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 .
Search string:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 ,10 and 19 recite “4D printed robot”, and “beam strength” which are not supported by applicant’s specification. If anything, from applicant’s published paragraphs 113, it mentions 4D printed robot displacement, but no explanation of 4D printed robot. Published paragraph 99 describes verifying the strength of the attachment between the microparticles and 4D object before deploying, but no explanation of beam strength. Dependent claims inherit these issues through their dependence without providing any remedy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The primary reason for allowance is the combination of limitations noted below:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a request to deliver one or more microparticles from a start location to a target location along a delivery path; obtaining available characteristic data corresponding to:
4-dimensional (4D) objects capable of delivering microparticles,
(ii) the one or more microparticles,
(iii) the delivery path, and
(iv) one or more ambient environments along the delivery path;
identifying how the microparticles should be attached to a 4D printed robotic pack based on a shape, dimension, and weight of one or more different microparticles and capabilities of a transporting 4D printed robots;
using one or more machine learning models to analyze the available characteristic data and determine a 4D object that is configured to deliver the one or more microparticles to the target location in response to an influencing factor being applied to the 4D object; and
using at least one 4D printed robot, wherein the one or more learning models determine a combination of influencing factors and an apply appropriate beam strength such that the microparticles will move along with a movement of the at least one 4D printed robots.
These imitations in the context of other limitations in the claim, considering the claim as a whole, is not anticipated nor is obvious over reasonable combinations of the prior art found during the Examiner’s search. Other independent claims are allowable for similar reasons. Dependent claims are allowable, at least, because of their dependence on the allowable independent claim.
Examiner found the following prior art to be related and are from the general field of the claimed invention, however they separately or in reasonable combination, fail to teach the above discussed specific claimed limitations. The prior art stated below teach the limitations of receiving a request to deliver particles along path with 4D objects capable of delivering microparticles from a start position to an end position through a delivery path. However, the prior art failed to teach the limitations of applying beam strength to attach the microparticles to 4D robot based on the particle’s shape, weight, and dimension.
US -20220111116 -A1
US- 20210369630-A1
US- 20210107230- A1
US- 20210316450 -A1
US -11426935 -B2
Wang et al., “3D printing of magnetically actuated miniature soft robots”, IEEE Explore, 2021 IEEE 16th International Conference on Nano/Micro Engineered and Molecular Systems (NEMS) (2021, Page(s): 804-808). Year 2021
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rokeya Alam whose telephone number is (571)272-0083. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am - 4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Scott Baderman can be reached at telephone number (571-272-3644). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROKEYA SHAWALI ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights