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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 8, lines 1-2, “The elastic layer 68 can be coated the light layer 70” should read “The elastic layer 68 can be coated with the light layer 70”.
On page 12, line 3, “a surface or near surface a layer” should read “a surface or a near surface layer”.
On page 13, lines 12-13, “The path 78 includes at least one, and in the illustrated embodiment several optical elements” should read “The path 78 includes at least one, and in the illustrated embodiment, several optical elements”.
On page 15, lines 15-16, “In some embodiments, the camera system one or more portions of the camera view field will be constructed” should read “In some embodiments, one or more portions of the camera view field will be constructed”.
On page 15, lines 15-17, the following sentence is unclear: “In some embodiments, the camera system one or more portions of the camera view field will be constructed in such a way that they do not image tactile sensor gel surfaces but image some part of the external environment directly.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
The word "light" used here is unclear. It is unclear whether the applicant means to use “illuminated” or any similar language, or leave as is.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 6, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alt et al (U.S. Patent No. 9757862).
Regarding claim 1, Alt et al teaches an apparatus comprising (Abstract):
A robotic visual tactile device having an end effector that includes a plurality of effectors (61, 62) each structured to engage a work piece (4), the robotic visual tactile device also including an image sensor (3) structured to capture visual data related to engagement of the plurality of effectors (61, 62) to the work piece, the robotic visual tactile sensing device having (Column 5, lines 37-46; Fig. 4b, elements 3, 4, 61, 62):
A plurality of visual-tactile contact pads (2) wherein a visual-tactile contact pad (2) of the plurality of visual-tactile contact pads (2) is integrated with each effector (62, 62) of the plurality of effectors (61, 62) (Column 13, lines 25-30; Fig. 4b, element 23); and
An optical path associated with each of the visual-tactile contact pads (2) integrated with its associated effector (6), the optical path connecting the visual-tactile contact pads (2) with the image sensor (3) (Column 7, lines 52-58; Column 8, lines 11-14; Fig. 3, elements 2, 3, 6; annotated figure);
Wherein the image sensor (3) is useful to generate visual data associated with each of the optical paths (Column 5, lines 62-67; Column 6, lines 1-3). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
629
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Alt et al teaches the image sensor (3) is a single sensor (Column 5, lines 37-46; Fig. 4b, element 3).
Regarding claim 6, Alt et al teaches each effector (61, 62) of the plurality of effectors (61, 62) is movable between a first position and a second position, wherein each optical path is structured to move with movement of each effector (61, 62), and wherein each optical path is structured to remain connected with the image sensor (3) at the first position and the second position (Column 13, lines 25-45).
Regarding claim 9, Alt et al teaches a method comprising:
Moving a plurality of effectors (61, 62) of a robotic end effector into engagement with the work piece (4), each of the plurality of effectors (61, 62) having a visual-tactile contact pad (2) structured to deform upon contact with the work piece (4) and provide optical data representative of a contour of the work piece (Column 13, lines 25-45);
Conveying optical data associated with each of the visual-tactile contact pads (2) via an optical path connected between each of the visual-tactile contact pads (2) and the image sensor (3) (Column 7, lines 52-58; Column 8, lines 11-14; Fig. 3, elements 2, 3; annotated figure); and
Capturing the optical data conveyed via the optical path with the image sensor for each of the visual-tactile contact pads (2) (Column 5, lines 62-67; Column 6, lines 1-3). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
629
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Alt et al teaches maintaining the optical path during the moving from a first position to a second position (Column 13, lines 25-45).
Claim(s) 15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore (US 9120233).
Regarding claim 15, Moore teaches an apparatus comprising:
A robotic gripper (200) having multiple fingers each of the fingers having a visual-tactile contact pad (400) structured to deform upon contact with a work piece (365) and project a light corresponding to a contour of the work piece (365) when contacted, the robotic gripper (200) including a single image sensor (350) structured to receive the light projected from visual-tactile contact pad (400) when illuminated by a light source, the single image sensor (350) capable of imaging the contour from each of the visual-tactile contact pads (400) when light (Column 2, lines 57-64; Column 5, lines 34-38; Column 3, lines 54-60; Column 6, lines 38-41).
Regarding claim 17, Moore teaches the image sensor (350) is structured to receive light projected from the work piece (365) without passing through any visual-tactile contact pad (400) (Column 5, lines 64-66; Column 6, lines 29-41; Fig. 2A, elements 350, 365, 400).
Regarding claim 18, Moore teaches at least one of the fingers of the multiple fingers is structured to be moveable, and wherein the robotic gripper (200) is structured to maintain an optical path from the visual-tactile contact pad (400) to the image sensor (300, 350) during movement of the at least one of the fingers (Column 2, lines 8-11).
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.
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) 3, 4, 8, 12and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alt et al in view of Adelson (US 20090315989).
Regarding claim 3, Alt et al fails to teach an optical path with a mirror. Adelson teaches a visual-tactile sensor comprising an optical path that includes at least one mirror (22) (Paragraph 0029, lines 6-8; Fig. 4C, element 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Adelson in Alt et al to facilitate the creation of an optical path with a mirror that can reflect light towards the camera as taught by Adelson (Paragraph 0029, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 4, Alt et al in view of Adelson discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of mirrors. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the mirror, since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to duplicate certain parts on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 8, Alt et al fails to teach visual contact pads that can project light. Adelson teaches a visual-tactile sensor where each of the visual-tactile contact pads of the plurality of visual-tactile contact pads is constructed to project light at wavelengths distinct from each other such that the image sensor (14) is capable of distinguishing light data from the respective visual-tactile contact pads (Paragraph 0006, lines 1-17; Fig. 4A, element 14; annotated figure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Adelson in Alt et al to facilitate the creation of visual-tactile contact pads that can project light and convey information about the pressure applied by the workpiece as taught by Adelson (Paragraph 0020, lines 16-19). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
394
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Alt et al fails to teach contact pads that transmit light. Adelson teaches a visual-tactile sensor wherein the conveying includes transmitting light at separate frequencies from each of the visual-tactile contact pads such that the capturing includes capturing light at the separate frequencies at the image sensor (14) from each of the visual-tactile contact pads (Paragraph 0006, lines 1-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Adelson in Alt et al to facilitate the creation of visual-tactile contact pads that transmit varying amounts of light to the camera in order to form an image as taught by Adelson (Paragraph 0006, lines 8-14).
Regarding claim 13, Alt et al in view of Adelson discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of mirrors. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the mirror, since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to duplicate certain parts on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alt et al in view of Adelson and in further view of Moore (US 9120233).
Regarding claim 5, Alt et al in view of Adelson fails to teach an optical path between the image sensor and the work piece. Moore teaches an end effector with visual-tactile sensors comprising a separate optical path that is defined between the work piece (365) and the image sensor (350) that is independent of each of the visual-tactile contact pads (400), and wherein the image sensor (350) is useful to generate visual data associated with each of the optical paths and the separate optical path (Column 5, lines 64-66; Column 6, lines 29-41; Fig. 2A, elements 350, 365, 400; annotated figure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Moore in Alt et al as modified by Adelson to facilitate the creation of an optical path that can gather data based on the position of the work piece relative to the camera as taught by Moore (Column 5, lines 64-66; Column 6, lines 8-10). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
664
834
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alt et al in view of Moore (US 9120233).
Regarding claim 7, Alt et al fails to teach a controller. Moore teaches an end effector with a visual-tactile sensor comprising a controller (260) structured to regulate operation of the robotic visual tactile device (105), and wherein the controller (260) is structured to regulate operation of the image sensor (300, 350) (Column 2, lines 8-11; Column 6, lines 4-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Moore in Alt et al to facilitate the creation of a controller that can determine an optimal contact location as taught by Moore (Column 2, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 10, Alt et al fails to teach image data collected apart from the contact pads. Moore et al teaches an end effector with a visual-tactile sensor with a method of capturing image data with the image sensor (350) independent of the visual-tactile contact pads (400) (Column 5, lines 64-66; Column 6, lines 29-41; Fig. 2A, elements 350, 400).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Moore in Alt et al to facilitate the creation of an image sensor that can collect data separately from the contact pads and function as a proximity detector as taught by Moore (Column 3, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 11, Alt et al fails to teach an optical path that is between the first and second optical paths. Moore teaches an end effector with a visual-tactile sensor with a method of capturing image data which occurs in a direct optical path located between a first optical path associated with a first visual-tactile contact pad (400) of the plurality of visual-tactile contact pads (400) and a second optical path associated with a second visual-tactile contact pad (400) of the plurality of visual-tactile contact pads (400) (Column 5, lines 64-66; Column 6, lines 29-41; Fig. 2A, elements 350).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Moore in Alt et al to facilitate the creation of a third optical path that provides information on the distance between the manipulator and the work piece as taught by Moore (Column 5, lines 64-66).
Claim(s) 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Adelson.
Regarding claim 16, Moore fails to teach visual contact pads that can project light at different wavelengths. Adelson teaches a visual-tactile sensor where the light projected from a first visual-tactile contact pad is at a different wavelength than the light projected from a second visual-tactile contact pad (Paragraph 0006, lines 1-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Adelson in Moore to facilitate the creation of visual-tactile contact pads that can project light at different wavelengths and convey information about the pressure applied by the workpiece as taught by Adelson (Paragraph 0020, lines 16-19).
Regarding claim 19, Moore fails to teach optical paths that include mirrors. Adelson teaches a visual-tactile sensor comprising an optical path that includes a mirror (22) (Paragraph 0029, lines 6-8; Fig. 4C, element 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Adelson in Moore to facilitate the creation of optical paths using a plurality of mirrors that can direct light to the camera for image processing (Paragraph 0006, lines 1-17; Paragraph 0029, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 20, Moore further teaches an image sensor (350) that is positioned to receive light directly from the work piece (365) in an optical path located between a first finger and a second finger (Column 5, lines 64-66; Column 6, lines 29-41; Fig. 2A, elements 350, 365; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
664
834
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights