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 .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-10 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 27, 2024, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. For example, there does not appear to be any copy of EP 3601810 and EP 3762618. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“wherein the features in the sleeve are further configured for aligning the plurality of actuators such that the length direction of each one of the plurality of actuators is in alignment with the length direction of each other one of the plurality of actuators” (claim 2) does not appear to be shown for the sleeve system.
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
Claims 2 and 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 6 recites “a length direction” and Examiner suggests --the length direction-- to clarify the antecedent basis from line 2.
Claim 5, line 6 recites “a length direction” and Examiner suggests --the length direction-- to clarify the antecedent basis from line 2.
Claim 6, line 1 recites “the sleeve formed” and Examiner suggests --the sleeve is formed--.
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:
“features for accommodating the plurality of actuators therein, wherein the features in the sleeve are configured for distributing the plurality of actuators within the sleeve in a predetermined manner” in claim 1. The term “features” is a generic placeholder, and the claim does not recite sufficient structure to perform the function(s). It is unclear what is the corresponding structure in the specification.
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.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1, lines 10-12, the limitation “features for accommodating the plurality of actuators therein, wherein the features in the sleeve are configured for distributing the plurality of actuators within the sleeve in a predetermined manner” 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. The description does not appear to provide any clear explanation of what would be considered the “features.” 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.
Claims 2-7 are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1, the last two lines recite “produces a plurality of directional forces on the appendage contained within the sleeve” which is directed to or encompassing a human. Examiner suggests --is configured to produce a plurality of directional forces on the appendage contained within the sleeve--.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mau et al. (2021/0369547).
Regarding claim 1, Mau discloses an actuator system (Fig. 3C) comprising:
a sleeve (appendage wrap formed by interconnected segments 12-12j, Fig. 3C; see para. [0031]) for accommodating an appendage of a user therein (appendage 6, Fig. 3C);
a plurality of actuators (artificial muscles 101, Fig. 2A-2C, Figs. 6-7; “each appendage wrap 12a-12j may comprise … an array of artificial muscle stacks 102 (as depicted in FIGS. 2A-2C” see the last two sentences of [0030]. Each stack 102 includes a plurality of actuators 101), each one of the plurality of actuators (101) including:
a deformable shell defining a pouch (surface(s) 186, 188, Fig. 6 define a pouch) including an enclosed internal cavity (space between surfaces 186, 188, forms an enclosed internal cavity, see Figs. 6-7),
a fluid dielectric (dielectric fluid 198, Figs. 6-7) contained within the enclosed internal cavity (fluid 198 is contained in the space between surfaces 186, 188, Figs. 6-7),
a first electrode (first electrode 106, Figs. 6-7, which has a film-facing surface 126) disposed over a first side of the pouch (first electrode 106 is on a lower side of the pouch as seen in Figs. 6-7), and
a second electrode (second electrode 108, Figs. 6-7, which has a film-facing surface 148) disposed over a second side of the pouch (second electrode 108 is on an upper side of the pouch as seen in Figs. 6-7); and
a power source for providing a voltage (“a voltage is applied by a power supply (such as power supply 48 of FIG. 10)” see the first sentence of [0050]) across the enclosed internal cavity between the first and second electrodes of the plurality of actuators (“electrode pair that may be drawn together by application of a voltage, thereby pushing dielectric fluid into the expandable fluid region, which applies localized pressure to the inner band of the appendage wrap.” See para. [0023]),
wherein the sleeve includes features for accommodating the plurality of actuators therein (the sleeve includes a plurality of interconnected wraps 12a-12j that each include a cavity 15 to receive the actuators as seen in Fig. 2A, Fig. 3C. Thus the “features for accommodating the plurality of actuators therein” are the plurality of cavities 15, for each wrap),
wherein the features in the sleeve are configured for distributing the plurality of actuators within the sleeve in a predetermined manner (the cavities 15 are each associated with a respective wrap 12a-12j, and thus distributing the plurality of actuators within each wrap 12a-12j),
wherein actuation of the plurality of actuators (101) by application of the voltage produces a plurality of directional forces on the appendage contained within the sleeve (plurality of directional forces as seen in Figs. 2A-2C).
