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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 12, 14 and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-15 and 17-20 of copending Application No. 18/126,343 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
See the matched claims below:
Current Application claim(s) Reference Application claim(s)
1 and 12 11
1 and 14 11
12-15 2-5
13-15 17-19
17 6
18 7
19 8
20 20
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/126,343 in view of Engler.
Regarding claim 10, copending application teaches the claimed invention except for the stating the first joint being a knuckle joint.
Engler teaches knuckle linkages connecting digit joints (see at least figs 9 and 10), the joints mechanically coupling a first portion of the robotic digit to a second portion of the robotic digit for the purpose of replicating a finger (digit) movement.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to combine the teachings of Engler with the copending application, since the knuckle linkages taught by Engler allows for better replication of the robotic hand movement to the robotic digit device of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “position transducers 716a and 716b” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In page 11, line 7, replace “166” with --116--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 8, 17 and 18 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 2 recites “the first portion”. It is unclear which “first portion” is being referred to, since there are two different “first portions” found in claims 1 and 2, “a first portion of the robotic digit” and “the first conductive trace includes a first portion”, respectively. Same applies to “the second portion”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the meter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 has been treated below as being dependent on claim 7, where a meter was introduced.
Claims 17-18 recite “the first leg”, “the first conductive trace”, “the second leg”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukaya et al., US Pat. 5,847,640 in view of Engler, Jr., US Pat. 5,447,403.
Regarding claim 1, Engler teaches a robotic digit (programmable robot and control system) comprising:
a first joint (portions joined at the potentiometer/transducer 246; see at least figs 9 and 10), the first joint mechanically coupling a first portion of the robotic digit (knuckles) and a second portion of the robotic digit. The potentiometers are used to monitor the position (the hand manipulation such as grasping and/or manipulating an object) of the robotic digit and its rotational and bending movements (see at col. 6, line 46 to col. 7, line 20 and claim 1).
Engler teaches the claimed invention except for listing a usable transducer for sensing rotational motion.
Fukaya teaches a first position transducer (rotating or rotary sensor 10), the first position transducer comprising:
a first printed circuit board (circuit board 12a; see at least figs. 1 and 2), the first PCB comprising:
a first connector pad (15a);
a second connector pad (15b and/or 15c); and
a first conductive trace (comprising of traces 16a and 16b) comprising a first leg (trace 16a) and a second leg (trace 16b), the first leg having a first end, the first end electrically communicatively coupled to the first connector pad (an end that connects to the first conductor pad 15a), and the second leg having a second end, the second end electrically communicatively coupled to the second connector pad (an end connecting to the second connector pad 15b and/or 15c); and
a first wiper (17) in sliding contact with the first PCB, the first wiper comprising a first blade and a second blade (left and right in fig. 2), the first blade electrically communicatively coupled to the first leg (16a) of the first conductive trace, and the second blade electrically communicatively coupled to the second leg (16b) of the first conductive trace, wherein, in operation, a first electrical path length of a first conductive path between the first connector pad (15a) and the second connector pad (15b and/or 15c) depends, at least in part, on a relative position of the first PCB and the first wiper (variable resistance according to the rotary position of the wiper on the circuit board).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to combine the teachings of Fukaya with Engler, since the rotational movement sensing transducers taught by Fukaya allows for detecting and monitoring the rotational movement of each individual digits of Engler robotic digit device.
Regarding claim 2, Engler teaches the claimed invention except for the claimed conductive path.
Fukaya teaches the first leg (16a) of the first conductive trace includes a first portion (an area along the first leg; see fig. 2 of Fukaya), the first portion which electrically communicatively couples the first connector pad (15a) to the first blade (17); and
the second leg (16b) of the first conductive trace includes a second portion (an area along the second leg; see fig. 2 of Fukaya), the second portion which electrically communicatively couples the second connector pad (15b and/or 15c) to the second blade (17), wherein the first connector pad (15a), the first portion of the first conductive trace, the first blade (17), the second blade (also 17), the second portion of the first conductive trace, and the second connector pad (15b and/or 15c), thus forming the first conductive path.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to combine the teachings of Fukaya with Engler, since the conductive traces and wiper structure taught by Fukaya forms a completed conductive path.
Regarding claims 3-5, Engler teaches the claimed invention except for a curved conductive path.
Fukaya teaches at least a portion of the second leg of the first conductive trace is substantially parallel with at least a portion of the first leg of the first conductive trace, wherein the first conductive trace and the second conductive trace are curved (see fig. 2 of Fukaya) for the purpose detecting an angular motion.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to combine the teachings of Fukaya with Engler, since the curved conductive traces taught by Fukaya allows for detecting angular motion of the robotic digit device of Engler.
Regarding claim 6, Fukaya teaches the use of a coil spring (21; see fig. 1) for the purpose of applying pressure to the wiper towards the circuit board (col. 2, lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to combine the teaching of Fukaya with Engler, since the coil spring taught Fukaya provide a better contact point to the slide device of Engler.
Regarding claim 7, Engler the robotic digit of claim 1, further comprising:
an electrical source (power for controller; see at col. 6, line 46 to col. 7, line 20 and claim 1) electrically communicatively coupled to the first and the second connector pad;
a meter (computerized controller for programming) electrically communicatively coupled to the first and the second connector pad, the meter which, in operation, determines the electrical path length of the first conductive path; and
a transmitter (controller for storing and/or real time control of Engler’s device) which, in operation, transmits the relative position of the first PCB and the first wiper to a controller.
Regarding claim 8, Engler teaches the robotic digit of claim 1, wherein the meter, in operation, determines the electrical path length of the first conductive path based at least in part on an electrical resistance of the first conductive path (sensors 246 send electrical signals to the controller…; see at col. 6, line 46 to col. 7, line 20).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Engler teaches the robotic digit of claim 1, wherein the robotic digit is a robotic finger of a robotic hand of a humanoid robot (see fig. 10 and at least see at col. 6, line 46 to col. 7, line 20), wherein the first joint is a knuckle joint.
Regarding claim 11, Engler teaches the robotic digit of claim 1, wherein the relative position of the first PCB and the first wiper includes an angle defining a pitch rotation of the second portion of the robotic digit relative to the first portion of the robotic digit (Engler teaches yaw and pitch motions (see at least fig. 6A-D and col. 5, line 55 to col. 6, line 2).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Engler teaches the robotic digit of claim 1, further comprising a second position transducer (multiple transducers are in use; see at least fig. 10). Engler teaches the claimed invention except for listing a usable potentiometer for sensing rotational motion.
Fukaya teaches a second position transducer (rotating or rotary sensor 10), the second position transducer comprising:
a second printed circuit board (circuit board 12a; see at least figs. 1 and 2), the second PCB comprising:
a third connector pad (15a);
a fourth connector pad (15b and/or 15c); and
a second conductive trace (comprising of traces 16a and 16b) comprising a third leg (trace 16a) and a fourth leg (trace 16b), the third leg having a third end, the third end electrically communicatively coupled to the third connector pad (an end that connects to the third conductor pad 15a), and the fourth leg having a fourth end, the fourth end electrically communicatively coupled to the fourth connector pad (an end connecting to the fourth connector pad 15b and/or 15c); and
a second wiper (17) in sliding contact with the second PCB, the second wiper comprising a third blade and a fourth blade (left and right in fig. 2), the third blade electrically communicatively coupled to the third leg (16a) of the third conductive trace, and the fourth blade electrically communicatively coupled to the fourth leg (16b) of the second conductive trace, wherein, in operation, a second electrical path length of a second conductive path between the third connector pad (15a) and the fourth connector pad (15b and/or 15c) depends, at least in part, on a relative position of the second PCB and the second wiper (variable resistance according to the rotary position of the wiper on the circuit board).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to combine the teachings of Fukaya with Engler, since the rotational movement sensing transducers taught by Fukaya allows for detecting and monitoring the rotational movement of each individual digits of Engler robotic digit device.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Engler teaches the robotic digit of claim 12, wherein the multiple sensors (potentiometers 246) are connected to the controller to read the two degrees of motion (yaw and pitch) for the robotic digit (col. 5, line 55 to col. 6, line 13).
Regarding claim 16, Engler teaches the claimed invention except for the claimed conductive path.
Fukaya teaches the third leg (16a) of the first conductive trace includes a third portion (an area along the third leg; see fig. 2 of Fukaya), the third portion which electrically communicatively couples the third connector pad (15a) to the third blade (17); and
the fourth leg (16b) of the second conductive trace includes a fourth portion (an area along the fourth leg; see fig. 2 of Fukaya), the fourth portion which electrically communicatively couples the fourth connector pad (15b and/or 15c) to the fourth blade (17), wherein the third connector pad (15a), the third portion of the second conductive trace, the third blade (17), the fourth blade (also 17), the fourth portion of the second conductive trace, and the fourth connector pad (15b and/or 15c), thus forming the second conductive path.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to combine the teachings of Fukaya with Engler, since the conductive traces and wiper structure taught by Fukaya forms a completed second conductive path.
Regarding claims 17-20, Engler teaches the claimed invention except for a curved conductive path, the conductive trace having a U-shaped conductive trace.
Fukaya teaches at least a portion of the third leg of the second conductive trace is substantially parallel with at least a portion of the third leg of the second conductive trace, wherein the conductive traces are curved (see fig. 2 of Fukaya) for the purpose detecting an angular motion. Further, the first conductive trace is a U-shaped trace (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to combine the teachings of Fukaya with Engler, since the curved conductive traces taught by Fukaya allows for detecting angular motion of the robotic digit device of Engler.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYUNG S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1994. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM M-F.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009.
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.
KYUNG S. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2833
/KYUNG S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833