DETAILED ACTIONAcknowledgment is made of applicant’s amendment filed 4/2/26. 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (KR20120119172). Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses an apparatus comprising an annular structure 131 configured for securing a force sensor assembly to a link of a mechanism; a hub 132 configured to be connected to support a tool; branches (spokes) 133a, 133b, 133c extending from the hub to the annular structure, the branches each defining at least two adjacent sensor receiving surfaces; and respective sensors 151a, 151b on the at least two adjacent sensor receiving surfaces of at least one of the branches (See Fig. 4, See Pg. 4, Paras. 1 – 9).
Regarding claim 2, three branches are provided (See Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, the branches and the hub are generally axisymmetric (See Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, the branches are perpendicular to respective surfaces of the hub to which the branches connect (See Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, the branches are perpendicular to respective surfaces of the annular structure to which the branches connect (See Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, the sensor receiving surfaces are flat (See Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, the hub defines a central opening (See Fig. 5).
5. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradford et al. (10,067,019, hereinafter Bradford). Regarding claim 1, Bradford discloses an apparatus comprising an annular structure 54 configured for securing a force sensor assembly to a link of a mechanism; a hub 52 configured to be connected to support a tool; branches (beams) 56a – 563 extending from the hub to the annular structure, the branches each defining at least two adjacent sensor receiving surfaces; and respective sensors 58l, 58s on the at least two adjacent sensor receiving surfaces of at least one of the branches (See Figs. 5 and 6, See Col. 5, lines 36 – 63).
Regarding claim 2, three branches are provided (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, the branches and the hub are generally axisymmetric (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, the branches are perpendicular to respective surfaces of the hub to which the branches connect (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, the branches are perpendicular to respective surfaces of the annular structure to which the branches connect (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, the sensor receiving surfaces are flat (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, the hub defines a central opening (See Fig. 5).
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.
8. Claims 14, 19, 22, 23 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradford et al. (10,067,019, hereinafter Bradford 019’) in view of Bradford (2017/0205296).
Regarding claim 14, Bradford 019’ discloses an apparatus comprising an annular structure 54 configured for securing a force sensor assembly to a link of a mechanism; a hub 52 configured to be connected to support a tool; branches (beams) 56a – 563 extending from the hub to the annular structure, the branches each defining at least two adjacent sensor receiving surfaces; and respective sensors 58l, 58s on the at least two adjacent sensor receiving surfaces of at least one of the branches (See Figs. 5 and 6, See Col. 5, lines 36 – 63).
Bradford 019’ fails to disclose that the annular structure is polygonal. However, Bradford discloses an apparatus comprising a polygonal annular structure 10 (See Pg. 6, Para. 0058). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bradford 019’ according to the teachings of Bradford for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a compact and ease of access components (See Pg. 5, Para. 0056). Regarding claim 19, Bradford 019’ fails to disclose a printed circuit board connected to the sensors. However, in Bradford, a printed circuit board 20 is connected to the sensors (See Fig. 6, See Pg. 4, Para. 0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bradford 019’ according to the teachings of Bradford for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a compact and ease of access components (See Pg. 5, Para. 0056). Regarding claim 22, Bradford 019’ fails to disclose flexible circuits extending from the sensors to the printed circuit board. However, in Bradford, flexible circuits extend from the sensors to the printed circuit board (See Fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bradford 019’ according to the teachings of Bradford for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a compact and ease of access components (See Pg. 5, Para. 0056). Regarding claim 23, Bradford 019’ fails to disclose a tool support member connected to the hub and configured to interface a tool to the hub. However, in Bradford, the hub 12 is connected to a tool using a mechanical coupling (See Pg. 1, Para. 0003 and Pg. 4, Para. 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bradford 019’ according to the teachings of Bradford for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a compact and ease of access components (See Pg. 5, Para. 0056). Regarding claim 28, Bradford 019’ fails to disclose a robot arm comprising at least one link having a motorized joint unit; a wrist device; and the force sensor assembly between the motorized joint unit and the wrist device, the wrist device being connected to the tool and the at least one link being the mechanism. However, in Bradford, the hub is connected to a robotic tool or robotic arm having a wrist (See Pg. 1, Para. 0003, Pg. 2, Para. 0025 and Pg. 4, Para. 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bradford 019’ according to the teachings of Bradford for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a compact and ease of access components (See Pg. 5, Para. 0056). Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 8, 9, 20, 24 – 26, 32 and 33 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. Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments, on Pg. 7, lines 5 – 14 and Pg. 8, lines 5 – 13, with respect to these claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. With respect to Bradford (2017/0205296), it is the Examiner’s position that Bradford discloses a polygonal annular structure 10 amongst other features as provided, thus the reference stands.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (10,520,380) disclose a small six-dimensional force and torque sensor.
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented
in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 7/22/26
Prosecution Insights