosed cavity (Claim 1),
a first electrode disposed on a first side of the compliant shell (Claim 1), and
a second electrode disposed on a second, opposing side of the compliant shell (Claim 1), and
wherein each one of the first and second actuators is activatable by application of a voltage on one of the first and second electrodes such that an electrostatic force between the first and second electrodes draws the first and second electrodes toward each other to displace the dielectric fluid within the enclosed cavity (Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the robot hand of Ciocarlie by replacing the motor with the actuator of Keplinger to increase safety with interaction with humans, and better handle delicate and irregular objects ([0002] ln 4-7). Additionally, the actuator of Keplinger harnesses hydraulic principles to scale actuation force and strain ([0006] ln 8-9), achieves a wide range of different modes of actuation ([0006] ln 9-10), and allows for mechanical and electrical properties to be tuned independently ([0006] ln 12).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 7 as described above, Ciocarlie further teaches a robotic arm (1480, Fig 14A-B; Col. 17 ln 30-34), the robotic arm being configured for connecting with at least one of the first and second actuators and the first and second structures (Fig 14A-B; Col. 17 ln 30-34).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 7 as described above, Ciocarlie further teaches the first and second structures include a flexible finger (402, Fig 4; Fig 1A-F).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 7 as described above, Ciocarlie further teaches a flexible finger (402, Fig 4),
wherein the flexible finger includes segments (412, 414, 324, Fig 4), each one of the segments being connected to each other one of the segments with a flexible hinge (426a, 426b, Fig 4),
wherein the flexible finger further includes a tendon (416) passing through the segments (Fig 4),
a proximal end of the tendon being connected with one of the first and second actuators and a distal end of the tendon being anchored in one of the segments farthest from the one of the first and second actuators onto which the tendon is connected (Fig 4; Col. 7 ln 21-35), and
wherein, when the first actuator is activated, the flexible finger of the first structure is moved from an initial position to a bent position (Col. 7 ln 21-25; Fig 4).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 10 as described above, Ciocarlie further teaches a flexible finger (402, Fig 4) further including
an elastic restoring band (418+430) being configured for restoring the flexible finger of the first structure from the bent position to the initial position, when the first actuator is inactivated (Fig 4; Col. 7 ln 61-65).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 10 as described above,
Ciocarlie further teaches when the second actuator is activated, the flexible finger of the second structure is moved from an initial position to a bent position (Col. 7 ln 21-25; Fig 4), and
wherein the bent position of the flexible finger of the first structure and the bent position of the flexible finger of the second structure are turned toward each other so as to pick up the object therebetween when the first and second actuators are activated (Fig 1A-F; Col. 1 ln 29-45).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 9 as described above,
Ciocarlie further teaches each one of the first and second structures include a structural layer (412, 414, 324, Fig 4) with flexible hinges (426a, 426b, Fig 4),
wherein the first actuator is configured to cooperate with the first structure to bend the flexible hinges of the first structure when the first actuator is activated (Fig 4; Col. 7 ln 21-25), and
wherein the second actuator is configured to cooperate with the second structure to bend the flexible hinges of the second structure when the second actuator is activated (Fig 4; Col. 7 ln 21-25; Col. 17 ln 7-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 20160047021 A discloses a manipulator with at least two actuated, flexible fingers with tendons and elastic restoring bands.
US 4,466,649 A discloses a manipulator with at least two actuated, flexible fingers with tendons.
US 3,084,967 A discloses a manipulator with at least two flexible fingers with tendons.
US 20060224249 A1 discloses a manipulator with at least two actuated, flexible fingers with tendons.
US 5,200,679 A discloses a manipulator with at least two actuated, flexible fingers with tendons.
US 20220178414 A1 discloses a two finger levered manipulator with artificial muscle actuation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4, M-Fr.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/RALPH D WILKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights