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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “a educational soft robot” and “a assembly tube” which should be corrected to read “an educational soft robot” and “an assembly tube.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-24 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 recites the following limitations:
A). a connector having a penetrated hollow and at least two ends.
B). the ends being connected to the at least one air inlet.
C). an air line connected to an end of the connector that is not connected to the air inlet.
It appears limitations of Claim 1 outlined above as sections B and C are contradictory. Section B indicates that the ends (meaning both ends) are connected to the air inlet. However, Section C also appears to indicate that there is an end of the connector that is not connected to the air inlet but instead is connected to an airline. The above statements are contradicting each other. As such, claim 1 is deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Claims 2-24 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the at least one airline.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 14 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paynter et al.(US 4,784,042) hereinafter Paynter.
Regarding Claim 1 Paynter teaches an educational soft robot kit, comprising: an assembly tube (20) having a tubular body having a sealed internal space (86), at least one air inlet (39-1) provided in the body (Fig 1), and a fusion pattern (see Fig below) that is fused while forming a passage through which air flows in the internal space of the body (Fig 1); a connector (36) having a penetrated hollow and at least two ends (see Fig below)with an opening hole formed in a tubular shape, the ends being connected to the at least one air inlet (39-1); an airline (39-4) connected to an end of the connector (36) that is not connected to the air inlet (39-1) (Fig 3); and a controller (100) configured to control to inject or suck air into/from the air line according to a preset programmed algorithm to control the at least one assembly tube (20) to perform at least one operation of expansion, contraction, curling, bending, and distortion according to the amount of air injected thereto (Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 9 Paynter teaches wherein the fusion pattern (see Fig below) forms a straight-line fusion pattern (see Fig below) having a straight-line shape, and the assembly tube comprises: a second type tube (see Fig below) that has at least one straight-line fusion pattern (see Fig below) and performs a longitudinal contraction or curl operation according to the amount of air injected thereto (see Fig below).
Regarding Claim 14 Paynter teaches wherein the fusion pattern (see Fig below) forms an inclined line fusion pattern (see Fig below) having an inclined line shape, and the assembly tube (20) comprises: a third type tube (see Fig below) that has at least one inclined line fusion pattern (see Fig below) and performs a contraction, curl, or distortion operation according to the amount of air injected thereto (see Fig below).
Regarding Claim 22 Paynter teaches wherein the connector (36) has a linear shape (Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 23 Paynter teaches wherein the controller (100) comprises: a main body to which the at least one airline (39-4) is connected (see Fig 3 and 4); an air pressure control unit (94-95) provided inside or outside the main body (Fig 3-4) to inject or suck air into/from the air line; and a control unit (100) that is linked to an external input device through a network to store a preset programmed algorithm and controls an operation of the air pressure control unit (94-95) according to the algorithm (Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 24 Paynter teaches all the structural limitations of claim 24. Further, Claim 24 recites the limitation “the assembly tube being made by a thermal compression manufacturing process in which two layers of PVC film or TPU film are overlapped on a preset-shaped mold, then pressed and sealed while heated according to the shape of the body and the shape of the fusion pattern, and cut according to the shape” which is treated as a product by process limitation. The above limitation does not impart any additional structural limitation beyond what is present in Paynter.
PNG
media_image1.png
887
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
670
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10-13 and 15-21 are rejected but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above stated 112 rejection and including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record not relied up on are pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Griffith (US 9,624,911 B1) and Lessing et al (US 11,286,144 B2) both teach soft robots that connect to fluid supply components that actuate the robots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIY TEKA whose telephone number is (571)272-9804. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-9 PM.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/ABIY TEKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745