DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9 are pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular passages including column and line numbers, paragraphs as designated numerically and/or figures as designated numerically in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages, paragraphs and figures of any and all cited prior art references may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing an eventual response, to fully consider the context of the passages, paragraphs and figures as taught by the prior art and/or cited by the examiner while including in such consideration the cited prior art references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/21/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: The claim(s) recite(s) device for additive manufacturing, which is a mechanical and/or electrical device. Thus, the claim is to a manufacture or a machine, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong one: The claim recites a computer arranged to determine an additive model defining an orthotropic foam using the shape data of the object to be manufactured and actuator data for the object to be manufactured. The limitation of determine an additive model defining an orthotropic foam, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, using geometry fundamentals and pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer. For example, a mechanical engineer can manually sketch the an object and the orthotropic cell orientations based on the data. Thus, the limitation recites a concept that falls into the “Mental process” group of abstract ideas. In other words, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of determining a design model based on data, without reciting any specific improvement in computer technology or physical manufacturing process. Thus, the limitation recites a concept that falls into the “Mental process” groups of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract ideas, the recites the additional element of memory arranged to receive shape data of object to be manufactured and actuator data for the object to be manufactured. This additional element represents mere data gathering (shape data and actuator data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (data are used to determine additive model). The computer is also an additional element which is configured to carry out the limitation of determine. However, it is merely as a tool that is used to perform an abstract idea. The memory and the computer are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Steps 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has two additional elements. The first is a computer, which is configured to perform limitation determine. As explained previously, the computer is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The second additional element is memory to receive shape data…actuator data, which as explained previously is extra-solution activity, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong two was considered insignificant. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim includes an addition element of the actuator data define the actuators for the object to be manufactured as an additive structure, and wherein the computer is arranged to determine an additive model defining an orthotropic foam which integrates these actuators. These limitation simply further describe the content of the received data and the result of the abstract modeling process. Thus, the additional recited limitation fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 3, the claim includes an additional element of at least one actuator is produced by means of one or more closed structures in the orthotropic foam, and by introducing a gas, a gel or a fluid. This merely describes intended use or the physical interpretation of the generated model. Thus, the claim remains directed to the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 4, the claim includes an additional element of the actuator acts by transition ci of the gas, gel or fluid, triggered by means of a solenoid valve, a pneumatic source, or by simply pressing on one of the parts containing the gas, the gel or the fluid in fluidic contact with another part of the suitable orthotropic foam. It is mere post-solution physical context statements relating to how the modeled actuator might be used. The limitations do not alter the computer’s generic data-processing operations and therefore do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5, the claim includes an additional element of the actuator data define the actuators for the object to be manufactured as non-additive elements, and wherein the computer is arranged to determine an additive model defining an orthotropic foam enabling the introduction of these actuators. This again merely changes what type of actuator data is received and what type of model is output, which is still data evaluation and model generation performed by a generic computer. As such, it does not provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 6, the claim includes an additional element of the actuators include a deformable element connected to points on the foam so that deformation propagates through preferred directions. This limitation merely describes structural or functional properties of the resulting model, not any improvement to how the computer performs the abstract operations. The claim recites only abstract modeling on generic computer hardware.
Regarding claim 7, the claim includes an additional element of the computer is arranged to provide the object to be manufactured with a skin on all or part of the surface thereof. This merely another modeling output, specifying an attribute of the computed model. It does not alter the nature of the abstract idea or the generic computer implementation.
Regarding claims 8, 9, they are directed to the method and computer product to implement the system as set forth in claim 1 and recite the same abstract idea of claim 1. Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reason and not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed subject matter of this claim is “program product comprising portions of program code” even though it is drafted as being dependent on the method claim 8. The claim 9’s subject matter of this claim clearly encompasses “software per se” and hence must be rejected under 101 accordance to MPEP 2106.03(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 5-6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinez Garrido et al. US Pub. No. 2020/0189124 (“Martinez).
Regarding claim 1, Martinez discloses device for additive manufacturing, comprising a memory arranged to receive shape data of object [1 - CAD model of fig. 5] to be manufactured and actuator data for the object to be manufactured [SEE fig. 1],
[0027] ASMs can be easily designed from any CAD model by applying an automated algorithm that first performs a Delaunay triangulation on the original lattice (topology) of the model, and then a Voronoi tessellation over the Delaunay triangles (FIG. 1A and code S1, S2). As a proof of principle, the present disclosure provides a simple and rapid design of a low-density soft gripper weighing 11.8 g (effective density=0.28 g cm.sup.−3, 24% of bulk material), by combining standard primitives (cuboids) and applying the Delaunay and Voronoi algorithms to the model (FIG. 1B). The resulting 3D-architected design is then 3D printed using a flexible photopolymer (FIG. 2) to create an ASM. After the ASMs were 3D printed, nylon threads were manually tied to the Voronoi cells at the end of the soft actuator, these threads were passed along its beam structure, and small DC motors were used to compress the 3D-architected geometry and induced its controlled buckling to achieve conformal gripping (FIG. 1C). This design, fabrication, and actuation approach enables users with minimal training in CAD modeling to rapidly create low-density soft machines with desired topologically encoded actuation.
[0036] Most CAD tools allow the localized reduction of polygon count, decreasing the number of lattice points, in 3D models. When the Delaunay and Voronoi algorithms are applied to 3D models with non-uniform topological distributions of lattice points, the resulting architected materials will exhibit bigger Voronoi cells over the regions where the original lattice is sparse (FIG. 5A). Tuning the cell density—number of Voronoi cells per unit area—of the resulting ASM enables the deliberate introduction of weak regions in its structure. Upon compression, the buckling of the ASM will concentrate on these weak regions making it possible to program the actuation of the ASMs by simply tuning the lattice density of the original CAD model.
a computer arranged to determine an additive model defining an orthotropic foam using the shape data of the object to be manufactured and actuator data for the object to be manufactured [SEE fig. 5].
[0031] The application of topological torsional transformations to control the resulting a of the ASMs produces soft actuators with different twisting motions along the regimes depicted in FIG. 3J. When a ranges from 40°-70°, ASMs undergo unidirectional twisting, while 70°<α<90° induces bidirectional twisting in the ASMs. The regimes are symmetric about α=90°, since obtuse angles only cause a reversal in sense. ASMs with α<40° or α>140° do not twist upon compression due to the physical contact among their beams. Since θ is almost constant within each of the regimes, unidirectional or bidirectional twisting actuation can be easily encoded in the ASM without requiring an accurate control of α. ASMs with more slanted beams, however, require less force to be actuated, inducing lower stresses as predicted by the finite element method (FEM) simulations (FIG. 3B, E and H).
[0067] In one embodiment, the present disclosure provides a soft bodied robotic device, wherein orientation, thickness, size of said cells of the flexible 3D architected body can be tuned through a triangulation, tessellation, or mesh refinement algorithms to allow the flexible 3D architected body to make reversible continuum or articulated motions comprising expanding, contracting, bending, twisting, or any combination thereof.
[0078] In one embodiment, the present disclosure provides a method of fabricating a soft bodied robotic device, wherein the method comprises: [0079] providing a CAD model of an object with a surface; [0080] performing a tessellation algorithm over the volume or surface of the CAD model; and fabricating a flexible 3D architected body based on the CAD model tessellation by 3D printing, molding, or injection molding using a material comprising elastomer, elastomeric composite, metal, polymers, or any combination thereof.
In summary, Martinez discloses a device configured for additive manufacturing configured to receive CAD model input (shape data) and actuator data (tendon-based actuator placement and motion) and use Delaunay triangulation and Voronoi tessellation and to generate a 3D-architected lattice that encodes actuation behavior. This lattice functions as an additive model with orthotropic foam like properties [SEE fig. 5].
Regarding 2, Martinez discloses the actuator data define the actuators for the object to be manufactured as an additive structure [SEE par. 0027 - After the ASMs were 3D printed, nylon threads were manually tied to the Voronoi cells at the end of the soft actuator…], and wherein the computer is arranged to determine an additive model defining an orthotropic foam which integrates these actuators [SEE par. 0067, 0078].
Regarding claim 3, Martinez discloses at least one actuator is produced by means of one or more closed structures in the orthotropic foam, and by introducing a gas, a gel or a fluid therein [SEE par. 0062 - provides a soft bodied robotic device, wherein the actuator comprises pneumatic, hydraulic, electronic, digital, magnetic, electromagnetic, piezo electric, electroactive, thermal, shape memory alloy actuator, or any combination thereof].
Regarding claim 5, Martinez disclose the actuator data define the actuators for the object to be manufactured as non-additive elements, and wherein the computer is arranged to determine an additive model defining an orthotropic foam enabling the introduction of these actuators [SEE par. 0027 - After the ASMs were 3D printed, nylon threads were manually tied to the Voronoi cells at the end of the soft actuator, these threads were passed along its beam structure, and small DC motors were used to compress the 3D-architected geometry and induced its controlled buckling to achieve conformal gripping].
Regarding claim 6, Martinez discloses wherein the actuator data define the actuators so that the object to the manufactured comprises a deformable element connected to various points of the orthotropic foam, such that the deformation of the deformable element induces the deformation of the orthotropic foam according to the preferred directions of deformation of each zone comprising a point to which the deformable element is connected [SEE par. 0027, 0029, 0067 (in other words, examiner added, this shows pulling the tendon threads induces deformation in specific direction, controlled by the foam’s topology, i.e., preferred directions of deformation at each point of connection. SEE also fig. 5].
Regarding claims 8-9, they are directed to the method of steps and program code to implement the system as set forth in claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Martinez teaches the actuator acts by transition ci of the gas, gel or fluid. Martinez does not expressly teach triggered by means of a solenoid valve, a pneumatic source, or by simply pressing on one of the parts containing the gas, the gel or the fluid in fluidic contact with another part of the suitable orthotropic foam. However, Martinez specifically teaches, after the ASMs were 3D printed, nylon threads were manually tied to the Voronoi cells at the end of the soft actuator, these threads were passed along its beam structure, and small DC motors were used to compress the 3D-architected geometry and induced its controlled buckling to achieve conformal gripping and the actuator comprises pneumatic, hydraulic, electronic, digital, magnetic, electromagnetic, piezo electric, electroactive, thermal, shape memory alloy actuator, or any combination thereof. Therefore, it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the system of Martinez included triggered by means of a pneumatic source, or by simply pressing on one of the parts containing the gas, the gel or the fluid in fluidic contact with another part of the suitable orthotropic foam because the system of Martinez would not able to control the conformal a pneumatic source or a pressing mean.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of King et al. U.S. Patent No. 12,282,710 (“King”).
Regarding claim 7, Martinez teaches the motor-tendon-based actuation mechanism of an ASM gripper 3D printed with a flexible photopolymer. However, Martinez does not expressly teach the computer is arranged to provide the object to be manufactured with a skin on all or part of the surface thereof.
King teaches a three-dimensional (3D) model 200 of a manipulation device is shown according to a non-limiting embodiment. The model 200 may be generated in any number of ways such as, for example, a 3D scanner, a plurality of images processed with an image processing application, and/or the like. In some examples the model 200 may be created to print. Specifically, King teaches the computer is arranged to provide the object to be manufactured with a skin on all or part of the surface thereof [In non-limiting embodiments or aspects, the at least one computing device is further programmed or configured to forming the at least one appendage from at least one of the following materials: foam, silicone, an elastomer, polydimethylsiloxane, rubber, plastic, biological material, nanomaterial, cork, compressed textiles, or any combination thereof. In non-limiting embodiments or aspects, the manipulation device further comprises a skin. In non-limiting embodiments or aspects, the at least one tendon is connected to the skin – col. 2 lines 58-67; The method of clauses 1 or 2, wherein forming the at least one appendage further comprises covering at least a portion of the appendage with a skin – col. 5 lines 32-34; col. 12 lines 34-62].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Martinez with computer is arranged to provide the object to be manufactured with a skin on all or part of the surface thereof of King. The motivation for doing so would has been for protection during usage, as suggested by King in col. 13 line 3. Thus, prevent damage to the actuator itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 9,506,455 to Mazzeo et al. teach a subject matter includes a laminated robotic actuator. The laminated robotic actuator includes a strain-limiting layer comprising a flexible, non-extensible material in the form of a sheet or thin film, a flexible inflatable layer in the form of a thin film or sheet in facing relationship with the strain-limiting layer, wherein the inflatable layer is selectively adhered to the strain-limiting layer, and wherein a portion of an un-adhered region between the strain-limiting layer and the inflatable layer defines a pressurizable channel, and at least one fluid inlet in fluid communication with the pressurizable channel. The first flexible non-extensible material has a stiffness that is greater than the stiffness of the second flexible elastomeric material and the flexible elastomer is non-extensible under actuation conditions.
US Pub. No. 2015/0158244 to Tibbits et al. teach another dimension to 3D printing technology. Particular arrangements of the additive manufacturing materials used in the 3D printing process can create a printed 3D object that transforms over time from a first, printed shape to a second, predetermined shape.
US Pub. NO. 2019/0022875 to Galloway et al. teach method of making an actuator having a complex internal shape includes providing a core of a shape that defines an internal cavity of an actuator; molding an actuator around the core, wherein the core occupies the internal cavity of the actuator, the cavity having an opening; generating a pressure differential between an exterior surface of the actuator and the internal cavity of the actuator, wherein the external pressure is less than the internal pressure, to expand the actuator cavity; and removing the core through the opening of the expanded actuator cavity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT HUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7210. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00-4:00.
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, Thomas C Lee can be reached on 571-272-3667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115