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, 5-7, and 10-25 are currently pending. Claims 12-23 are withdrawn as non-elected inventions. Claims 3-4 and 8-9 are canceled. As per the amendments filed on 01/20/2026, claims 1, 5-7, and 11 are amended and claims 24-25 are newly added. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, and 24-25 are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 6-9, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-11 have been fully considered. Claims 3-4 and 8-9 are canceled. Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues:
A portion of claim 7 has been incorporated into claim 1. Namely, the limitations of "the contact aided part (122) is formed as a tooth-like structure meshing with an adjacent contact aided part (122)" have been incorporated into claim 1, in re-worded fashion. At page 9 of the Office Action, the Examiner admitted that Hu et al. fails to disclose these limitations of claim 7. In view of these amendments, it is respectfully submitted that claim 1, as amended, along with dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 10, and 11, are patentable over Hu et al. (page 6, 01/20/2026 Remarks)
This argument is persuasive. As previously examined in the 10/01/25 non-final rejection (pages 9-10, claim 7), Hu does not disclose the tooth-like structure. As this limitation has been incorporated into claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-11 over Hu are withdrawn. Applicant further argues:
Based on the applied rejection, the Examiner hypothetically modified the circular rolling contacts of Hu et al. to include "interlacing teeth" based on Veltri et al. (p. 9, Office Action). However, as stated above, the circular rolling contacts "allow relative movement along their circumferences." Applying interlacing teeth to the circular rolling contacts would restrict "relative movement along their circumferences," which is contrary to allowing such movement. This is, thus, an impermissible modification. As set forth in MPEP §2143.0l(V), "[i]f a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification." Moreover, as set forth in MPEP §2143.0l(VI), "[i]fthe proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious." Restricting relative movement along the circumference of the circular rolling contacts is contrary to allowing relative movement, which is desired and intended in Hu et al. The proposed modification of Hu et al. both impermissibly alters Hu et al. to be unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and changes the principle of operation of Hu et al. In all, it is respectfully submitted that claim 1, as amended, along with dependent claims 2, 5-7, 10-11, and 24-25, are patentable over Hu et al. and Veltri et al., each taken alone or in combination. (page 8, 01/20/2026 Remarks)
This argument is not persuasive. Hu discloses contact aided parts matching the amended claimed limitations except for the surface pattern on the contact aided parts being tooth-like structures which mesh together (see 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1 in this action). Veltri teaches an articulating robotic joint with contact surfaces between adjacent turns (Col 2, Lines 59-67, with helices described in Col 3, Lines 40-50), containing a tooth-like surface to promote interlacing and better grip between two surfaces in a cylindrical robotic joint (Col 4, Lines 65-67 and Col 5, Line 1 – “In various embodiments, shape of the bumper element 502 and socket element 504 can be interlacing triangular teeth, rectangular type gears, or other interlacing shapes). This interlacing is interpreted as applying to contact surfaces in bending robotic joints in general (where smooth surfaces can be modified with different patterns to increase surface area and improve grip) and would be applicable to the surfaces between the contact aided parts in Hu as well. Therefore, upon further consideration, new 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for claims 1-2, 5-6, and 10-11 over Hu in view of Veltri are added (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” section).
Applicant also argues:
Pursuant to MPEP §821.04, Applicant also requests rejoinder of claims 12-23 with allowance of claim 1. As stated in MPEP §821.04, "[i]n order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim." This is the case at hand. All of claims 12-23 depend from claim 1, and all of claims 12-23 require all of the limitations of claim 1. Applicant respectfully requests rejoinder of claims 12-23 with allowance of claim 1. (page 9, 01/20/2026 Remarks)
Amended claim 1 is not found allowable based on the prior art (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103). Therefore, the inventions in Groups I-III still lack the same or corresponding special technical features and the non-elected inventions in claims 12-23 are not being considered for rejoinder at this time.
Newly added claims 24-25 are evaluated in light of the above arguments and rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hu in view of Veltri (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” section).
Summary: The prior art rejections for claims 1-11 are withdrawn. New 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-11 are added (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103”). New 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for newly added claims 24-25 are added (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103”). Note a 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection is added.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, and 24-25 are 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: The use of the term “portions” in “wherein each of the contact aided parts (122) extends transversely from the respective axial centerline in opposing directions to have first and second portions protruding in opposing directions from the respective first turn (121)” and “wherein, for each of the contact aided parts (122), the first and second portions are at least partially adorned with tooth-like structures” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which component the “first and second portions” are referring to in the claim language. The term “portions” is not used in the specification regarding the contact aided parts and it is unclear if the “first and second portions” are definitively a part of the contact aided parts. Based on the surrounding claim language, the Examiner is currently inferring that “portions” are meant to be interpreted as the surfaces of the contact aided parts in contact with the two longitudinally-adjacent contact aided portions.
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 10-11, and 24-25 are rejected for being dependent on rejected claim 1.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, and 24-25 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (NPL, “Design and Fabrication of a 3-D Printed Metallic Flexible Joint for Snake-Like Surgical Robot”, see previously cited) in view of Veltri (US 8,347,754 B1, see previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu discloses a flexible joint (1) (Figure 1: “The CAD of the proposed flexible joint with 1-DoF bending”) comprising two support sections (11) (Figure 7 – support sections are presented on either side of the upper S bending section) and an articulated section (12) connected between the two support sections (11) (Figure 7 – the bending sections are equivalent to the articulated sections),
• the articulated section (12) including a plurality of first turns (121) (Figure 2 – “The FEA of an optimally designed flexible joint which has 12 helical turns”) with contact aided parts (122) (Figure 2, pages 1559-1560: “Despite extensive analytical work on helical spring, such as Whal [20], previous analyses are mostly based on regular shaped spring wires instead of irregular cross-section wires, such as the proposed rolling contact aided structure, making Eq. (7) inaccurate for describing the flexible joint”);
• wherein the contact aided parts (122) are oppositely arranged on two sides of each first turn (121) (Figure 1, Figure 5 - the contact aided parts are present on opposite sides of the helical turns);
• wherein an axial centerline of the contact aided parts (122) arranged on a respective first turn (121) coincides with a circumferential centerline of the respective first turn (121) (Figure 2 – “The FEA of an optimally designed flexible joint which has 12 helical turns”). The instant application defines the axial and circumferential centerlines: “FIG. 7 is a schematic cross-sectional view of the first turn 121 of the flexible joint 1 illustrated in FIG. 5. As shown, the first turn 121 has a circular cross-section; a circular central hole is formed in the center of the first turn 121; and the contact aided parts 122 are diametrically provided on two sides of the hole. An axial centerline L1 of the contact aided parts 122 coincides with a circumferential centerline L2 of the first turn 121, that is, a straight line passing through the cross-section center of the first turn 121” (Specification, Page 9). With these definitions, the axial centerline of the contact-aided cylinders presented in Figure 2 in Hu coincides with the circumferential centerline at the center of the first turn;
• wherein each of the contact aided parts (122) extends transversely from the respective axial centerline in opposing directions to have first and second portions protruding in opposing directions from the respective first turn (121) (Figure 1 – this depiction of the contact aided part shows the contact aided parts on opposing sides of the cylinder where the contact aided parts are in contact with the surfaces, likened to the “portions” in the claim language, of adjacent contact aided parts along the longitudinal axis);
• when the flexible joint is in a bent state, the contact aided parts (122) of adjacent first turns (121) are in contact with each other (Figure 5 – the contact-aided section is in contact with an adjacent contact-aided section; page 1558 – “To prevent the undesirable axial compression of the helical structure, a series of circular rolling contacts are introduced at each turn of the helix”); and
• wherein at each first turn (121) of the articulated section (12) are provided a plurality of tendon through-holes (5) for a driving tendon (6) to pass through (page 1558 – “Antagonised pulling tendons are routed through the guiding channels inside the helical structure and terminated at the structures distal end. To prevent the undesirable axial compression of the helical structure, a series of circular rolling contacts are introduced at each turn of the helix”).
However, Hu does not disclose:
• wherein, for each of the contact aided parts (122), the first and second portions are at least partially adorned with tooth-like structures; and
• when the flexible joint is in a bent state, the tooth-like structures of the contact aided parts (122) of adjacent first turns (121) are in meshing contact with each other.
Veltri, in the same field of endeavor of a flexible robotic joint (Col 2, Lines 59-67, elements 108 or 110), teaches a smooth surface between adjacent contacting elements (Col 5, Lines 10-12) regulating motion between adjacent turns in a helix (Col 3, Lines 40-50). The surfaces can alternatively be a tooth-like meshing structure between adjacent contact-aided parts so that the surfaces can interlace (Col 4, Lines 65-67 and Col 5, Line 1 – “In various embodiments, shape of the bumper element 502 and socket element 504 can be interlacing triangular teeth, rectangular type gears, or other interlacing shapes).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Hu’s robotic joint with cylindrical contact-aided parts by incorporating the interlacing teeth on contact surfaces in Veltri. This would have been obvious because both Hu and Veltri discuss flexible robotic joints with contacting parts to regulate joint bending and Veltri provides a solution/improvement of teeth-like patterns on the contacting parts to better promote interlacing (grip from greater surface area) of the components. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Hu by incorporating the interlacing teeth on contact surfaces in Veltri.
Therefore, Claim 1 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri.
Regarding Claim 2, the flexible joint according to Claim 1 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri, as indicated hereinabove. Hu further discloses wherein the plurality of first turns (121) are connected with each other in a helical manner to form a helical structure (page 1558 – “The design is based on a helical spring-like structure, which serves as the bending backbone”; Figure 2 – “The FEA of an optimally designed flexible joint which has 12 helical turns”).
Therefore, Claim 2 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri.
Regarding Claim 5, the flexible joint according to Claim 1 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri, as indicated hereinabove. Hu further discloses wherein at least one of the contact aided part (122) has a circular or elliptical cross-section (page 1558 – “In addition to preventing axial compression, the circular rolling contacts also serve as constraints which only allow relative movement along their circumferences”).
Therefore, Claim 5 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri.
Regarding Claim 6, the flexible joint according to Claim 1 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri, as indicated hereinabove. Hu further discloses wherein at least one of the contact aided part (122) is configured as a cylinder or a cone (Figure 5 – the contact-aided section is in contact with an adjacent contact-aided section where the contact-aided sections are smooth cylinders, page 1558 – “In addition to preventing axial compression, the circular rolling contacts also serve as constraints which only allow relative movement along their circumferences”).
Therefore, Claim 6 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri.
Regarding Claim 7, the flexible joint according to Claim 1 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri, as indicated hereinabove. Hu discloses the contact aided parts as cylinders (Figure 5 – the contact-aided section is in contact with an adjacent contact-aided section where the contact-aided sections are smooth cylinders, page 1558 – “In addition to preventing axial compression, the circular rolling contacts also serve as constraints which only allow relative movement along their circumferences”).
Claim 7 has been amended to now require the contact aided parts have polygonal cross-sections. It was previously discussed in the 10/01/25 action that Hu does not explicitly mention a polygonal cross-section. However, the cross-sections of a cylinder along the three axes can be either a circle, ellipse, or rectangle (a rectangle would be formed if taking a cross section length-wise). Given a rectangle is a polygon, a cross-section of the cylindrical contact aided parts in Hu is a polygon.
Therefore, Claim 7 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri.
Regarding Claim 10, the flexible joint according to Claim 1 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri, as indicated hereinabove. Hu discloses an integrally formed helical joint which can be 3D-printed (page 1558 – “In this letter, we would like to demonstrate a patented, monolithically produced flexible joint (Patent Number: GB1812622.7). The flexible joint takes advantage of the rolling contact joints and the compliant structure. The proposed flexible joint is designed with the aid of FEA and manufactured by utilizing a 3D metal printing, called laser melting (SLM) technique”).
However, it should be noted this 3D printing limitation is interpreted as product-by-process according to MPEP 2113: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113 (II) further states: “Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.” Hu contains all the limitations for the apparatus claimed in claim 1.
Therefore, Claim 10 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri.
Regarding Claim 11, the flexible joint according to Claim 1 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri, as indicated hereinabove. Hu further discloses wherein the tendon through-holes (5) are each designed to be open at the periphery of the respective first turn (121) (Figure 7 - the routed tendons are exposed at the periphery and open after passing through each turn).
Therefore, Claim 11 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri.
Regarding Claim 24, the flexible joint according to Claim 1 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri, as indicated hereinabove. Hu discloses wherein, for at least one of the first turns (121), first and second tendon through-holes (5) of the plurality of tendon through-holes (5) are disposed along a connection line which is perpendicular to the axial centerline of the contact aided parts (122) of the respective first turn (121) (Figure 2 – “The FEA of an optimally designed flexible joint which has 12 helical turns” – tendons appear highlighted red; page 1558 – “Antagonised pulling tendons are routed through the guiding channels inside the helical structure and terminated at the structures distal end. To prevent the undesirable axial compression of the helical structure, a series of circular rolling contacts are introduced at each turn of the helix”). The instant application defines the axial and circumferential centerlines: “FIG. 7 is a schematic cross-sectional view of the first turn 121 of the flexible joint 1 illustrated in FIG. 5. As shown, the first turn 121 has a circular cross-section; a circular central hole is formed in the center of the first turn 121; and the contact aided parts 122 are diametrically provided on two sides of the hole. An axial centerline L1 of the contact aided parts 122 coincides with a circumferential centerline L2 of the first turn 121, that is, a straight line passing through the cross-section center of the first turn 121” (Specification, Page 9). With these definitions, the axial centerline of the contact-aided cylinders presented in Figure 2 in Hu would be perpendicular to the longitudinally-oriented tendons.
Therefore, Claim 24 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri.
Regarding Claim 25, the flexible joint according to Claim 24 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri, as indicated hereinabove. Hu discloses wherein the axial centerline is located between the first and second tendon through-holes (5) (Figure 2 – “The FEA of an optimally designed flexible joint which has 12 helical turns” – tendons appear highlighted red; page 1558 – “Antagonised pulling tendons are routed through the guiding channels inside the helical structure and terminated at the structures distal end. To prevent the undesirable axial compression of the helical structure, a series of circular rolling contacts are introduced at each turn of the helix”). Based on the definition of the axial centerline established in claim 24, the two tendon through-holes allowing the tendon to pass seen in Hu Fig. 1 are symmetrically disposed on opposite sides of the overall cylinder-shaped joint where the axial centerline defined by the contact aided parts would pass between the tendon through holes.
Therefore, Claim 25 is obvious over Hu in view of Veltri.
Conclusions
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on 571-270-3061. 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.
/Benjamin A. Schmitt/
Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796