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, lines 3-4 “a surface or near surface a layer” should read “a surface or a near surface layer”.
On page 14, lines 7-8, “yet feature of the present application” should read “yet another feature of the present application”.
On page 15, line 3, “Another aspect of the present application includes method of operating” should read “Another aspect of the present application includes a method of operating”.
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, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adelson (U.S. Patent No. RE45578).
Regarding claim 1, Adelson teaches an apparatus comprising:
A visual tactile sensing device structured to image a work piece (46) prior to engagement with a visual-tactile contact pad to develop work piece image data, and to image a tactile impression of the work piece (46) upon engagement of the work piece (46) with the visual-tactile contact pad to develop tactile image data, the visual tactile sensing device having (Abstract):
A lighting system structured to emit light (Column 1, lines 64-67; Column 2, line 1);
A camera (14) structured to image electromagnetic radiation associated with the light emitted from the lighting system (Column 4, lines 57-59; Fig. 4A, element 14); and
Wherein the visual-tactile contact pad includes:
A rigid base (17) (Column 4, lines 57-59; Fig. 4A, element 17);
An elastic layer (16) coupled to the rigid base (17), the rigid base (17) providing a structural support for the elastic layer (16) (Column 4, lines 57-59; Fig. 4A, elements 16, 17);
A light layer (18) structured to receive light from the lighting system and emanate a first electromagnetic wavelength therefrom, the light layer (18) positioned adjacent the elastic layer (16) such that the elastic layer (16) is positioned between the rigid base (17) and the light layer (18) (Column 4, lines 59-61); and
A spectrally absorbing layer positioned adjacent the elastic layer (16) such that the elastic layer (16) is positioned between the rigid base (17) and the spectrally absorbing layer, the spectrally absorbing layer structured to remove the first electromagnetic wavelength and permit passage of a second electromagnetic wavelength of light (Column 10, lines 14-21);
Wherein the elastic layer (16), the light layer (18), and the spectrally absorbing layer of the visual-tactile contact pad are structured to deform upon engagement of the work piece (46) with the visual-tactile contact pad, wherein the tactile image data is generated from the first electromagnetic wavelength emanating from the light layer (18) upon engagement of the work piece (46) to the visual-contact pad, and wherein the work piece image data is generated from the second electromagnetic wavelength emanating from the work piece (46) which passes through the spectrally absorbing layer (Column 4, lines 43-46, 59-61; Column 10, lines 24-28; Fig. 6A, elements 44, 46).
Regarding claim 2, Adelson teaches the light layer (18) is structured to reflect the first electromagnetic wavelength (Column 4, lines 59-61; Fig. 4A, element 18; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Adelson teaches the light layer (18) is structured to fluoresce upon receipt of the first electromagnetic wavelength and produce a fluorescent wavelength as a result, and wherein the spectrally absorbing layer is structured to absorb the fluorescent wavelength (Column 10, lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 4, Adelson teaches the lighting system includes two light sources (12) (Column 4, lines 57-59; Fig. 4A, element 12).
Regarding claim 5, Adelson teaches the two light sources (12) are disposed on opposite sides of the camera (14) (Fig. 4A, elements 12, 14).
Regarding claim 11, Adelson teaches a method of operating a visual tactile sensing device, comprising:
Emitting a light from a lighting system toward a visual-tactile contact pad of a robotic system, the robotic system including a camera (14) for imaging a work piece (46) and contact of the work piece (46) with the visual-tactile contact pad (Column 1, lines 64-67; column 2, line 1);
Passing the light through a rigid base (17) and an elastic layer (16) coupled to the rigid base (17) of the visual-tactile contact pad (Column 4, lines 57-59; Fig. 4A, elements 12, 16, 17);
Emitting a first electromagnetic wavelength from a light layer (18) which is attached to the elastic layer (16) and in a direction toward the camera (14) (Column 4, lines 59-61; fig. 4A, elements 14, 16, 18);
Absorbing the first electromagnetic wavelength in a spectrally absorbing layer attached to the light layer (18) (Column 10, lines 15-19);
Passing a second electromagnetic wavelength through the spectrally absorbing layer toward the camera (14) (Column 10, lines 24-28);
Deforming the elastic layer (16), light layer (18), and spectrally absorbing layer upon engagement of the work piece (46) with the visual-tactile contact pad (Column 4, lines 43-46, 59-61; Fig. 6A, elements 44, 46).
Regarding claim 12, Adelson teaches the emitting includes emitting light from a first light source (12) of the lighting system and emitting light from a second light source (12) of the lighting system (Column 4, lines 57-59; fig. 4A, element 12).
Regarding claim 13, Adelson teaches the emitting a first electromagnetic wavelength is from reflecting the first electromagnetic wavelength (Column 4, lines 59-61; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Adelson teaches the emitting a first electromagnetic wavelength is from fluorescing the light layer (18) as a result of excitation wavelength from the lighting system (Column 10, lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 16, Adelson teaches an apparatus comprising:
A visual tactile sensing device structured to develop data associated with an image of a work piece (46) and tactile contours of the work piece, the visual tactile sensing device having (Abstract):
A camera (14) structured to image a first electromagnetic wavelength and a second electromagnetic wavelength (Column 4, lines 57-59);
A lighting system structured to produce light at the first electromagnetic wavelength and the second electromagnetic wavelength (Column 1, lines 64-67; Column 2, line 1);
A visual-tactile contact pad having a layered construction and structured to deform through at least some of the layers of the layered construction when in contact with the work piece (46), the visual-tactile contact pad having (Column 4, lines 43-46, 59-61; Fig. 6A, elements 44, 46):
A rigid base (17) (Column 4, lines 57-59);
An elastic layer (16) coupled to the rigid base (17) (Column 4, lines 57-59);
A light layer (18) coupled to the elastic layer (16) such that the elastic layer (16) is between the rigid base (17) and the light layer (18), the light layer (18) structured to emanate light as a result of the first electromagnetic wavelength and according to deformations in the light layer (18) associated with the tactile contours of the work piece (46) when the work piece (46) engages the visual-tactile contact pad (Column 1, lines 61-64; Column 2, lines 1-6); and
A spectrally absorbing layer coupled to the light layer (18) such that the light layer (18) is between the elastic layer (16) and the spectrally absorbing layer, the spectrally absorbing layer structured to pass the second electromagnetic wavelength (Column 10, lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 17, Adelson teaches the lighting system includes two light sources (12) (Column 4, lines 57-59; Fig. 4A, element 12).
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) 6, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelson in view of Kato et al (WO 2020017177).
Regarding claim 6, Adelson fails to teach a controller for the lighting system. Kato et al teaches a visual-tactile sensor comprising a controller (6), and wherein the controller (6) is structured to activate the two light sources (2A) in an alternating manner such that when a first light source of the two light sources is ON then a second light source of the two light sources is OFF, and vice versa (Page 8, paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Kato et al in Adelson to facilitate the creation of a controller that can detect the proximity of the work piece based on the light received from the light source (Page 8, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 15, Adelson fails to teach a controller. Kato et al teaches a visual-tactile sensor, comprising controlling the light system to selectively activate and deactivate a plurality of light sources (2A) (Page 8, paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Kato et al in Adelson to facilitate the creation of a controller that can detect the proximity of the work piece based on the light received from the light source (Page 8, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 18, Adelson fails to teach a controller for the lighting system. Kato et al teaches a visual-tactile sensor, comprising a controller (6) configured to alternate light emanating from the two light sources (2A) (Page 8, paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Kato et al in Adelson to facilitate the creation of a controller that can detect the proximity of the work piece based on the light received from the light source (Page 8, paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelson in view of Lee et al (US 10562190).
Regarding claim 7, Adelson fails to teach an elastic layer of PDMS. Lee et al teaches a visual-tactile sensor with rigid base, and an elastic layer made of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) (Column 2, lines 11-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Lee et al in Adelson to create an elastic layer using PDMS in order to achieve good light transmission and sharper images as taught by Adelson (Column 8, lines 16-21).
Adelson as modified by Lee et al does not disclose polycarbonate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create a rigid base using polycarbonate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 8, Adelson in view of Lee et al discloses the present invention except for Xirallic T60-24 SW Stellar Green flakes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use flakes of Xirallic T60-24 SW Stellar Green, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 9, Adelson further teaches the flakes are oriented substantially aligned to the plane of the surface of the elastic layer (16) (Column 3, lines 49-51, 59-62).
Claim(s) 19, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in further view of Adelson.
Regarding claim 19, Adelson discloses the present invention except for polycarbonate material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create a rigid base using polycarbonate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 21, Adelson discloses the present invention except for Xirallic. Then, go into case law. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use flakes of Xirallic T60-24 SW Stellar Green, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 22, Adelson teaches the light layer (18) includes metal microparticles (Column 3, lines 17-18, 23-27). Adelson discloses the claimed invention except for nickel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use nickel microparticles, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelson in view of Ikeda et al (DE 112018000492).
Adelson fails to teach a dye layer. Ikeda et al teaches a display module with a touch sensor wherein the spectrally absorbing layer (41) is a dye layer, and wherein the spectrally absorbing layer (41) contacts the light layer (23) (Page 17, paragraphs 9, 10; Page 23, paragraph 1; Fig. 10, elements 23, 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Ikeda et al in Adelson to facilitate the creation of a dye layer that can transmit light of a certain color as taught by Ikeda et al (Page 23, paragraph 1).
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