Regarding claim 5, Mau discloses wherein, in each one of the plurality of actuators (101), the pouch has a length and a width (the length is considered the left-to-right dimension in Figure 6 and the width is considered the H1 dimension), the length being longer than the width (see Fig. 6), wherein, in each one of the plurality of actuators (101), the first and second electrodes are disposed over the pouch such that, when activated with the voltage applied across the first and second electrodes, the fluid dielectric (198, Figs. 6-7) is displaced in a length direction within the pouch (see Figures 6-7, “In the actuated state, as shown in FIG. 7, the first electrode 106 and the second electrode 108 are brought into contact with and oriented parallel to one another to force the dielectric fluid 198 into the expandable fluid region 196.” See para. [0047]. Thus, fluid 198 moves from the outer area of the pouch towards the inner area, along the length direction), and wherein the features in the sleeve (cavities 15) are further configured for aligning the plurality of actuators such that the length direction of at least one of the plurality of actuators is not in alignment with the length direction of at least one other one of the plurality of actuators (as seen in Figure 2B, the cavity 15 is configured for aligning the plurality of actuators 101 such that the length direction of at least the actuators in the stack 102a is not aligned with the length direction of the actuators in the stack 102C).
Regarding claim 6, Mau discloses wherein the sleeve (appendage wrap formed by interconnected segments 12-12j, Fig. 3C; see para. [0031]) [is] formed of a stretchable material (inner band 30, Fig. 2A “comprises an elastic material such that, when worn, the inner band 30 may conform to the contours of the appendage 6” see para. [0025]) such that the sleeve may be stretched (to conform to the contours of the appendage) without affecting activation of the plurality of actuators (conforming to the contours of the appendage would not appear to affect the activation of the actuators, as they would still require the “electrode pair that may be drawn together by application of a voltage, thereby pushing dielectric fluid into the expandable fluid region, which applies localized pressure to the inner band of the appendage wrap.” See para. [0023]).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mau et al. (2021/0369547).
Regarding claim 2, Mau discloses wherein, in each one of the plurality of actuators (101), the pouch has a length and a width (the length is considered the left-to-right dimension in Figure 6 and the width is considered the H1 dimension), the length being longer than the width (see Fig. 6), wherein, in each one of the plurality of actuators (101), the first and second electrodes are disposed over the pouch such that, when activated with the voltage applied across the first and second electrodes, the fluid dielectric (198, Figs. 6-7) is displaced in a length direction within the pouch (see Figures 6-7, “In the actuated state, as shown in FIG. 7, the first electrode 106 and the second electrode 108 are brought into contact with and oriented parallel to one another to force the dielectric fluid 198 into the expandable fluid region 196.” See para. [0047]. Thus, fluid 198 moves from the outer area of the pouch towards the inner area, along the length direction), and wherein the features in the sleeve (cavities 15) are further configured for aligning the plurality of actuators (as seen in Figure 2B, the cavity 15 is configured for aligning the plurality of actuators 101). Mau is silent regarding the length direction of each one of the plurality of actuators is in alignment with the length direction of each other one of the plurality of actuators.
However, Mau teaches an alternative embodiment in which a single actuator (101) is placed within each cavity (15, see Fig. 3B; “each appendage wrap 12a-12j may comprise a single artificial muscle 101 (as depicted in FIGS. 3A and 3B)” see the last sentence of [0030]), with the sleeve (12) including a plurality of single actuators (101) disposed in the cavity in a repeated manner along the length of the wrap from the first end (14) to the second end (16; see the last twelve lines of [0029] and Fig. 3B). This repeated arrangement would have the plurality of actuators (101) stacked parallel to one another because each wrap segment 12a-12j is connected in parallel as seen in Fig. 3C. Thus each actuator is “in alignment” with the length direction of each other one of the plurality of actuators, as they are parallel to one another along wrap segments 12a-12j. This alternative embodiment would be expected to provide a substantially similar result, and would require simpler control schemes as there would be far fewer actuators.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cavities of Mau to each include a single artificial muscle as taught by Figure 3B of Mau, thus having each actuator in alignment with the length direction of each other one of the plurality of actuators because this is shown to be a suitable alternative design that would be expected to provide a substantially similar result, and would require simpler control schemes as there would be far fewer actuators.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Mau device discloses further comprising a controller (control unit 40, Fig. 3C, Fig. 10) for controlling the power source (actuation of the artificial muscle(s) 101 is controlled by control unit 40, see the last sentence of [0024], and these actuators are actuated by the power source see para. [0033]), wherein the power source is configured for individually addressing each one of the plurality of actuators (“the artificial muscles 101 of a single artificial muscle stack 102 may also be independently actuatable, allowing the displacement stoke applied by a single artificial muscle stack 102 to be altered based on the number of individual artificial muscles 101 of the single artificial muscle stack 102 that are actuated” see the penultimate sentence of [0032]), and wherein the controller (40) is configured for modulating the power source such that the plurality of actuators are activatable in an activation pattern (“in a cascading rhythm operation, voltage may be applied to the one or more artificial muscles 101 in a selectively manner to actuate subsets of the one or more artificial muscles 101 (e.g., radial arrays of artificial muscles 101) in a sequential manner form the first end of the appendage wrap 12 to the second end of the appendage wrap 12 or sequentially along multiple appendage wraps 12 adjacently disposed on the appendage 6 of the user 5” see the last sentence of [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Mau device discloses wherein the activation pattern (“in a cascading rhythm operation, voltage may be applied to the one or more artificial muscles 101 in a selectively manner to actuate subsets of the one or more artificial muscles 101 (e.g., radial arrays of artificial muscles 101) in a sequential manner form the first end of the appendage wrap 12 to the second end of the appendage wrap 12 or sequentially along multiple appendage wraps 12 adjacently disposed on the appendage 6 of the user 5” see the last sentence of [0033]) includes at least one of a peristaltic motion, a wave motion, and a pumping motion (this sequential activation from the first end of the wrap to the second end reads on at least a wave motion).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mau et al. (2021/0369547) in view of Van Essen (2023/0320906).
Regarding claim 7, Mau discloses a second deformable shell encapsulating at least one of the plurality of actuators (film layer(s) 122, 12, Fig. 4 encapsulate each actuator) but is silent regarding further comprising: an electrically conductive outer layer disposed over at least a portion of the second deformable shell and connected to a ground.
Van Essen teaches a related compression sleeve (Fig. 8) an electrically conductive outer layer (conductive shielding layer 40, Fig. 1a) disposed over at least a portion of a dielectric system and connected to a ground (see Fig. 1a and para. [0103]). The electrically conductive outer layer (40) is used as “an active shield in the form of an additional electrode layer (conductive layer) is used to keep the influence of external electric fields away from the inner sensor structure” (see para. [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second deformable shell of Mau to include an electrically conductive outer layer disposed over at least a portion of the second deformable shell and connected to ground as generally taught by Van Essen so the electric components of the dielectric actuator are not inadvertently influenced by external electric fields.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mau et al. (2021/0369547) in view of Correll et al. (WO 2022/050997 A2).
Regarding claim 8, Mau discloses an actuator system (Fig. 3C) comprising:
a plurality of actuators (artificial muscles 101, Fig. 2A-2C, Figs. 6-7; “each appendage wrap 12a-12j may comprise … an array of artificial muscle stacks 102 (as depicted in FIGS. 2A-2C” see the last two sentences of [0030]. Each stack 102 includes a plurality of actuators 101), each one of the plurality of actuators (101) including:
a deformable shell defining a pouch (surface(s) 186, 188, Fig. 6 define a pouch) including an enclosed internal cavity (space between surfaces 186, 188, forms an enclosed internal cavity, see Figs. 6-7),
a fluid dielectric (dielectric fluid 198, Figs. 6-7) contained within the enclosed internal cavity (fluid 198 is contained in the space between surfaces 186, 188, Figs. 6-7),
a first electrode (first electrode 106, Figs. 6-7, which has a film-facing surface 126) disposed over a first side of the pouch (first electrode 106 is on a lower side of the pouch as seen in Figs. 6-7), and
a second electrode (second electrode 108, Figs. 6-7, which has a film-facing surface 148) disposed over a second side of the pouch (second electrode 108 is on an upper side of the pouch as seen in Figs. 6-7); and
a power source for providing a voltage (“a voltage is applied by a power supply (such as power supply 48 of FIG. 10)” see the first sentence of [0050]) across the enclosed internal cavity between the first and second electrodes of the plurality of actuators (“electrode pair that may be drawn together by application of a voltage, thereby pushing dielectric fluid into the expandable fluid region, which applies localized pressure to the inner band of the appendage wrap.” See para. [0023]), and
a controller (control unit 40, Fig. 3C, Fig. 10) for controlling the power source (actuation of the artificial muscle(s) 101 is controlled by control unit 40, see the last sentence of [0024], and these actuators are actuated by the power source see para. [0033]).
Mau is silent regarding wherein the controller is configured for monitoring a value of at least one of charge, voltage, capacitance, resistance, and distance between neighboring actuators, and wherein the controller is further configured for adjusting the voltage provided by the power source according to the value so monitored.
Correll teaches a related controller for actuation of electrostatic actuators such as dielectric elastomer actuators and hydraulically amplified self-healing electrostatic actuators (see para. [0005]; see Fig. 1), wherein the controller (controller unit 110, Fig. 1) is configured for monitoring a value of at least one of charge, voltage, capacitance, resistance, and distance between neighboring actuators (controller unit 110 is configured to monitor at least a capacitance and voltage of the actuator(s) via low voltage sensing unit 140, Fig. 1; “the low voltage sensing unit 140 may be operative to sense a capacitance of the electrostatic transducer 120. In turn, the sensed capacitance may be indicative of a state of displacement of the transducer 120” see para. [0036]), and wherein the controller is further configured for adjusting the voltage provided by the power source according to the value so monitored (“sensed capacitance may be readily mapped to a corresponding estimated displacement of the transducer. This arrangement may provide robust capabilities of a control circuit. This is demonstrated with an example of a feedback-controlled HASEL-powered arm” see para. [0032]; “self-sensing provides control advantages … allow the actuator to itself provide feedback to a control system for the actuator … for more robust control of the actuator” see para. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Mau to be configured for monitoring a value of at least one of charge, voltage, capacitance, resistance, and distance between neighboring actuators, and wherein the controller is further configured for adjusting the voltage provided by the power source according to the value so monitored as taught by Correll so the capacitance can be used to determine the displacement of the actuator, thereby allowing a more precise and robust feedback control circuit so the actuators provide a regulated amount of displacement.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Mau/Correll device discloses wherein the power source (power supply 48 of FIG. 10 of Mau) is configured for individually addressing each one of the plurality of actuators (“the artificial muscles 101 of a single artificial muscle stack 102 may also be independently actuatable, allowing the displacement stoke applied by a single artificial muscle stack 102 to be altered based on the number of individual artificial muscles 101 of the single artificial muscle stack 102 that are actuated” see the penultimate sentence of [0032] of Mau), and wherein the controller (40, Mau) is further configured for modulating the power source such that the plurality of actuators are activatable in an activation pattern (“in a cascading rhythm operation, voltage may be applied to the one or more artificial muscles 101 in a selectively manner to actuate subsets of the one or more artificial muscles 101 (e.g., radial arrays of artificial muscles 101) in a sequential manner form the first end of the appendage wrap 12 to the second end of the appendage wrap 12 or sequentially along multiple appendage wraps 12 adjacently disposed on the appendage 6 of the user 5” see the last sentence of [0033 of Mau]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Mau/Correll device discloses wherein the activation pattern (“in a cascading rhythm operation, voltage may be applied to the one or more artificial muscles 101 in a selectively manner to actuate subsets of the one or more artificial muscles 101 (e.g., radial arrays of artificial muscles 101) in a sequential manner form the first end of the appendage wrap 12 to the second end of the appendage wrap 12 or sequentially along multiple appendage wraps 12 adjacently disposed on the appendage 6 of the user 5” see the last sentence of [0033] of Mau) includes at least one of a peristaltic motion, a wave motion, and a pumping motion (this sequential activation from the first end of the wrap to the second end reads on at least a wave motion).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yosef et al. (2022/0416689) discloses a related sleeve of hydro-electric actuators to apply compression to an appendage. Suarez et al. (2021/0386615) discloses a related sleeve of dielectric actuators to apply compression to an appendage. Larson et al. (2008/0195018) discloses a related sleeve of electro active actuators including a dielectric fluid with a pouch and pair of electrodes. Im et al. (2023/0260735) discloses a related electroactive actuator with a sensor to detect capacitance, and the controller controls the voltage based on the capacitance. Cheatham III et al. (2017/0157431 and 2016/0058644) discloses a related sleeve with a plurality of electroactive polymer actuators. Munch-Fals et al. (2006/0079824) discloses a related sleeve of electro active actuators. Kepliner et al. (2021/0172460) discloses a related electrostatic actuator sleeve. Rowe (11,684,505 and 11,872,152) discloses a related sleeve with dielectric fluid actuators. Dohno et al. (7,056,297) discloses a related sleeve with dielectric actuators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30 (Eastern).
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MILLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights