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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 20 have been amended. Claims 21-26 have been added. Claims 1-26 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the prior art rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully 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.
Priority
The actual filing date for the instant application is 22 Sep 22. However, the instant application requests domestic benefit to a provisionally filed application 63/360350, filed 25 Sep 21. As such, the effective filing date of each of the instant application’s claims under examination may be as recent as the instant application’s actual filing date of 22 Sep 22, or potentially as early as the filing date of 25 Sep 21 (filing date of 63/360350), depending on whether there is appropriate specification support for each particular claim in the earlier-filed specification. In the case that a prior art rejection to one or more claims made in an Office action during prosecution of the instant application includes one or more prior art references that fall somewhere between 22 Sep 22 and 25 Sep 21 (an "intervening" reference), if Applicant can specifically identify appropriate specification support for each of these claims in the earlier filed provisional application, then the Examiner may determine that one or more of these prior art rejections against one or more of these claims will need to be withdrawn.
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 1-11 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5447403 A (“Engler”) in view of US 20190328550 A1 (“Akhtar”).
As per Claim 1, Engler discloses an apparatus for providing controlled movement of a robotic appendage, comprising:
a digit, wherein the digit comprises a first joint and a second joint (Col 3 Lines 14-17—“The hand 12 includes four finger digits, an index finger 24, a middle finger 26, a ring finger 28, a little finger 30 and opposable thumb digit 22, creating a total of twenty working joints”); and
an actuator configured to control a degree of freedom of the digit (Col 3 Lines 37-40—“Actuation of fingers 24, 26, 28 and 30 and thumb 22 is provided for by cabling that originates at a given joint, terminating at a servo motor that drives the respective joint.”);
wherein the actuator causes the first joint to bend at a first rate from a first position to a second position and the second joint to bend at a second rate from a third position to a fourth position (Claim 6—“wherein said distal link of said fingers rotationally bends at an outermost joint of said three joints at a first rate of rotation, said middle link rotationally bends at an intermediate joint of said three joints at a second rate of rotation”); and
Akhtar teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein the first joint is formed having at least one first material characteristic and the second joint is formed having at least one second material characteristic to cause the first rate to be different from the second rate (¶ 56—“the monolithic bone 100 is made of layers of nylon and thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)… The nylon functions to give the compliant bone stiffness and limit bending, particularly in the distal segment of the bone”; ¶ 57—“monolithic bone 100 may alternatively be constructed of different materials…the monolithic bone 100 has an external nylon layer, a middle TPU layer, and an internal nylon layer… the internal nylon layer is preferably not present within any compliant joint sections (e.g. the compliant PIP joint). In one variation, a nylon layer may be integrated into a rigid, non-actuating (and non-compliant) DIP segment extending from the output joint and/or the coupling link.”; ¶ 62—“the DIP joint includes a nylon layer traversing the entire joint along the long axis of the finger to make the DIP joint additionally resistant to bending and bending forces”; ¶ 63—“bending of the compliant PIP joint induces bending of the DIP joint”). Examiner notes that the DIP joint being resistant to bending while the PIP joint induces bending of the DIP joint shows that the PIP joint moves first and more readily than the resistant DIP joint thus demonstrating different rates of bending for both joints. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Akhtar to create a new and useful system and method for a compliant four-bar linkage mechanism for a robotic finger (Akhtar: ¶ 6).
As per Claim 2, Engler further discloses wherein the actuator comprises a servo, motor, stepper, and linear actuator (Col 3 Lines 37-40—“Actuation of fingers 24, 26, 28 and 30 and thumb 22 is provided for by cabling that originates at a given joint, terminating at a servo motor that drives the respective joint.”).
As per Claim 3, Engler further discloses wherein the digit comprises a wire, wherein the actuator is configured to control a degree of freedom of the digit by exerting a force on the wire (Col 4 Lines 3-5—“The cable routing scheme for the various cables that control the rotational bending of the links of finger 24 is illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3E.”).
As per Claim 4, Engler further discloses one or more return actuators, wherein the one or more return actuators are configured to return the first joint to the first position and return the second joint to the third position (Col 3 Lines 37-40—“Actuation of fingers 24, 26, 28 and 30 and thumb 22 is provided for by cabling that originates at a given joint, terminating at a servo motor that drives the respective joint.”; Col 4 Lines 5-7—“Cables 1 and 2 are responsible for this link rotational bending scheme for links 32 and 34 during finger grasp and release”).
As per Claim 5, Engler further discloses an additional actuator configured to control an additional degree of freedom of the digit (Col 6 Line 25—“lateral finger motors”).
As per Claim 6, Engler further discloses wherein the additional actuator comprises an actuator configured to control flexion at a third joint of the digit (Col 3 Lines 14-17—“The hand 12 includes four finger digits, an index finger 24, a middle finger 26, a ring finger 28, a little finger 30 and opposable thumb digit 22, creating a total of twenty working joints”; Claim 1—“each said flexible finger further including three bending joints connecting its links and thereby allowing it to rotationally bend upwardly and downwardly at these joints”).
As per Claim 7, Engler further discloses wherein the additional actuator comprises an actuator configured to control adduction and abduction of the digit (Col 4 Lines 37-38—“Lateral motion of said finger linkage allowing the space between the fingers to increase and decrease”).
As per Claim 8, Engler further discloses wherein the additional actuator is located at the point of motion of the digit and is configured to directly drive the digit (Col 4 Lines 37-47—“Lateral motion of said finger linkage allowing the space between the fingers to increase and decrease…Actuation of said lateral motion originates at ball and socket joints…terminate at the output pulley of servo motor 192 as shown in FIG. 7A”).
As per Claim 9, Engler further discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a body, wherein the body comprises an arm, wherein the arm comprises the digit (Col 3 Line 13—“hand 12, the wrist 14, the forearm 16, and the elbow 18”).
As per Claim 10, Engler further discloses wherein the arm comprises a shoulder joint, an elbow joint, and a wrist joint (Col 3 Line 13—“hand 12, the wrist 14, the forearm 16, and the elbow 18”; Col 6 Line 58—“shoulder bolt 220”).
As per Claim 11, Engler further discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a user interface (Col 7 Lines 21-28—“The controller 252 shown in the preferred embodiment is a real time controller; however, controller 252 could be computerized. Manipulator control would then have three levels: analog teaching for real time control, analog teaching to a computer such as a personal computer for motion record or replay, and digital motion control using traditional robotic programming methods.”).
As per Claim 20, Engler further discloses a method for providing controlled movement of a robotic appendage, comprising:
receiving a command to control a degree of freedom of a digit, wherein the digit comprises a first joint and a second joint (Col 3 Lines 14-17—“The hand 12 includes four finger digits, an index finger 24, a middle finger 26, a ring finger 28, a little finger 30 and opposable thumb digit 22, creating a total of twenty working joints”; Col 3 Lines 37-40—“Actuation of fingers 24, 26, 28 and 30 and thumb 22 is provided for by cabling that originates at a given joint, terminating at a servo motor that drives the respective joint.”);
using an actuator to cause the first joint to bend at a first rate from a first position to a second position and the second joint to bend at a second rate from a third position to a fourth position (Claim 6—“wherein said distal link of said fingers rotationally bends at an outermost joint of said three joints at a first rate of rotation, said middle link rotationally bends at an intermediate joint of said three joints at a second rate of rotation”),
Akhtar teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein the first joint is formed having at least one first material characteristic and the second joint is formed having at least one second material characteristic to cause the first rate to be different from the second rate (¶ 56—“the monolithic bone 100 is made of layers of nylon and thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)… The nylon functions to give the compliant bone stiffness and limit bending, particularly in the distal segment of the bone”; ¶ 57—“monolithic bone 100 may alternatively be constructed of different materials…the monolithic bone 100 has an external nylon layer, a middle TPU layer, and an internal nylon layer… the internal nylon layer is preferably not present within any compliant joint sections (e.g. the compliant PIP joint). In one variation, a nylon layer may be integrated into a rigid, non-actuating (and non-compliant) DIP segment extending from the output joint and/or the coupling link.”; ¶ 62—“the DIP joint includes a nylon layer traversing the entire joint along the long axis of the finger to make the DIP joint additionally resistant to bending and bending forces”; ¶ 63—“bending of the compliant PIP joint induces bending of the DIP joint”). Examiner notes that the DIP joint being resistant to bending while the PIP joint induces bending of the DIP joint shows that the PIP joint moves first and more readily than the resistant DIP joint thus demonstrating different rates of bending for both joints. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Akhtar to create a new and useful system and method for a compliant four-bar linkage mechanism for a robotic finger (Akhtar: ¶ 6).
As per Claim 21, Akhtar teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein at least one of the at least one first material characteristic and the at least one second material characteristic comprises a material thickness (¶ 46—“The material thickness and structural form can be altered in different regions and along different dimensions to promote different compliance factors”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Akhtar to create a new and useful system and method for a compliant four-bar linkage mechanism for a robotic finger (Akhtar: ¶ 6).
As per Claim 22, Akhtar teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein at least one of the at least one first material characteristic and the at least one second material characteristic comprises a material flexibility (¶ 62—“the DIP joint includes a nylon layer traversing the entire joint along the long axis of the finger to make the DIP joint additionally resistant to bending and bending forces”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Akhtar to create a new and useful system and method for a compliant four-bar linkage mechanism for a robotic finger (Akhtar: ¶ 6).
As per Claim 23, Akhtar teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein at least one of the at least one first material characteristic and the at least one second material characteristic comprises a material size (¶ 46—“The material thickness and structural form can be altered in different regions and along different dimensions to promote different compliance factors”). Examiner notes that a difference in a material’s thickness can also be seen as a difference in its size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Akhtar to create a new and useful system and method for a compliant four-bar linkage mechanism for a robotic finger (Akhtar: ¶ 6).
As per Claim 24, Akhtar teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein at least one of the at least one first material characteristic and the at least one second material characteristic comprises a material type (¶ 57—“monolithic bone 100 may alternatively be constructed of different materials. In some preferred variations, the monolithic bone 100 has an external nylon layer, a middle TPU layer, and an internal nylon layer.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Akhtar to create a new and useful system and method for a compliant four-bar linkage mechanism for a robotic finger (Akhtar: ¶ 6).
As per Claim 25, Akhtar teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein the first joint and the second joint are set at different angles in reference to each other (Fig. 1). Examiner notes that in Fig. 1 the joint at 134 would be at a different angle from the joint at 132 when attached to the rest of the hand (not pictured). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Akhtar to create a new and useful system and method for a compliant four-bar linkage mechanism for a robotic finger (Akhtar: ¶ 6).
As per Claim 26, Engler further discloses wherein the force on the wire controls at least a portion of the degree of freedom of the digit by forcing the first joint to bend at the first rate and the second joint to bend at the second rate (Claim 6—“wherein said first rate of rotation is equal to or greater than said second rate of rotation”).
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engler in view of Akhtar, and further in view of US 20130345872 A1 (“Brooks”).
As per Claim 12, Brooks teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein the apparatus further comprises a camera (¶ 37—“robot typically also includes one or more cameras”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Brooks to provide versatile robots that can easily and quickly be trained for new tasks, preferably without requiring special technical skills from the trainer (Brooks: ¶ 9).
As per Claim 13, Brooks teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein the camera is capable of gesture recognition (¶ 38—“the user may also provide visual input, e.g., by gesturing within the camera's field of view”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Brooks to provide versatile robots that can easily and quickly be trained for new tasks, preferably without requiring special technical skills from the trainer (Brooks: ¶ 9).
As per Claim 14, Brooks teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein the apparatus further comprises a physical feedback mechanism (¶ 12—“the robot arm may, when guided by the user, also provide haptic feedback to the user”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Brooks to provide versatile robots that can easily and quickly be trained for new tasks, preferably without requiring special technical skills from the trainer (Brooks: ¶ 9).
As per Claim 15, Brooks teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein the physical feedback mechanism comprises a proximity sensor (¶ 12—“The arm, when held by the user, may also exert time-variable force patterns (or "haptic signatures") in response to certain conditions (such as, e.g., the proximity to a particular type of object)”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Brooks to provide versatile robots that can easily and quickly be trained for new tasks, preferably without requiring special technical skills from the trainer (Brooks: ¶ 9).
As per Claim 16, Brooks teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein the actuator is controlled by a processor (¶ 16—"processor is configured to cause the robot to turn toward an estimated location of the user”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Brooks to provide versatile robots that can easily and quickly be trained for new tasks, preferably without requiring special technical skills from the trainer (Brooks: ¶ 9).
As per Claim 17, Brooks teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein the processor is connected to a network (¶ 39—“The computational facility 114 may be embedded in the robot, or provided remotely and in communication with the robot via wired or wireless links”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Brooks to provide versatile robots that can easily and quickly be trained for new tasks, preferably without requiring special technical skills from the trainer (Brooks: ¶ 9).
As per Claim 18, Brooks teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein the body comprises a head (¶ 18—“a robot body having a torso and a head”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Brooks to provide versatile robots that can easily and quickly be trained for new tasks, preferably without requiring special technical skills from the trainer (Brooks: ¶ 9).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engler in view of Akhtar and Brooks as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of KR 20220023543 A (“Ko”).
As per Claim 19, Ko teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Engler, including namely wherein the apparatus is configured to change a position of the arm or digit to be in contact with the head (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Engler to include the limitations as taught by Ko to deal with complex exchange situations between a human and robot (Ko: BACKGROUND-ART Section).
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 BASIL T JOS whose telephone number is (571)270-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 8:00 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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/Basil T. Jos/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658