DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Election filed December 10, 2025 for the above identified patent application.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3, 20-25, 36, and 53-58 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 10, 2025. Note, claims 3 and 36 were indicated by applicant as reading of the elected group. However claims 3 and 36 are withdrawn because the elected device of Figure 1A does not teach “a third actuator” as defined by the claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “rotatable member comprises one or more protrusions and the first length of the coiling support member is configured to receive the one or more protrusions (claim 18). must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 4-17, 19, 26-28, 30, 32-35, 37-50, 52, 59-61, 63, 65-67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Deberg (USP 4,435,116) in view of Saito (USP 8,490,511).
Van Deberg teaches a robotic system comprising: an end effector (such as 122); a base (12); a first linear actuator (52) comprising: a proximal end coupled to the base at a first joint (at A1), a distal end coupled to the end effector, a rotatable member (46); a second linear actuator (68) comprising a proximal end coupled to the base at a second joint (at A2), the second joint separated from the first joint by a distance, and a distal end coupled to the end effector; and a control circuit (computer or microprocessor, lines 55-59 of column 3) configured to extend and retract the first actuator along an axis of the first actuator and further configured to extend and retract the second actuator along an axis of the second actuator.
Van Deberg does not teach the first and second linear actuators being configured with coiling members. However, it was well known in the art to configure a linear actuator with a coiling member. For example, Saito teaches a robotic device having an arm (1), a proximal end of the arm coupled to a base (2), a distal end of the arm coupled to an end effector (3), the arm having a coiling support member (41), the coiling support member having a first length, wherein at least a portion of the first length is configured to coil around a rotatable member (21) and further configured to uncoil from the rotatable member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to replace the screw linear actuators of Van Deberg with a linear actuator having a coiling member, as taught by Saito, motivation being to provide a robotic device having reduced weight. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to replace the linear actuators of Van Deberg with linear actuators having a coiling member, as taught by Saito, since it has been held that simple substitution of one known device for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 2 and 35, Saito teaches the coiling support member comprises spring steel. Column 5, lines 52-56.
Claims 4 and 37, Saito teaches coiling the first length around the rotatable member (21) comprises applying, by the control circuit (taught by Van Deberg), a first torque to the rotatable member, and uncoiling the first length from the rotatable member comprises applying, by the control circuit (taught by Van Deberg), a second torque to the rotatable member.
Claims 5 and 38, Saito teaches the actuator further comprises: one or more cross-sectional braces (5); and a cable (6) coupled to the one or more cross-sectional braces, wherein the cable is configured to displace the one or more cross-sectional braces with respect to the base in accordance with extending the first actuator and further in accordance with retracting the first actuator.
Claims 6 and 39, Saito teaches the first actuator is configured to store the one or more cross-sectional braces (5) at the proximal end of the first actuator in accordance with retracting the first actuator to a retracted position.
Claims 7 and 40, Saito teaches the first actuator further comprises: a first cross-sectional brace (5); and a first cable (6) coupled to the first cross-sectional brace and further coupled to the base, wherein: the system is configured to displace, via friction with the coiling support member, the first cross-sectional brace by a first length with respect to the base in accordance with extending the first actuator by a corresponding second length; the first cable is configured to secure, via tension of the first cable, the first cross-sectional brace at a first distance with respect to the base in accordance with extending the first actuator by a length greater than the second length.
Claims 8 and 41, Saito teaches the first actuator further comprises: a second cross-sectional brace (5); and a second cable (6) coupled to the first cross-sectional brace and further coupled to the second cross-sectional brace, wherein: the system is configured to displace, via friction with the coiling support member, the second cross-sectional brace by a third length with respect to the base in accordance with extending the first actuator by a corresponding fourth length; the second cable is configured to secure, via tension of the second cable, the second cross-sectional brace at a second distance with respect to the base in accordance with extending the first actuator by a length greater than the fourth length.
Claims 9 and 42, Saito teaches the coiling support member (41) is deformable into a first cross-sectional profile and further deformable into a second cross-sectional profile.
Claims 10 and 43, Saito teaches the first cross-sectional profile comprises a curved profile (when extended), and the second cross-sectional profile comprises a substantially flat profile (when coiled around 21).
Claims 11 and 44, Saito teaches the first cross-sectional profile comprises a substantially elliptical profile (Fig. 2).
Claims 12 and 45, Saito teaches the first cross-sectional profile corresponds to a first portion of the coiling support member, the first portion not coiled around the rotatable member, and the second cross-sectional profile corresponds to a second portion of the coiling support member, the second portion configured to coil around the rotatable member.
Claims 13 and 46, Saito teaches the proximal end comprises a shaping member (5) configured to: deform a portion of the coiling support member into the first cross-sectional profile in accordance with extending the coiling support member, and deform the portion of the coiling support member into the second cross-sectional profile in accordance with retracting the coiling support member.
Claims 14 and 47, Saito teaches the rotatable member comprises a spindle (such as the spindle supporting roller 8 for rotation, Fig. 21).
Claims 15 and 48, Saito teaches the spindle comprises a spring (illustrated in Fig. 8) to form a spring-loaded spindle .
Claims 16 and 49, Saito teaches the spindle comprises an actuated spindle (by motor 23).
Claims 17 and 50, Saito teaches the rotatable member comprises a surface configured to apply a frictional force (inherent) to the first length of the coiling support member.
Claims 19 and 52, Saito teaches the system further comprises: a motor (23); and one or more rollers (21,22) configured to provide power transmission between the motor and the coiling support member.
Claims 26 and 59, Both Van Deberg and Saito teaches an end effector (such as gripper 134, camera 32, support member 33, wheel 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to provide the end effector with a sensor, motivation being to sense a work environment.
Claims 27-28 and 60-61, Both Van Deberg and Saito teach the end effector comprises a gripper tool.
Claims 30 and 63, Saito illustrates (Fig. 2) the actuator having three coil members (41) positioned adjacent to one another, and having an axially extending conduit between the three coil members, the axial space creating an electrical conduit capable of supporting an electric wires for communicating electrical signals between the control circuit and the end effector.
Claims 32 and 65, Van Deberg teaches and encoder (100) and a tachometer (102) communicating with the computer for receiving a target position of the end effector, and controlling the actuator by applying one or more control signals to the actuator based on the target position. Full paragraph spanning columns 3 and 4.
Claims 33 and 66, Van Deberg does not teach machine learning algorithm. It was known to configure a robot with a controller having machine learning algorithm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to provide the computer of Van Deberg with machine learning algorithm, as was known in the art, motivation being to better control the robot for a particular task.
Claim(s) 1, 18, 34, and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Deberg (USP 4,435,116) in view of Dubilier (USP 2,130,993).
As described above, Van Deberg teaches a robotic system having the structure defined by claim 1, except for the liner actuator having a coiling member. Dubilier teaches a linear actuator configured with a coiling support member (10-12), the coiling support member having a first length, wherein at least a portion of the first length is configured to coil around a rotatable member (31,62) and further configured to uncoil from the rotatable member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to replace the screw linear actuators of Van Deberg with a linear actuator having a coiling member, as taught by Dubilier, motivation being to provide a robotic device having reduced weight and size. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to replace the linear actuators of Van Deberg with linear actuators having a coiling member, as taught by Dubilier, since it has been held that simple substitution of one known device for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 18 and 51, Dubilier teaches the rotatable member (62) comprises one or more protrusions (teeth, Fig, 1) and the first length of the coiling support member (11) is configured to receive the one or more protrusions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to replace the screw linear actuators of Van Deberg with a linear actuator having a rotatable member with teeth engaging teeth of the coiling member, as taught by Dubilier, motivation being to prevent slip between the mating components.
Claim(s) 1, 29, 34, and 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Deberg (USP 4,435,116) in view of Atsukawa (USP 5,056,278).
As described above, Van Deberg teaches a robotic system having the structure defined by claim 1, except for the liner actuator having a coiling member. Atsukawa teaches a linear actuator configured with a coiling support member (6,7), the coiling support member having a first length, wherein at least a portion of the first length is configured to coil around a rotatable member (8,9) and further configured to uncoil from the rotatable member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to replace the screw linear actuators of Van Deberg with a linear actuator having a coiling member, as taught by Atsukawa, motivation being to provide a robotic device having reduced weight and size. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to replace the linear actuators of Van Deberg with linear actuators having a coiling member, as taught by Atsukawa, since it has been held that simple substitution of one known device for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 29 and 62, Atsukawa teaches the linear actuator having a telescoping cover (1-4) configured to extend in accordance with extending the linear actuator and further configured to retract in accordance with retracting the linear actuator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to replace the screw linear actuators of Van Deberg with a linear actuator having a telescopic cover, as taught by Atsukawa, motivation being to protect the linear actuators from contaminates found in a working environment.
Claim(s) 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Deberg (USP 4,435,116) and Saito (USP 8,490,511), as applied to claims 1 and 34 above, and further in view of Lipay et al. (USP 10,836,034).
As described above, Van Deberg modified with Saito teaches the claimed robotic device, except for the claimed control arrangement having a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which are executed by one or more processors. However, controlling a robot with the claimed control arrangement was well known. For example, Lipay teaches a robot controlled by a control arrangement having a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which are executed by one or more processors. Column 18, lines 15-63. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to control the robot of Van Deberg with a control arrangement having a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which are executed by one or more processors, as taught by Lipay, motivation being to move the robot through variable programmed motions for the performance of changeable tasks on a repetitive basis without human intervention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 64 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach the claimed combination of features defined in claims 1 and 34; including: the electrical conduit comprises a helix configured to expand along the axis of the first actuator in accordance with extending the first actuator and further configured to compress along the axis of the first actuator in accordance with retracting the first actuator (claims 31 and 64).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the robotic devices of USP 5740699; USP 4819496; USP 4569627; and USP 4407625. Note the linear actuator of USP 3213573.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C JOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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 C JOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618