DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 06/02/2023. Claims 1-23 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
An Applicant' s duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with “a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work.” Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573, 220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. Fl. 1972). It is unreasonable for Examiner to review all of the cited references thoroughly. By signing the accompanying 1449 forms (both dated 09/27/2023), Examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made. Examiner suggests that future Information Disclosure Statements cite only the most relevant/inclusive references or portions thereof.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 recites “any one or more of a an ultraviolet”, this appears to be a typographic error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 16 recites “The system of any claim 14”, this appears to be a typographic error and should read “the system of claim 14”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a mechanism, the mechanism configured to move the deformable membrane” in claim 12. In this claim the term “a mechanism” is being interpreted as a generic placeholder that performs the functional language of “move the deformable membrane”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification does not provide any structure to for the mechanism. For the purposes of prosecution, this limitation is being interpreted as any mechanical element capable of providing motion.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5, 12, and 23 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially” is used in reference to the degree to which the deformable membrane is transparent to infrared light and opaque to visible light. It is not clear to what degree this membrane needs to be transparent and opaque in order practice the invention. Therefore, this claim is indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05 (b) (I)). For the purposes of prosecution this claim is being interpreted as the membrane having any amount of transmission of infrared light and any amount of opacity to visible light.
Claim limitation “a mechanism, the mechanism configured to move the deformable membrane”, in claim 12, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification discusses a generic mechanism, and its function to cause movement of the membrane, an element external to the sensor, or of the object being measured, and what the mechanism can be comprised within (paragraph [00139]. Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any examples of structural elements that would perform the functions described. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the mechanism" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of prosecution this claim is being interpreted as the method including the use of some form of mechanism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 4, 6, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lambeta (2020 NPL).
Regarding claim 1, Lambeta discloses a visuotactile sensor (vision based tactile sensor, abstract), comprising:
a deformable membrane (vision based tactile sensors rely on soft deformable elastomeric materials, section (III) (C)); and
an imaging train (lighting PCB D and camera PCB F, figure 2),
the deformable membrane allowing at least partial transmission of light there through and onto the imaging train such that the imaging train collects light reflected through the membrane by an object on the opposite side of the membrane or contracting the membrane (figure 4 shows different elastomers used with the device, this can include transparent elastomers, one of the images shows the object under test as imaged through the elastomer, this would be collecting light that is reflected by the object contacting the membrane), and
the imaging train further configured to collect light indicative of a deformation of the membrane by the object (figure 3 shows images of the deformation of the membrane based on the object under test).
Regarding claim 2, Lambeta discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Lambeta also discloses wherein the deformable membrane comprises a pattern that distorts with deformation of the deformable membrane (transparent elastomers with markers can be used, section (II) (A) and figure 4), and wherein the imaging train is configured to (i) illuminate the pattern so as to give rise to ultraviolet, infrared, or visible light emission or reflection from the pattern (RGB LEDs are controlled to illuminate the elastomer surface, section (III) (B), figure 4 shows collected images, this would be visible illumination and reflection when a transparent elastomer with markers is used) and (ii) collect an ultraviolet, infrared, or visible light image of the pattern (figure 4 shows images collected with different types of elastomers being used, this can include transparent elastomers with markers, section (III) (A), that would be visible images of the pattern when illuminated by the RGB LEDs).
Regarding claim 4, Lambeta teaches all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Lambeta also discloses wherein (a) the light reflected by an object on the opposite side of the membrane or contacting the membrane is infrared light, (b) wherein the light indicative of a deformation of the membrane by the object is visible light, or both (a) and (b) (figure 4 shows images collected with different types of elastomers being used, this can include transparent elastomers with markers, section (III) (A), that would be visible images of the deformation when illuminated by the RGB LEDs).
Regarding claim 6, Lambeta teaches all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Lambeta also discloses wherein the imaging train comprises any one or more of an ultraviolet light camera, a visual light camera, an infrared light camera, a source of ultraviolet light, a source of visible light, and a source of infrared light (a color camera and RGB LEDs are used, Section (III) (B), figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Lambeta discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Lambeta also discloses the sensor further comprising a mechanism, the mechanism configured to move the deformable membrane (figure 1 shows the sensor mounted in a multi-finger robotic hand, this would be a mechanism that moves the sensor relative to the object, and therefore moves the deformable membrane, this would be the mechanism in view of the interpretation of this claim under 112(f) outlined above).
Regarding claim 13, Lambeta discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Lambeta also discloses wherein the visuotactile sensor is incorporated into a furnishing, a bed, a vehicle, an assembly system, a positioning system, a gripper, a robot, a prosthetic, a wearable device, a computer input device, a shelf, or any combination thereof (figure 1 shows the sensor mounted in a multi-finger robotic hand).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambeta (2020 NPL) in view of Kim (2022 NPL).
Regarding claim 3, Lambeta discloses all the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
While Lambeta does not specifically disclose wherein the pattern comprises a pigment, the pigment optionally absorbing ultraviolet light and emitting visible light, Lambeta does disclose the use of elastomers that have markers (section (II)).
Kim, in the same field of visuotactile sensors, teaches an elastomer with a pattern wherein the pattern comprises a pigment, the pigment optionally absorbing ultraviolet light and emitting visible light (UV markers are directly printed onto the elastomer with UV fluorescent ink that emits blue light when exposed to UV rays, section (II) (B), furthermore, the pigment absorbing ultraviolet light and emitting visible light is an optional element and therefore not required by the claims, see MPEP 2111.04).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambeta (2020 NPL) in view of Sferrazza (2019 NPL) in further view of Correll (US 20210293643 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lambeta discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Lamberta also discloses wherein the deformable membrane is substantially opaque to visible
light having a wavelength of about 400 to about 700 nm ().
While Lambeta does not specifically disclose wherein the deformable membrane is substantially transparent to infrared light and is substantially opaque to visible light having a wavelength of about 400 to about 700 nm, Lambeta does disclose that task specific elastomers can be used with the desired opaqueness (Section (III) (A)) and that an elastomer that is at least partially opaque can be used (opaqueness of the elastomer can be tuned, Section (III) (A), the elastomer can include an opaque coating layer, Section (III) (D) figure 5).
Sferrazza, in the same field of optical tactile sensors, teaches a membrane that is substantially opaque to visible light having a wavelength of about 400 to about 700 nm (a black silicone layer is used as a shield against external light disturbances, Section 2, figure 4 shows the black layer, this is used to block external light from reaching the RGB camera used in the device, Section 2, therefore it must be at least partially opaque in the visible range, figure 1 shows the sensor and the black layer appears to be visibly opaque).
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 device of Lambeta with the elastomer having an opaque layer of Sferrazza for the benefit of blocking external light when imaging the marker pattern (Sferrazza Section 2) and tuning the opaqueness for the required sensitivity (Digit Section (III) (A)).
Correll, in the same field of multi-modal fingertip sensors, teaches a membrane that is substantially transparent to infrared light (the device includes an infrared proximity sensor, abstract, 220 figure 2, the proximity sensor can be used to detect distance to an object and produce a proximity signal, paragraph [0007], the proximity sensor can be imbedded in an elastomer layer, abstract, for the sensor to operate the elastomer would have to be at least partially transparent to IR light).
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 device of Lamberta in view of Sferrazza with the elastomer being at least partially transparent to infrared light of Correll for the benefit of allowing the use of an infrared proximity sensor to improve pre-grasp movement (Correll paragraph [0004]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambeta (2020 NPL) in view of Yamaguchi (2016 NPL, Combining Finger Vision).
Regarding claim 10, Lambeta teaches all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
While Lambeta does not specifically disclose the sensor further comprising a processor configured to (a) relate a pressure within an enclosure of the sensor to a deformation of the membrane, (b) modulate a pressure exerted against the deformable membrane, (c) relate an image of a pattern of the membrane to one of more pattern reference images, (d) relate an image of a pattern of the membrane to a deformation of the membrane, (e) relate a deformation of the membrane to a force exerted by the object on the membrane, (f) relate a deformation of the membrane to a torque exerted by the object on the membrane, (g) relate a deformation of the membrane to a position of the object on the membrane, or (h) any two or more (a) - (g), Lambeta does disclose an encoder that detects keypoint positions of the object based on the collected images (Section (IV) (C), figure 9 shows tracking the location of an object as it is moved to a target postion).
Yamaguchi, in the same field of optical tactile sensors, teaches a processor (the method is related to computer vision, Section (I), the marker tracking for contact force estimation is done in a programmed method on a computer with an Intel CPU, Section (II) (D)) configured to (a) relate a pressure within an enclosure of the sensor to a deformation of the membrane, (b) modulate a pressure exerted against the deformable membrane, (c) relate an image of a pattern of the membrane to one of more pattern reference images, (d) relate an image of a pattern of the membrane to a deformation of the membrane, (e) relate a deformation of the membrane to a force exerted by the object on the membrane, (f) relate a deformation of the membrane to a torque exerted by the object on the membrane, (g) relate a deformation of the membrane to a position of the object on the membrane, or (h) any two or more (a) - (g) (images of the markers are analyzed and for each marker position and size difference the contact force is estimated, this method is programmed and run on a computer with a processor, Section (II) (D)).
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 device of Lambeta with the processor and contact force estimation of Yamaguchi for the benefit of avoiding slippage and damage to the fingers (Yamaguchi, Section (I)).
Regarding claim 11, Lambeta discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
While Lambeta does not specifically disclose wherein the imaging train is configured to relate at least one of (i) light reflected through the membrane by the object on the opposite side of the membrane or contacting the membrane and (ii) light indicative of a deformation of the membrane by the object to at least one of a torque exerted on the membrane by the object, a force exerted on the membrane by the object, an optical characteristic of the object, a geometric characteristic of the object, a material characteristic of the object, a mechanical characteristic of the object, a position of the object, or any combination thereof (when the elastomer is transparent), Lambeta does disclose determining the position of the object based on the measured deformation when using a reflective elastomer (the position of the marble is detected from the tactile observations, caption for figure 6, figure 6 shows this positioning being based on light that shows the deflection of the membrane).
Yamaguchi, in the same field of optical tactile sensors, teaches wherein the imaging train is configured to relate at least one of (i) light reflected through the membrane by the object on the opposite side of the membrane or contacting the membrane and (ii) light indicative of a deformation of the membrane by the object to at least one of a torque exerted on the membrane by the object, a force exerted on the membrane by the object, an optical characteristic of the object, a geometric characteristic of the object, a material characteristic of the object, a mechanical characteristic of the object, a position of the object, or any combination thereof (images of the markers are analyzed and for each marker position and size difference the contact force is estimated, Section (II) (D)).
Claims 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambeta (2020 NPL) in view of Yamaguchi (2017 NPL, Implementing Tactile Behaviors).
Regarding claim 14, Lambeta discloses a system comprising:
a visuotactile sensor (vision based tactile sensor, abstract) that comprises a deformable membrane (vision based tactile sensors rely on soft deformable elastomeric materials, section (III) (C)) and an imaging train (lighting PCB D and camera PCB F, figure 2),
the imaging train configured to collect (i) light reflected through the deformable membrane by an object proximate to or contacting the membrane and (ii) light indicative of a deformation of the deformable membrane (figure 4 shows images collected using different elastomers, this includes one that is transparent with markers, the elastomer that is transparent with markers is able to be used to see objects as they approach and provide touch information through the movement of the markers, Section (II)); and
a mechanism (figure 1 shows a robot hand with the sensors).
While Lambeta does disclose the system configured to actuate the mechanism in response to light collected by the imaging train (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 determined through the collected light, Section (V) (B) figures 6-8, figure 9 shows the movement of the marble in collected images in response to control of the robot hand), the light being indicative of any one or more of a position of the object, a motion of the object, and a deformation experienced by the membrane (the position of the marble is detected from the tactile measurements, figure 6), this is only specifically disclosed with images collected using a reflective elastomer.
Yamaguchi, in the same field of optical tactile sensors, teaches a system configured to actuate the mechanism in response to light collected by the imaging train, the light being indicative of any one or more of a position of the object, a motion of the object, and a 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), proximity vision processes an image to obtain information about nearby objects such as position, 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 system of Lambeta 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 16, Lambeta and Yamaguchi teach all the elements of claim 14 as outlined above.
Lambeta also discloses wherein the mechanism is configured to move the object (control task of manipulating marbles between two fingers, the robot hand is controlled to move the marble to a goal position, Section (V) (B) figures 6-8, figure 9 shows the movement of the marble in collected images in response to control of the robot hand).
Regarding claim 17, Lambeta and Yamaguchi teach all the elements of claim 14 as outlined above.
Lambeta also discloses wherein the mechanism is configured to effect motivation or activation of an element exterior to the sensor (control task of manipulating marbles between two fingers, the robot hand is controlled to move the marble to a goal position, Section (V) (B) figures 6-8, figure 9 shows the movement of the marble in collected images in response to control of the robot hand, this would be control of elements of the robot hand that are external to the sensor).
Regarding claim 18, Lambeta and Yamaguchi teach all the elements of claim 14 as outlined above.
Lambeta also discloses wherein the system 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 15 is 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 Yamaguchi (2016 NPL, Combining Finger Vision).
Regarding claim 15, Lambeta and Yamaguchi (2017 NPL, Implementing Tactile Behaviors) teach all the elements of claim 14 as outlined above.
While Lambeta and Yamaguchi (2017 NPL, Implementing Tactile Behaviors) do not specifically teach wherein the mechanism effects relative motion between the visuotactile sensor and the object in response to a deformation of the membrane that exceeds a threshold magnitude and/or a threshold duration, Lambeta does disclose wherein the mechanism effects relative motion between the visuotactile sensor and the object (control task of manipulating marbles between two fingers, the robot hand is controlled to move the marble to a goal position, Section (V) (B) figures 6-8, figure 9 shows the movement of the marble in collected images in response to control of the robot hand) and that the mechanism needs to be controlled to grasp the object firmly enough to not drop it, but also not too firmly that it is squeezed out between the fingers (Section (V) (B)).
Yamaguchi (2016 NPL, Combining Finger Vision), in the same field of optical tactile sensors, teaches wherein the mechanism effects relative motion between the visuotactile sensor and the object in response to a deformation of the membrane that exceeds a threshold magnitude and/or a threshold duration (an automated cutting controller moves the robot arm containing the sensors in contact with a knife, the controller was configured to stop the motion if certain forces exceeded a measured value, Section (III) (D), these forces are calculated based on the measured deformation through the motion of the markers in contact with the object in the robot gripper, Section (II) (D)).
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 system of Lambeta in view of Yamaguchi with the motion control based on the measured forces of Yamaguchi (2016 NPL, Combining Finger Vision) for the benefit of preventing deformation of the grasp or slipping of the object in the gripper (Yamaguchi (2016 NPL, Combining Finger Vision), Section (III) (D)).
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 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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alspach (US 20210302249 A1) in view of Yamaguchi (2016 NPL, Combining Finger Vision).
Regarding claim 1, Alspach discloses a visuotactile sensor (the device is a contact sensor,
paragraph [0022], the device uses an optical sensor, paragraph [0025]), comprising:
a deformable membrane (deformable membrane 120, figure 1A); and
an imaging train (internal sensor 130, figure 1A, this may be a camera, paragraph [0025]),
the imaging train further configured to collect light indicative of a deformation of the membrane by the object (the internal sensor can detect deflections of the deformable membrane by an object, this can be done with a single camera and pattern or a stereo camera, paragraph [0025]).
Alspach does not specifically disclose the deformable membrane allowing at least partial transmission of light there through and onto the imaging train such that the imaging train collects light reflected through the membrane by an object on the opposite side of the membrane or contacting the membrane.
Yamaguchi, in the same field of optical contact sensors, teaches a deformable membrane allowing at least partial transmission of light there through and onto the imaging train such that the imaging train collects light reflected through the membrane by an object on the opposite side of the membrane or contacting the membrane (soft elastic outer layer is transparent, abstract, RGB cameras collect light through this layer, abstract, figure 1).
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 device of Alspach with the transparent membrane of Yamaguchi for the benefit of high resolution of contact forces and proximity vision (Yamaguchi, Section I).
Regarding claim 7, Alspach and Yamaguchi teach all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
Alspach also discloses the sensor further comprising an enclosure, the membrane forming a boundary of the enclosure (the device includes an enclosure comprised of a housing and a deformable member, abstract, figure 1A).
Regarding claim 8, Alspach and Yamaguchi teach all the elements of claim 7 as outlined above.
Alspach also discloses the sensor further comprising a source of pressure configured to exert a pressure within the enclosure (enclosure includes pass through 112, which allows a pump 115 to provide gas into the enclosure to a desired pressure, paragraph [0023], figure 1A).
Regarding claim 9, Alspach and Yamaguchi teach all the elements of claim 8 as outlined above.
Alspach also discloses the sensor further comprising a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure within the enclosure (the sensor can include one or more internal pressure sensors, paragraph [0028], 134 figure 1A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lancaster (2019 NPL) teaches an optical tactile and proximity sensor with a transparent membrane that uses an IR proximity sensor for both proximity and contact measurements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN J VAN CLEAVE whose telephone number is (703)756-1522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/J.V.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights