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 .
Specification
The use of the term “Delrin” on Paragraph [0057], line 4, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-7 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 2 is vague and indefinite. On line 1, the phrase “further comprising the modular fingertip” is unclear. How does this claim further limit the structure set forth in Claim 1? Note that the modular fingertip has already been set forth on line 8 of independent Claim 1.
Claims 3-7 are rejected due to their dependency upon Claim 2.
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, 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) 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curhan et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0084165), hereinafter “Curhan”, in view of Seto et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0110938), hereinafter “Seto”.
With respect to Claim 1, Curhan, Figures 1-8, teaches a soft robotic actuator system comprising:
a soft robotic actuator 100 comprising an elastomeric material (See Paragraph [0038]) extending from a proximal end to a distal end and substantially surrounding a reservoir (See Paragraph [0046]) configured to receive an inflation fluid, the soft robotic actuator configured to bend in a circumferential direction upon adding the inflation fluid to, or removing the inflation fluid from, the reservoir.
Curhan teaches all the elements of the actuator except for wherein
the distal end of the actuator is sized and shaped to mate with a proximal end of a modular fingertip configured to be secured onto the distal end of the actuator, and
the distal end comprises one or more holes configured to receive a fastener that mates with the modular fingertip.
However, Seto, Figures 1-21, teaches wherein
the distal end of the actuator 2 is sized and shaped to mate with a proximal end of a modular fingertip 30 configured to be secured onto the distal end of the actuator 2, and
the distal end comprises one or more holes (See Figure 1 on Page 5 of this Office Action) configured to receive a fastener that mates with the modular fingertip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Curhan with a modular fingertip, as taught by Seto, because a reaction force of this action is proportional to a distance from the cap 30, thus the bending force of the actuator is desirably larger at the base than the tip. (See Paragraph [0087])
[AltContent: textbox (Hole)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
663
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 2, Seto further teaches the modular fingertip.
With respect to Claim 5, Seto further teaches wherein the modular fingertip comprises a surface that is textured so as to increase a friction applied by the modular fingertip as compared to a base of the soft robotic actuator.
With respect to Claim 7, Seto further teaches wherein the modular fingertip is a first modular fingertip that connects to a second adjacent modular finger via inter-fingertip webbing.
With respect to Claim 8, Seto further teaches wherein the one or more holes of the distal end do not extend completely through the elastomeric material of the soft robotic actuator.
With respect to Claim 9, Seto further teaches a backing plate 18j configured to secure the proximal end of the modular fingertip to the distal end of the actuator.
With respect to Claims 11-17 and 19-20, the method described in these claims would inherently result from the use of the actuator of Curhan in view of Seto as advanced above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, 10, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ARAUZ RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM MDT.
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, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached at 313-446-4858. 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.
/WILLIAM A. RIVERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights