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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted/amended claims 1-13, 18 and 24 -25 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Original claims 1-18 and 24 -25 did not have first and the second light and the indicated claims are product claims newly added first and second light have separate and distinctive roles different from the process claim 19.
Therefore, the amended claims 1-13, 18 and 24-25 are product groups non-elected by the original presentation.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18 and 24 -25, drawn to a visuotactile sensor or system comprising visuotactile sensor, classified in G01L5/226.
II. Claims 19-23 and 26, drawn to a method comprising an imaging train, classified in G01B11/16.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus such as appeared in two different groups of Claims 1-13 and 14-18 and also the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process, since the group I does not require relating the at least one of the first light and the second light to an estimated position of the object, an estimated motion of the object, and an estimated deformation experienced by the membrane.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1-18 and 24-25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Response to Arguments on Claim objection
Currently, no claims under examination carries the previous objections.
Therefore, it is moot.
Response to Arguments on USC 112 b rejections
Currently, claims 5 and 12 are withdrawn from the consideration. Therefore, the arguments are moot.
As to the claim 23, based on the amendment, the 112b rejection has been withdrawn.
Newly amended claim 19 invokes new 112b rejection.
Response to Arguments on USC 102 rejections
Currently, no claims argued under 102 rejections are examined.
Therefore, the arguments are moot.
Response to Arguments on USC 103 rejections
A-E, and G, the argued claims are not under consideration in this action.
F. As to the claim 19-23, the applicant the applicant argues that Lamberta not disclosing the newly amended limitation of “first light indicative of a proximity of an object relative to the imaging train” and also Yamaguchi Ferrier do not teach the limitation. However, as shown in the below rejection Lamberta teaches the limitation.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
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 19-23 and 26 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.
AS to the claim 19, the claim recites “(a) a first light indicative of a proximity of an object relative to the imaging train, wherein the first light is reflected through a deformable membrane by the object proximate to or contacting the deformable membrane and (b) a second light indicative of a deformation of the deformable membrane”.
The claim recites a beam path of the first light reasonably well but the beam path of second light is unknown.
Can the second light have the same beam path as the first light or the second light passed different beam path or the second light is the resultant beam of the first light after interaction with the membrane?
Original claim was just first light reflected in such way (described how the first light reached to the membrane) and second light being indicative of certain thing which made an impression to the examiner that the second light being the resultant light after first light interacted with the membrane.
However, now they are indicated as the entirely separate lights which could coexist and having no relations to each other.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the examination purposes, examiner will interpret it as appeared in the prior art of Lambeta as shown in the below rejection.
Dependent claims 20-23 and 26 are also rejected based upon their dependencies.
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.
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambeta (2020 NPL) in view of Yamaguchi (2017 NPL, Implementing Tactile Behaviors) in further view of Ferrier (2000 NPL).
Regarding claim 19, Lambeta discloses a method comprising:
with an imaging train collecting (a) a first light indicative of a proximity of an object relative to the imaging train, wherein the first light is reflected through a deformable membrane by the object proximate to or contacting the deformable membrane (“We choose this keypoint-based representation because in our marble manipulation setting, the position of the marble and the depth of how much the marble is pressed into the gel capture the most relevant aspects of the state.” “We observed that all but one of the keypoints were inactive for all images, and the active keypoint location reliably matched the visible position of the marble on the DIGIT images, while its intensity i varied with the depth of the marble in the images – the more the marble was pressed into the gel, the greater the intensity”) and (b) a second light indicative of a deformation of the deformable membrane (figure 4 shows images collected by the camera when using different elastomers with the device, this includes an elastomer that is transparent with markers, when using a transparent elastomer with markers some of the collected light would be from the object in contact with the elastomer and some would have to be reflected from the markers in order to use the movement of the markers to provide touch information as described in Section (II)).
While Lambeta does not specifically disclose relating the at least one of the first light and the second light to an estimated position of the object, an estimated motion of the object, and an estimated deformation experienced by the membrane, Lambeta does disclose that the movement of markers can be used to determine touch information and the deformation of the elastomer (Section (II)) and that the position of the object in contact with the sensor can be determined (figure 6).
Yamaguchi, in the same field of optical tactile sensors, teaches an imaging train collecting (a) a first light reflected through a deformable membrane by an object proximate to or contacting the deformable membrane and (b) a second light indicative of a deformation of the deformable membrane (the device tracks markers on the elastomer and images objects through the elastomer, abstract, figure 4 shows collected images where the object outside of the sensor and the markers are shown, this would require light from the object and light from the markers to be collected), and relating the at least one of the first light and the second light to an estimated position of the object (proximity vision processes an image to obtain information about nearby objects such as position, Section (III)), an estimated motion of the object (movement can also be detected, Section (III)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lambeta with the position and motion of the object of Yamaguchi for the benefit of providing static and dynamic information about the object under test (Yamaguchi, abstract).
While Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose the deformation of the membrane being estimated, Yamaguchi does disclose that the movement of the markers is used to estimate the force on the membrane (Section (IV)), the movement of the markers would be caused by deformation of the membrane.
Ferrier, in the same field of optical tactile sensors, teaches relating collected light to an estimated deformation experienced by the membrane (the surface is reconstructed by acquiring an image of the deformed membrane, locating the markers and measuring their displacement, this is used to produce the reconstruction of the deformed surface, Section 5.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Lambeta in view of Yamaguchi with the estimation of the deformation of the membrane of Ferrier for the benefit of determining the shape of the deformed membrane from a collected image (Ferrier, abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Lambeta, Yamaguchi, and Ferrier teach all the elements of claim 19 as outlined above.
Lambeta also discloses the method comprising adjusting a position or motion of the object or the deformable membrane in response to at least one of the position of the object, the motion of the object, or the deformation experienced by the membrane (control task of manipulating marbles between two fingers, the robot hand is controlled to move the marble to a goal position based on the current position, Section (V) (B) figures 6-8).
Regarding claim 21, Lambeta, Yamaguchi, and Ferrier teach all the elements of claim 19 as outlined above.
Lambeta also discloses the method further comprising generating a model of a trajectory of the object (tactile observations are used to determine the position of the marble, a forward dynamics model was used to predict the position of the marble in the future, Section (IV) (C), figure 7 shows trajectory predictions produced by the model).
Regarding claim 22, Lambeta, Yamaguchi, and Ferrier teach all the elements of claim 19 as outlined above.
While Lambeta does not specifically disclose the method further comprising actuating a mechanism in response to any one or more of the estimated position of the object, the estimated motion of the object, and the estimated deformation experienced by the membrane, Lambeta does disclose a control task for manipulating marbles between two fingers of robot hand including the sensors, the hand being controlled to move the marble to a goal position based on the current position (Section (IV) (B) figures 6-8).
Yamaguchi, in the same field of optical tactile sensors, teaches actuating a mechanism in response to any one or more of the estimated position of the object, the estimated motion of the object, and the estimated deformation experienced by the membrane (the robot slightly closes the gripper when the sensors sense slippage, the slip detection is based on identifying motion of the object, Section (II) (B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Lambeta in view of Yamaguchi and Ferrier with the actuation of a mechanism based on motion of the object of Yamaguchi for the benefit of enabling the robot to grasp very light-weight fragile objects (Section (II) (B)).
Regarding claim 23, Lambeta, Yamaguchi, and Ferrier teach all the elements of claim 19 as outlined above.
Lambeta also discloses wherein the mechanism is comprised in a furnishing, a bed, a vehicle, an assembly system, a positioning system, or any combination thereof (figure 1 shows the sensor system in a robot hand that is part of a robot arm, Section (III), this would be some form of positioning system).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambeta (2020 NPL) in view of Yamaguchi (2017 NPL, Implementing Tactile Behaviors) and Ferrier (2000 NPL) in further view of Mullins et al. (US 20160248995 A1 hereinafter Mullins).
Regarding claim 26, Lambeta, Yamaguchi, and Ferrier teach all the elements of claim 19 as outlined above.
Lambeta does not explicitly disclose first light indicative of the proximity of the object relative to the imaging train is infrared light.
Mullins teaches first light indicative of the proximity of the object relative to the imaging train is infrared light (page 9 left col. lines 13-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Lambeta in view of Yamaguchi and Ferrier with first light indicative of the proximity of the object relative to the imaging train is infrared light for the benefit of using one of the most well-known, safe and accurate in-vivo wavelength ranges for a living object.
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 SUNGHEE Y GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3211. The examiner can normally be reached on T-R, 8:00 am-4:00 pm and F 8 :00 to 2:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached on (571) 272-2416. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUNGHEE Y GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights