DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation recited in Claim 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Claim 19 recites “wherein a ratio of a proximal end diameter to a distal end diameter for each leg is greater than or equal to 4:1; or wherein a ratio of a proximal end diameter to a distal end diameter for each leg is smaller than or equal to 3:2.” Page 8, Lines 32-35 and Page 14, Line 34 to Page 15, Line 2 of the written specification provide support for this limitation. The disclosure at Pages 14-15 references “diameter d1” and “diameter d2.” The only FIGURE of the disclosure containing “d1” and “d2” is Figure 1d. Based on a casual understanding of Figure 1d, a ratio of a proximal end diameter d1 and distal end diameter d2 appears to be approximately 2:1. A ratio of 2:1 is not “greater than or equal to 4:1.” Nor is a ratio of 2:1 “smaller than or equal to 3:2.” Thus, the Office submits that the claim limitation is not shown. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7: The Office recommends replacing the first semicolon contained in Line 5 with a comma. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 19 recites “wherein a ratio of a proximal end diameter to a distal end diameter for each leg is greater than or equal to 4:1; or wherein a ratio of a proximal end diameter to a distal end diameter for each leg is smaller than or equal to 3:2.” This limitation is analogous to “wherein a ratio of a proximal end diameter to a distal end diameter for each leg is not between 3:2 to 4:1.” As described above, this limitation is not shown in the drawings. In addition, the specification does not seem to disclose any rationale for specifically excluding a set of ratios for a proximal end diameter to a distal end diameter. For all of the reasons listed above, the Office suspects that Applicant did not intend to claim the relevant “ratio” the way that is presently presented. For example, perhaps Applicant intended to claim “wherein a ratio of a proximal end diameter to a distal end diameter for each leg is smaller than or equal to 4:1; or wherein a ratio of a proximal end diameter to a distal end diameter for each leg is larger than or equal to 3:2,” which would at least be supported by the depiction of diameters d1, d2 shown in FIG. 1d. In the rejection of Claim 19 below, the Office has applied the art under this interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-4, 11, 14, 19, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,727,169 B1 to Lewkowicz et al., which discloses:
Claim 1: An inspection robot capable of locomotion comprising:
a body 100, a vibration actuator 18, and a plurality of resilient legs 12;
wherein the plurality of resilient legs 12 are arranged to protrude outwardly and rearwardly from the body 100, with respect to a direction of locomotion; and
wherein each leg 12 is coupled to the vibration actuator 18 at a proximal end of the leg 12 and the vibration actuator 18 is operable to induce vibrations in a distal end of the leg 12, which serve, in use, to propel the body 100 in the direction of locomotion by the distal end generating a pushing force against an external surface.
Claim 2: The inspection robot of claim 1, wherein the inspection robot is configured to generate a torque during locomotion, wherein the torque is in a plane perpendicular to the direction of locomotion (see Col. 2, Lines 17-19).
Claim 3: The inspection robot of claim 2, wherein the inspection robot is configured to be asymmetric in the plane perpendicular to the direction of locomotion (see FIG. 3), and wherein the torque results from the asymmetry; and optionally wherein at least one of the legs on a first side of the inspection robot in a plane perpendicular to the direction of locomotion has a different value for one or more of:
length,
stiffness,
vibration frequency,
vibration amplitude,
friction coefficient at the distal end;
when compared to at least one of the legs on an opposing second side, so as to generate said torque (the Office interprets, based on the word “optionally,” that the Claim does not require the clauses that follow this word).
Claim 4: The inspection robot of claim 1, wherein the plurality of legs 12 are arranged into one or more circumferential rings about the body 100;
optionally wherein the plurality of legs are arranged about the body into a first circumferential ring and a second circumferential ring, wherein the second circumferential ring is spaced in the direction of locomotion along the body from the first circumferential ring, and wherein at least one leg of the first circumferential ring and at least one leg of the second circumferential ring are offset from one another in a plane perpendicular to the direction of locomotion, so as to generate said torque (the Office interprets, based on the word “optionally,” that the Claim does not require the clauses that follow this word – this interpretation is consistent with the limitation “one or more circumferential rings about the body”).
Claim 11: The inspection robot of claim 1, wherein the distal end is pivotable about a joint (see FIG. 2) and the distal end is configurable to be behind or in front of the flexible joint with respect to the direction of locomotion (see FIGS. 2-3; the Office interprets the use of the word “or” to define alterative embodiments. That is, the Office interprets the claim to mean that the “distal end is configurable to be behind [the flexible joint] or [the distal end is configurable to be] in front of the flexible joint”); optionally wherein the inspection robot further comprises a collar actuator and a moveable collar configured to abut or be coupled to the plurality of legs; wherein the moveable collar is operable to configure the distal end of each leg to be either behind or in front of the flexible joint; and wherein the moveable collar is moveable by the collar actuator; optionally wherein the collar actuator comprises at least one of:
a piezoelectric actuator,
an electric screw motor,
an electroactive polymer,
a hydraulic actuator,
a pneumatic actuator,
an electromechanical solenoid,
a shape-memory alloy, [and]
a magnet (the Office interprets, based on the word “optionally,” that the Claim does not require the clauses that follow this word).
Claim 14: The inspection robot of claim 1, wherein the inspection robot is a soft robot; and/or wherein the inspection robot is configured for gastrointestinal inspection and/or pipe inspection (see FIG. 4).
Claim 19: The inspection robot of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a proximal end diameter to a distal end diameter for each leg 12 is smaller than or equal to 4:1; or wherein a ratio of a proximal end diameter to a distal end diameter for each leg 12 is larger than or equal to 3:2.
Claim 23: The inspection robot of claim 1, wherein the inspection robot comprises at least one image sensor 101; and/or wherein the inspection robot comprises a balloon operable for balloon cytology (the Office interprets the limitation “and/or” to mean that the Claim requires one or both of the clauses recited in Claim 23).
Claim 25: The inspection robot of claim 1, wherein the legs 12 comprise silicone (see Col. 2, Lines 20-21).
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0352185 A1 to Weiss, which discloses:
Claim 1: An inspection robot capable of locomotion comprising:
a body 402, a vibration actuator 410, and a plurality of resilient legs 430;
wherein the plurality of resilient legs 430 are arranged to protrude outwardly and rearwardly from the body 402, with respect to a direction of locomotion (see FIG. 4); and
wherein each leg 430 is coupled to the vibration actuator 410 at a proximal end of the leg 430 and the vibration actuator 410 is operable to induce vibrations in a distal end of the leg 430, which serve, in use, to propel the body 402 in the direction of locomotion by the distal end generating a pushing force against an external surface.
Claim 2: The inspection robot of claim 1, wherein the inspection robot is configured to generate a torque during locomotion, wherein the torque is in a plane perpendicular to the direction of locomotion.
Claim 3: The inspection robot of claim 2, wherein the inspection robot is configured to be asymmetric in the plane perpendicular to the direction of locomotion (see FIG. 4), and wherein the torque results from the asymmetry; and optionally wherein at least one of the legs on a first side of the inspection robot in a plane perpendicular to the direction of locomotion has a different value for one or more of:
length,
stiffness,
vibration frequency (see Paragraph [0049]),
vibration amplitude,
friction coefficient at the distal end;
when compared to at least one of the legs on an opposing second side, so as to generate said torque (the Office interprets, based on the word “optionally,” that the Claim does not require the clauses that follow this word).
Claim 9: The inspection robot of claim 3, wherein the body 402 comprises an eccentrically rotating mass vibration motor 410; so as to generate said torque; and optionally wherein the vibration actuator comprises the eccentrically rotating mass vibration motor.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0352185 A1 to Weiss, as applied to Claim 3 above. Weiss discloses the inspection robot of claim 3, wherein each leg 430 has a longitudinal axis. Paragraph [0049] of Weiss discloses “due to manufacturing tolerances, the separate appendages [430] may have somewhat different resonant frequencies.” This disclosure means that at least one leg 430 has a different stiffness about the longitudinal axis in the plane perpendicular to the direction of locomotion; and/or at least one leg has a different friction coefficient about the longitudinal axis in the plane perpendicular to the direction of locomotion; so as to generate said torque; or wherein the body has a center of mass that, for at least some duration during locomotion, is distributed asymmetrically in the plane perpendicular to the direction of locomotion; so as to generate said torque.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 7,727,169 B1 to Lewkowicz et al. As shown in FIG. 3 of Lewkowicz, the angle between the distal end of legs 12 and a normal angle to the body is approximately 60 degrees. Thus, the Office finds that the claimed angles are either anticipated by Lewkowicz or rendered obvious in view of Lewkowicz.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,727,169 B1 to Lewkowicz et al., as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Piezoelectric Motors, an Overview by Spanner et al.
Claim 16: Lewkowicz discloses the inspection robot of claim 1, wherein, during locomotion, the distal end is configured to vibrate. Lewkowicz further discloses that “actuator 18 may be a piezoelectric actuator such as the piezoelectric "Nanomotion" crystals by P.M.G, Medica.” Page 7 of Spanner provides that Nanomotion manufactures ultrasonic motors. Ultrasonic motors vibrate at a frequency that is greater than or equal to one of: 75Hz, 100Hz, 125Hz, 175Hz, or 200Hz. Thus, the inspection robot is anticipated by Lewkowicz or rendered obvious over Lewkowicz, as clarified by Spanner.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,727,169 B1 to Lewkowicz et al., as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of “Using Voice Coils to Actuate Modular Soft Robots: Wormbot, an Example” by Nemitz et al.
Claim 17: Lewkowicz discloses the inspection robot of claim 1, wherein, during locomotion, the distal end is configured to vibrate. Lewkowicz further discloses that “actuator 18… may be any actuator suitable for use in the invention.” Col. 3, Lines 23-24. However, Lewkowicz does not disclose wherein the distal end is configured to vibrate at a resonant frequency that is smaller than or equal to one of: 185Hz, 235Hz, 250Hz, or 285Hz.
Nemitz teaches a modular soft robot that employs voice coils (i.e., linear resonant actuators) to propel the robot body. The voice coils taught by Nemitz may operate in the single-digit Hz range. Nemitz also teaches that “Voice coils are a convenient multifunctional alternative to existing soft robot actuators. Their self-contained nature and ability to communicate with each other are ideal for modular robotics, and the additional functionality of sound input/output and power transfer will become increasingly useful as soft robots begin the transition from early proof-of-concept systems toward fully functional and highly integrated robotic systems.”
In view of the Nemitz teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the inspection robot disclosed by Lewkowicz, so as to provide a voice coil as a suitable actuator to induce vibrations in the legs of Lewkowicz, because voice coils are convenient, self-contained, and have an ability to communicate with each other. As modified, the distal end of the legs would be configured to vibrate at a resonant frequency that is smaller than or equal to one of: 185Hz, 235Hz, 250Hz, or 285Hz.
Claim 18: Lewkowicz discloses the inspection robot of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the vibration actuator comprises a linear resonant actuator. However, Lewkowicz discloses that “actuator 18… may be any actuator suitable for use in the invention.” Col. 3, Lines 23-24.
Nemitz teaches a modular soft robot that employs voice coils (i.e., linear resonant actuators) to propel the robot body. Specifically, Nemitz teaches that “Voice coils are a convenient multifunctional alternative to existing soft robot actuators. Their self-contained nature and ability to communicate with each other are ideal for modular robotics, and the additional functionality of sound input/output and power transfer will become increasingly useful as soft robots begin the transition from early proof-of-concept systems toward fully functional and highly integrated robotic systems.”
In view of the Nemitz teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the inspection robot disclosed by Lewkowicz, so as to provide a voice coil as a suitable actuator to induce vibrations in the legs of Lewkowicz, because voice coils are convenient, self-contained, and have an ability to communicate with each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDELL J KRUG whose telephone number is (313) 446-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00-14:00 AZ time.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. 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.
/RANDELL J KRUG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618