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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed February 9, 2024.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as August 20, 2021, the date of the earliest priority application (PCT international application number PCT/CN2021/113908) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the parent application.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as February 9, 2024, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing provisional or non-provisional application(s).
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
EP
21953838
08/20/2021
EP 4379337 A1
EP 4379337 A4
06/05/2024
11/27/2024
CN
202180100436
08/20/2021
CN 117693670 A
03/12/2024
CN
PCT/CN2021/113908
08/20/2021
WO 2023019597 A1
02/23/2023
The claims filed February 26, 2024 by preliminary amendment are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of December 4, 2024.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
1, 2, 4, 6-8, & 12-20
N/A
Cancelled:
none
N/A
Withdrawn:
none
N/A
Added:
none
N/A
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and outstanding.
Regarding the preliminary amendment:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 12-20 were amended.
No claims were cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
No claims were added.
Claims 1-20 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a non-final action and is the first action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions as defined by MPEP § 2111.01(IV) are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s). Per above, such special definitions must conform to the requirements of MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
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 1-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130202488 of Langer et al. (Langer) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090285521 of Kunigami et al. (Kunigami).
With respect to claim 1, Langer discloses a tactile sensing device (Figs. 2B, 3, and 8, optical sensor device 1, ¶ 41), comprising:
a light source (light source 4, such as an LED);
a plurality of optical waveguides (several separate optical waveguide branches 7B),
the light source is disposed at an input end of the plurality of optical waveguides (Fig. 3);
a photoelectric sensing component (light sensor or receiver 5, such as a photodiode),
wherein the photoelectric sensing component is disposed at the output end of the optical waveguide (Fig. 3); and
a contact point (touch region (sensor region) 8),
wherein the plurality of optical waveguides surround the contact point (8, Fig. 3),
the contact point is in contact with the each [sic] optical waveguide (the inner ones),
the plurality of optical waveguides are deformed when there is a contact force at the contact point (seen as inherent),
the photoelectric sensing component obtains an optical signal transmitted by the optical waveguide (¶ 59, "This change of the light intensity in the optical waveguide 7 is in turn converted into an electric signal in the light receiver 5, which signal is evaluated in the evaluating unit 6 in order to indicate the respective analyte 13."), and
a variation of the optical signal transmitted by the each optical waveguide is used to detect the contact force (Id.).
Langer as set forth above does not disclose:
wherein the light source is disposed at an input end of each optical waveguide of the plurality of optical waveguides;
a plurality of photoelectric sensing components,
wherein each photoelectric sensing component of the plurality of photoelectric sensing components is disposed at an output end of the each optical waveguide; and
the each [sic] photoelectric sensing component obtains an optical signal transmitted by the each optical waveguide, and
a variation of the optical signal transmitted by the each optical waveguide is used to detect the contact force.
Kunigami discloses an optical fiber sensor that includes:
wherein the light source is disposed at an input end of each optical waveguide of the plurality of optical waveguides (¶ 110, "The light enters the optical fiber 138, 144, or 150 (see FIG. 17) of the X-direction shearing stress sensor section 132, the Y-direction shearing stress sensor section 134, or the Z-direction stress sensor section 136 from one end thereof.");
a plurality of photoelectric sensing components (at least half-silvered mirrors 62a, 62b, or 62c; Fig. 19, ¶ 111),
wherein each photoelectric sensing component of the plurality of photoelectric sensing components is disposed at an output end of the each optical waveguide (Fig. 19); and
the each [sic] photoelectric sensing component obtains an optical signal transmitted by the each optical waveguide (Fig. 19), and
a variation of the optical signal transmitted by the each optical waveguide is used to detect the contact force (¶ 112, force/shear/compression/expansion is detected "according to the shift amounts and the shift directions of the wavelengths of the light beams reflected from adjacent gratings 140").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide plural optical component (source, waveguides, detectors) along the lines of Kunigami in a system according to Langer as set forth above in order to provide better and/or more sensitive detection of pressure changes due to redundancy and/or greater resolution. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optically-based pressure/force/touch sensor) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
wherein the light source is disposed at an input end of each optical waveguide of the plurality of optical waveguides;
a plurality of photoelectric sensing components,
wherein each photoelectric sensing component of the plurality of photoelectric sensing components is disposed at an output end of the each optical waveguide; and
the each [sic] photoelectric sensing component obtains an optical signal transmitted by the each optical waveguide, and
a variation of the optical signal transmitted by the each optical waveguide is used to detect the contact force.
With respect to claim 2, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the tactile sensing device according to claim 1, including one wherein
the contact point is polygonal (Langer Fig. 8), and
each side of the contact point is in contact with one of the plurality of optical waveguides (here, the lower side is seen as in contact.).
With respect to claim 3, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the tactile sensing device according to claim 1, including one wherein
a profile of the contact point is arc-shaped.
Fig. 3 at 8.
With respect to claim 4, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the tactile sensing device according to claim 1, including one wherein
a region between an input end of the each optical waveguide and a contact location is an arc-shaped structure (Langer Fig. 3), and
the contact location is a location in which the [sic] each optical waveguide is in contact with the contact point (which is basically the definition of a contact point. If a waveguide is in contact with a contact point, it will be at a contact location.).
With respect to claim 5, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the tactile sensing device according to claim 4, including one wherein
a curvature of the arc is less than a first preset threshold.
All arcs are less than a first preset threshold.
With respect to claim 6, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the tactile sensing device according to claim 1, including one wherein
a region between an input end of the each optical waveguide and a contact location is a linear structure (Langer Fig. 3 left), and
the contact location is a location in which the each optical waveguide is in contact with the contact point (seen as inherently so).
With respect to claim 7, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the tactile sensing device according to claim 1, including one wherein
at least two optical waveguides of the plurality of optical waveguides intersect.
Langer, Fig. 7 left.
With respect to claim 8, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the tactile sensing device according to claim 7, including one wherein
a deviation of a degree of an included angle between two optical waveguides intersecting from 90 degrees is less than a second preset threshold.
Kunigami shows non-intersecting optical waveguides while Langer shows intersecting optical waveguides. Per the obviousness analysis above, having 90° intersecting optical waveguides with some deviation is seen as within the knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Such deviation would be within some threshold and could be considered preset.
With respect to claim 9, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the tactile sensing device according to claim 1, including one wherein
the plurality of optical waveguides are deployed on a same reference plane.
Langer, Fig. 3.
With respect to claim 10, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the tactile sensing device according to claim 9, including one wherein
the contact point and the plurality of optical waveguides are deployed on the same reference plane.
Langer, Fig. 3.
With respect to claim 11, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the tactile sensing device according to claim 1, including one wherein
the plurality of optical waveguides are of multiple-input multiple-output structures.
Per Kunigami in claim 1, above, MIMO is seen with the separate optical waveguides.
With respect to claim 12, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the tactile sensing device according to claim 1, including one wherein
at least two optical waveguides of the plurality of optical waveguides are of single-input multiple-output (SIMO) structures (Langer, Fig. 3 where the output is across the junctures at 8), and
one light source is disposed at an input end of the at least two optical waveguides (Langer Fig. 3 at 4).
With respect to claim 13, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the tactile sensing device according to claim 1, including one wherein
the tactile sensing device further comprises a housing,
the light source,
the plurality of optical waveguides, and
the plurality of photoelectric sensing components are accommodated in the housing,
a target location of the housing is hollowed out, and
the target location corresponds to a location of the contact point.
Kunigami, Fig. 1, is deemed to show the housing and containment of the sensing device in order for the components to long operate and endure in any significant environment such as a shop floor or assembly line.
With respect to claim 14, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the tactile sensing device according to claim 1, including one wherein
when there is no contact force at the contact point,
a difference of macrobending losses of any two optical waveguides falls within a preset range.
Seen as inherently present. Standard manufacturing techniques generally lend themselves to consistent devices with consistent features and characteristics.
With respect to claim 15, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the tactile sensing device according to claim 1, including one further comprising
a second contact point.
Langer, Fig. 8.
With respect to claim 16, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a tactile sensing device comprising:
a light source;
a plurality of optical waveguides,
wherein the light source is disposed at an input end of each optical waveguide of the plurality of optical waveguides;
a plurality of photoelectric sensing components,
wherein each photoelectric sensing component of the plurality of photoelectric sensing components is disposed at an output end of the each optical waveguide; and
a contact point,
wherein the plurality of optical waveguides surround the contact point,
the contact point is in contact with the each [sic] optical waveguide,
the plurality of optical waveguides are deformed when there is a contact force at the contact point,
the each [sic] photoelectric sensing component obtains an optical signal transmitted by the each optical waveguide, and
a variation of the optical signal transmitted by the each optical waveguide is used to detect the contact force.
See claim 1, above.
With respect to claim 18, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the electronic device according to claim 16, including one wherein
when the electronic device is a mechanical hand (Kunigami, Fig. 1 at hand gripping and handling an object 12, ¶ 63), the electronic device further comprises a processor ("manipulator controller 22 for controlling the manipulator 14 based on the shearing stresses and the perpendicular stress that have been acquired by the tactile sensor controller 20", ¶ 63); and
the processor executes a task (controlling the manipulator) by using a contact force sensed by the tactile sensing device (per ¶ 63).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,245,115 of Froggatt et al. (Froggatt).
With respect to claim 17, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the electronic device according to claim 16, but not one wherein
when the electronic device is a surgical instrument, the electronic device further comprises a surgical forceps;
the tactile sensing device is disposed at an end of the surgical forceps; and
a contact force sensed by the tactile sensing device is used to indicate the surgical forceps to execute a task.
Froggatt discloses a fiber optic sensing of tool strain or tool angle that includes (Figs. 1-6, col. 2, ll. 64 and adjacent, "sensing the angle and distributed loading of robotically controlled surgical forceps can allow more precise application of forces to tissue, and reduce trauma to the tissue."):
when the electronic device is a surgical instrument, the electronic device further comprises a surgical forceps (col. 3, ll. 60 and adjacent, "forceps 100 grips tissue, the tissue will exert a load on the forceps");
the tactile sensing device is disposed at an end of the surgical forceps (col. 4, ll. 23 and adjacent"The optical fiber 120 loops around a distal end 130 of the first jaw 105 (also a distal end of the forceps 100) and back towards the pivot point 115 (where it is occluded from view in these figures) and then to the second jaw 110 where it is attached to a portion of the second jaw 110 where load is likely to be applied in use (an example of a load application region)."); and
a contact force sensed by the tactile sensing device is used to indicate the surgical forceps to execute a task (intended use, see below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a tactile sensing system for forceps along the lines of Froggatt using the sensing system of Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above in order to alternative or additional sensing means and abilities. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optically-based pressure/force/touch sensor for forceps) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
when the electronic device is a surgical instrument, the electronic device further comprises a surgical forceps;
the tactile sensing device is disposed at an end of the surgical forceps; and
a contact force sensed by the tactile sensing device is used to indicate the surgical forceps to execute a task.
Regarding intended use, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). MPEP § 2114(II).
Consequently, as the claimed element of "a contact force sensed by the tactile sensing device is used to indicate the surgical forceps to execute a task" adds nothing to the structure of the device, no weight is given to this claimed element. Examiner observes that providing sensing signals is seen to provide feedback for task execution.
Herein, this issue/analysis is referred to as “intended use”.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0237198 of Liu et al. (Liu).
With respect to claim 19, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the electronic device according to claim 16, but not one wherein
when the electronic device is a meshworm, the electronic device further comprises a processor; and
the processor executes a task by using a contact force sensed by the tactile sensing device.
Liu discloses an a robotic device that includes:
when the electronic device is a meshworm (Fig. 2), the electronic device further comprises a processor (¶ 141, "A simple PID controller was chosen to control the length of each tendon. This was implemented on a single microcontroller (MCU) board which would process the signals from the Hall Effect sensors in each segment and compute the PID control output."); and
the processor executes a task by using a contact force sensed by the tactile sensing device (¶ 111, "The motors controlling the tendons may then be controlled by some external control system, as described in more detail below with reference to FIGS. 10 and 12. To this end, the actuating mechanism is provided with a sensor system which provides feedback to the control system. The control system will then process the feedback signal received from the sensor system to generate a control signal that is output to the motors.").
Per the analyses above, it would have been obvious to use the tactile sensing unit of Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above for a Liu meshworm to provide environmental feedback such as running into a wall or detecting a fall.
Further, the combination would then provide:
when the electronic device is a meshworm, the electronic device further comprises a processor; and
the processor executes a task by using a contact force sensed by the tactile sensing device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0155441 of Berg et al. (Berg).
With respect to claim 20, Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above discloses the electronic device according to claim 16, but not one wherein
when the electronic device is a steering wheel, the electronic device further comprises a handle structure;
the tactile sensing device is deployed on a surface of the handle structure; and
the processor executes a task by using a contact force sensed by the tactile sensing device.
Berg discloses a vehicle information system with steering wheel controller that includes:
when the electronic device is a steering wheel (¶ 19, "a steering wheel, generally indicated at 10"), the electronic device further comprises a handle structure;
the tactile sensing device is deployed on a surface of the handle structure (¶ 24, "The controller 28 is best shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 including a housing 30 which is fixed to a spoke 14 of the steering wheel 10."); and
the processor executes a task by using a contact force sensed by the tactile sensing device (¶ 23, "The controller 28 allows the driver to send commands to the computer 24 for the purpose of changing the information data on the primary display 26, i.e., navigating through menu interfaces and initiating vehicle system changes in response to a manual input from the driver. The information system 22 is therefore structured to present, on the primary display 26, multiple, sequential, interactive presentations through which the driver navigates to arrive at specific information he wishes presented, or to enter a mode in which specific system changes can be effected.").
Per the analyses above, it would have been obvious to use the tactile sensing unit of Langer in view of Kunigami as set forth above for a Berg steering wheel to provide a driver means by which to control elements of the vehicle.
Further, the combination would then provide:
when the electronic device is a steering wheel, the electronic device further comprises a handle structure;
the tactile sensing device is deployed on a surface of the handle structure; and
the processor executes a task by using a contact force sensed by the tactile sensing device.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20240183727 A1 published June 6, 2024 is cited.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references have elements related to Applicant’s disclosure and/or claims or are otherwise associated with the other cited references, particularly with respect to optical sensors, applications thereof, and the like.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
March 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights