DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to disclose “an integrated tactile sensing assembly comprising an external surface at least partially comprising the deformable transmissive layer”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Attention is brought to Figures 1 and 11 of Rohaly, wherein a robotic system includes a robotic arm (102) and a fixture housing (104) (applicant’s external surface), wherein the housing is configured to accept and position a replaceable cartridge (106), which includes the deformable layer and the interface membrane, in contact with an object to be measured (par. 50-51). Rohaly further explicitly discloses that the interchangeable imaging cartridges may be utilized in a variety of applications, including “tactile sensing” (par. 22). Therefore, the reference to Rohaly is understood to anticipate the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 18-22, 24-26 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2020/0012067 to Rohaly et al.
In regards to claims 18-22, 24-26 and 28-32, Rohaly discloses and shows in Figures 1 and 11, a system for characterizing interaction between surfaces, comprising:
a deformable transmissive layer (116) coupled to an optical coating (120) (applicant’s interface membrane), wherein the interface membrane is interfaced against at least one aspect of an interfaced object (par. 3-4, 27-28);
a first illumination source (108) operatively coupled to the deformable transmissive layer and configured to emit first illumination light into the deformable transmissive layer at a known first illumination orientation relative to the deformable transmissive layer, such that at least a portion of the first illumination light interacts with the deformable transmissive layer (par. 6, 23, 26);
a detector (108) configured to detect light from within at least a portion of the deformable transmissive layer (par. 6, 23);
a computing system (par. 52) configured to operate the detector to detect at least a portion of light directed from the deformable transmissive layer, to determine surface orientations pertaining to positions along the interface membrane based at least in part upon interaction of the first illumination light with the deformable transmissive layer, and to utilize the determined surface orientations to characterize a geometric profile of the at least one aspect of the interfaced object as interfaced against the interface membrane (par. 2, 4, 22); and
a robotic manipulator (1102) operatively coupled to the computing system and comprising an integrated tactile sensing assembly (par. 22) (Figures 1 and 11) comprising a fixture housing (104) (applicant’s external surface) at least partially comprising the deformable transmissive layer, the robotic arm configured to controllably position and orient the deformable transmissive layer relative to the interfaced object such that the computing system may characterize the geometric profile of the at least one aspect of the interfaced object as interfaced against the interface membrane with regard to the relative position and orientation of each of the deformable transmissive layer and the interfaced object (par. 2, 4, 22, 50-51);
[claim 19] wherein the robotic manipulator comprises a robotic arm (1102) (par. 51-52);
[claim 20] wherein the robotic arm comprises a plurality of joints coupled by substantially rigid linkage members (Figure 11);
[claim 21] wherein the robotic manipulator comprises a flexible robotic instrument (Figure 11) (par. 51-52; wherein the robotic arm includes a plurality of joints and may include an end effector);
[claim 22] further comprising an end effector coupled to the robotic manipulator (Figure 11) (par. 51-52; wherein the robot may include an end effector);
[claim 24] wherein the first illumination source comprises a light emitting diode (par. 23, 26);
[claim 25] wherein the detector is a photodetector (par. 6, 23-24);
[claim 26] wherein the detector is an image capture device (par. 6, 23-24);
[claim 28] further comprising a lens operatively coupled between the detector and the deformable transmissive layer (par. 25);
[claim 29] wherein the computing system is operatively coupled to the detector and configured to receive information from the detector pertaining to light detected by the detector from within the deformable transmissive layer (par. 2, 4, 22, 27, 52);
[claim 30] wherein the computing system is operatively coupled to the first illumination source and is configured to control emissions from the first illumination source (par. 52);
[claim 31] wherein the deformable transmissive layer comprises an elastomeric material (par. 2-5, 24, 27);
[claim 32] wherein the elastomeric material is selected from the group consisting of: silicone (par. 24), urethane, polyurethane, thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), and thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohaly.
In regards to claims 23 and 27, Rohaly differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system, [claim 23] wherein the end effector comprises a grasper; [claim 27] wherein the image capture device is a CCD or CMOS device.
However, graspers and CCD or CMOS devices are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rohaly to include the elements discussed above for the advantage of utilizing well-known optical elements to obtain a desired system configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohaly, in view of US Patent 8,511,140 to Adelson.
In regards to claims 33-35, Rohaly differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system: [claim 33] wherein the deformable transmissive layer comprises a composite having a pigment material distributed within an elastomeric matrix, the pigment material configured to provide an illumination reflectance which is greater than that of the elastomer matrix; [claim 34] wherein the pigment material comprises a metal oxide; [claim 35] wherein the interface membrane comprises an elastomeric material.
However, Adelson teaches and shows in Figures 1, 5-7 and 9, a tactile sensor for use in a robot fingerpad, wherein a clear elastomer material (3) is provided with a reflective skin layer (2), wherein the reflective skin comprises an elastomeric paint that includes metallic powder or metallic flakes to provide a desired reflectivity, and further the reflective particles may include Titanium dioxide (col. 2, ll. 52 to col. 3, ll. 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rohaly to include the elastomeric paint discussed above for the advantage of obtaining a desired reflectivity and system resolution, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Publication 2014/0104395 to Rohaly et al. discloses and shows a three-dimensional imaging device wherein a set of cameras and light sources image an object through a layer of elastomer (115), wherein the elastomer has a reflective layer (120) to provide a desired surface reflection (par. 25-28, 35, 61).
US Publications 2023/0359308 and 2024/0401936 to Rohaly et al. disclose and claim substantially the same “system for characterizing interaction between surface”. However, the current application claims a “robotic manipulator” and is therefore a more specifical claimed invention. There may be double patenting issues present in the other applications, in view of the current claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
JONATHAN M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights