DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection, 112(a) rejection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/08/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 lines 1-2 read “spacing spacing”, --spacing-- is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coad in view of Deglurkar.
Regarding claim 1, Coad discloses a robotic device (see page 57 Fig. 3.1, vine robot system; and see page 58 Fig. 3.2, vine robot system), comprising: a body having a cylindrical shape (see Fig. 3.1(a), main body tube) and formed from a fabric (see page 60 lines 4-5 wherein thin airtight fabric is disclosed) that at least partially retracts within the cylindrical shape of the body (see page 16 Fig. 2.2(c), inversion of a vine robot is shown); and shape units (see Fig. 3.1(b), series pouch motors) integrated with the body along a length of the body, wherein the shape units are on a first side of the body (see Fig. 3.1, lower series pouch motors) and an opposing second side of the body (see Fig. 3.1, upper series pouch motors), the shape units controlling the body to flex (see Fig. 3.1(b), wherein the series pouch motors bend the robot at an angle), wherein the separate segments (see Fig. 3.1(b), wherein a single segment is shown in the end view) to control the robotic device at different locations along the length (see Fig. 3.1(b)). The embodiment of Coad disclosed in Fig. 3.1 and 3.2 fails to disclose the shape units include a first polymer and a second polymer. However, an alternative embodiment of Coad teaches the shape units include a first polymer and a second polymer (see page 161, lines 15-19, wherein heat-shrinking plastic is disclosed). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Coad with a first and second polymer to bend the robot body with high curvature without requiring complex addressable control and is not prohibitively complex to manufacture (see page 161, lines 15-19). Coad fails to disclose the shape units are in a plurality of discrete, spatially-separate segments, the separate segments are independently and selectively controllable, and the separate segments each comprised of groups of three opposing pairs of the shape units that are separately activated to control an angle at which the body flexes at the different locations. However, Deglurkar teaches the shape units (see pages 2-3 Fig. 1(a) and 2; photothermal phase-change series actuator (PPSA)) are in a plurality of discrete, spatially-separate segments (see Fig. 2(a)-(d); 5-pouch PPSA), the separate segments are independently and selectively controllable (see page 2 section B, wherein the design builds on previous work using electrically heated [23] and laser-heated [22] phase-change liquid in a single flat plastic pouch; and wherein we isolate the inflation of each PPSA in the series by sealing it individually, thereby enabling localized actuator response), and the separate segments each comprised of groups of three opposing pairs of the shape units (see Fig. 1(b); any group of three opposing pairs of PPSAs) that are separately activated to control an angle at which the body flexes at the different locations (see Fig. 1(b)). to provide a simple and low-cost device embedded in the robot which is capable of growing and steering to advance the capabilities of vine robots in hard-to-access environments (see Abstract); to eliminate the need for a pneumatic supply (see page 2 section B); and to provide shape units that are individually sealed thereby enabling localized actuator response (see page 2 section B). Note that page 2 section B explicitly discloses modifying pneumatic actuators, e.g., the series pouch motors of Coad, with the PPSAs. Coad in view of Deglurkar fail to disclose the pairs of the shape units within a respective one of the segments have an inter-segment spacing of 0.2cm or 1.0cm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to provide the particular claimed dimensions and ratios thereof, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0026]-[0027] read “When the body 110 includes the polymers in the illustrated configuration, the body 110 generally forms the shape shown in the graph 220. The polymers 120/125, as shown in FIG. 2 are generally of a “wide” configuration with limited spacing therebetween, which results in a subtle degree of flexing (e.g., 20 degrees). For example, the polymers 120/125 may have a length of 2cm with spacing of 0.2cm therebetween…When the body 110 includes the polymers in the illustrated configuration, the body 110 generally forms the shape shown in the graph 320. The polymers 120/125, as shown in FIG. 3 are generally of a “narrow” configuration with limited spacing therebetween, which results in a greater degree of flexing (e.g., 30 degrees). For example, the polymers 120/125 may have a length of 1.0 cm with spacing of 1.0 cm therebetween…Accordingly, different sizes and spacing of the polymers 120/125 can result in different flexing of the body when activated”. Applicant explicitly discloses that different sizes and spacing of the polymers results in different flexing of the body. Therefore, the inter-segment spacing is considered a result effective variable, and it would be obvious to modify the inter-segment spacing to change the flexing of the body.
Regarding claim 2, Coad discloses a pressure source (see Fig. 3.2, air compressor; see page 18 lines 11-13, wherein using water instead of air is disclosed. Therefore the air compressor would inherently be replaced with a pressure source for liquid) providing body pressure from a fluid pressure within an interior of the body to maintain the cylindrical shape of the body (see Fig. 3.1(a), pressure P), wherein the shape units are controlled to selectively flex the cylindrical shape against the body pressure (see Fig. 3.1(b), wherein the series pouch motors are controlled to selectively flex the main body tube against the pressure P).
Regarding claim 3, Coad discloses a heat source that provides heat to the shape units (inherent heat source) to activate the shape units to flex the body (see Fig. 3.1(b), wherein the series pouch motors flex the main body tube), the heat source providing heat at a defined temperature to activate the shape units as defined by a glass transition temperature of the first polymer and the second polymer (inherent disclosure of heat-shrinking plastics; note that the glass transition temperature is a critical parameter that dictates the temperature at which the polymer transitions between a hard, glassy state and soft, rubbery state).
Regarding claim 4, Coad discloses the inter-segment spacing is an inactive region of the body without shape units (see annotated Fig. 3.1(b) below, space between A and B, B and C and C and A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the heat source (Coad, inherent heat source) includes heating elements (Deglurkar, page 2 section B, wherein its photoabsorber absorbs photons over a wide range of frequencies (including IR and visible) and produces heat) disposed proximate to the shape units (Deglurkar, Fig. 2) that, when activated, provide heat to activate the shape units to flex the body (Deglurkar, Fig. 1(b)).
Regarding claim 6, Coad discloses the body is a flexible structure when inflated according to fluid pressure (see Fig. 3.1(a) and 3.1(b)), and wherein the body extends from an end to change the length according to the fluid pressure increasing above a threshold (see Fig. 3.1(a)).
Regarding claim 7, Coad discloses a control system (see Fig. 3.2, Arduino and control circuitry). The embodiment of Coad disclosed in Fig. 3.1 and 3.2 fails to disclose the control system operably connected with the heat source and operable to selectively activate one or more of the shape units to flex the body at a desired location. However, an alternative embodiment of Coad teaches shared autonomy or autonomous vine robot control (see page 163, lines 11-12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Coad with autonomous vine robot control to take advantage of the different strengths of the robot and the human operator. For example, the human operator could give high level commands about targets to reach, and the robot could use a model of environment interaction combined with its known actuator commands and sensed positions to navigate along the environment in the most efficient way possible (see page 163 lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 8, Coad discloses the control system (see Fig. 3.2, Arduino and control circuitry) selectively activates the one or more shape units (series pouch motors) responsive to a control signal to control the robotic device to maneuver (see page 163 lines24-26, wherein the robot could use a model of environment interaction combined with its known actuator commands and sensed positions to navigate along the environment).
Regarding claim 9, Coad discloses the control signal identifies the maneuver as a change in direction for the robotic device (see page 163 lines24-26, wherein the robot could use a model of environment interaction combined with its known actuator commands and sensed positions to navigate along the environment).
Regarding claim 10, Coad discloses the control system (see Fig. 3.2, Arduino and control circuitry) generates the control signal in response to identifying an obstacle, and wherein the control system causes the body to flex to route the body around the obstacle (see page 163 lines24-26, wherein the robot could use a model of environment interaction combined with its known actuator commands and sensed positions to navigate along the environment).
Regarding claim 12, Coad fails to disclose the separate segments include polymer units having lengths of 1.0cm to 2.0cm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to provide the particular claimed lengths thereof, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Paragraph [0027] of the specification reads “the configuration of the polymers on the surface of the body 110 can be varied in several different ways, including the composition of the polymers, the size of the polymers, and the spacing of the polymers, thereby providing several options for tuning the polymers to facilitate generating different shapes/flexing in the body”. In other words, in order to generate a specific shape of the robot body, the size (lengths) of the polymers can be adjusted until the desired shape is formed. As such, the spacing of the polymers is considered a result effective variable, and only requires routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Coad discloses a vine robot (see page 57 Fig. 3.1, vine robot system; and see page 58 Fig. 3.2, vine robot system), comprising: a body having a cylindrical shape (see Fig. 3.1(a), main body tube) and formed from a fabric (see page 60 lines 4-5 wherein thin airtight fabric is disclosed) that at least partially retracts within the cylindrical shape of the body (see page 16 Fig. 2.2(c), inversion of a vine robot is shown); and shape units (see Fig. 3.1(b), series pouch motors) integrated with the body along a length of the body, wherein the shape units are on a first side of the body (see Fig. 3.1, lower series pouch motors) and an opposing second side of the body (see Fig. 3.1, upper series pouch motors), the shape units controlling the body to flex at an angle (see Fig. 3.1(b), wherein the series pouch motors bend the robot at an angle), a pressure source (see Fig. 3.2, air compressor) providing body pressure from a fluid pressure within an interior of the body to maintain the cylindrical shape of the body (see Fig. 3.1(a), pressure P), wherein the shape units are controlled to selectively flex the cylindrical shape against the body pressure (see Fig. 3.1(b), wherein the series pouch motors are controlled to selectively flex the main body tube against the pressure P), wherein the body extends from an end to change the length according to the fluid pressure increasing above a threshold (see Fig. 3.1(a)), a fluid within the body (see Fig. 3.2, via air compressor), and wherein the shape units are distributed along the length in separate segments to control the robotic device at different locations along the length, the separate segments being groups of three opposing pairs of the shape units (see annotated Fig. 3.1(b) below, wherein AB are a first opposite pair, BC are a second opposite pair, and CA are a third opposing pair) that are separately activated to control the angle at which the body flexes (see annotated Fig. 3.1(b) below, wherein AB can be activated without BC or CA being activated). The embodiment of Coad disclosed in Fig. 3.1 and 3.2 fails to disclose the shape units include a first polymer and a second polymer. However, an alternative embodiment of Coad teaches the shape units include a first polymer and a second polymer (see page 161, lines 15-19, wherein heat-shrinking plastic is disclosed). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Coad with a first and second polymer to bend the robot body with high curvature without requiring complex addressable control and is not prohibitively complex to manufacture (see page 161, lines 15-19). The combination would necessarily result in the following limitations: a heat source that provides heat to the shape units (inherent heat source) to activate the shape units to flex the body (see Fig. 3.1(b), wherein the series pouch motors flex the main body tube), the heat source providing heat at a defined temperature to activate the shape units as defined by a glass transition temperature of the first polymer and the second polymer (inherent disclosure of heat-shrinking plastics; note that the glass transition temperature is a critical parameter that dictates the temperature at which the polymer transitions between a hard, glassy state and soft, rubbery state). Coad fails to disclose the shape units are in a plurality of discrete, spatially-separate segments, the separate segments are independently and selectively controllable, and the separate segments each comprised of groups of three opposing pairs of the shape units that are separately activated to control an angle at which the body flexes at the different locations. However, Deglurkar teaches the shape units (see pages 2-3 Fig. 1(a) and 2; photothermal phase-change series actuator (PPSA)) are in a plurality of discrete, spatially-separate segments (see Fig. 2(a)-(d); 5-pouch PPSA), the separate segments are independently and selectively controllable (see page 2 section B, wherein the design builds on previous work using electrically heated [23] and laser-heated [22] phase-change liquid in a single flat plastic pouch; and wherein we isolate the inflation of each PPSA in the series by sealing it individually, thereby enabling localized actuator response), and the separate segments each comprised of groups of three opposing pairs of the shape units (see Fig. 1(b); any group of three opposing pairs of PPSAs) that are separately activated to control an angle at which the body flexes at the different locations (see Fig. 1(b)). to provide a simple and low-cost device embedded in the robot which is capable of growing and steering to advance the capabilities of vine robots in hard-to-access environments (see Abstract); to eliminate the need for a pneumatic supply (see page 2 section B); and to provide shape units that are individually sealed thereby enabling localized actuator response (see page 2 section B). Note that page 2 section B explicitly discloses modifying pneumatic actuators, e.g., the series pouch motors of Coad, with the PPSAs. Coad in view of Deglurkar fail to disclose the pairs of the shape units within a respective one of the segments have an inter-segment spacing of 0.2cm or 1.0cm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to provide the particular claimed dimensions and ratios thereof, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0026]-[0027] read “When the body 110 includes the polymers in the illustrated configuration, the body 110 generally forms the shape shown in the graph 220. The polymers 120/125, as shown in FIG. 2 are generally of a “wide” configuration with limited spacing therebetween, which results in a subtle degree of flexing (e.g., 20 degrees). For example, the polymers 120/125 may have a length of 2cm with spacing of 0.2cm therebetween…When the body 110 includes the polymers in the illustrated configuration, the body 110 generally forms the shape shown in the graph 320. The polymers 120/125, as shown in FIG. 3 are generally of a “narrow” configuration with limited spacing therebetween, which results in a greater degree of flexing (e.g., 30 degrees). For example, the polymers 120/125 may have a length of 1.0 cm with spacing of 1.0 cm therebetween…Accordingly, different sizes and spacing of the polymers 120/125 can result in different flexing of the body when activated”. Applicant explicitly discloses that different sizes and spacing of the polymers results in different flexing of the body. Therefore, the inter-segment spacing is considered a result effective variable, and it would be obvious to modify the inter-segment spacing to change the flexing of the body.
Regarding claim 14, Coad discloses the inter-segment spacing is an inactive region of the body without shape units (see annotated Fig. 3.1(b) below, space between A and B, B and C and C and A).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of claim 13 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the heat source (Coad, inherent heat source) includes heating elements (Deglurkar, see page 2 section B, wherein its photoabsorber absorbs photons over a wide range of frequencies (including IR and visible) and produces heat) disposed proximate to the shape units (Deglurkar, Fig. 2) that, when activated, provide heat to activate the shape units to flex the body (Deglurkar, Fig. 1(b)).
Regarding claim 16, the embodiment of Coad disclosed in Fig. 3.1 and 3.2 fails to disclose the fabric is thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)-coated nylon. However, an alternative embodiment of Coad teaches the fabric is thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)-coated nylon (see Table 2.1; TPU-coated nylon). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Coad with thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)-coated nylon since it is known for fast prototyping, having moderate burst pressure and good structural characteristics (see Table 2.1).
Regarding claim 17, Coad discloses the body is a flexible structure when inflated according to fluid pressure (see Fig. 3.1(a) and 3.1(b)).
Regarding claim 18, Coad discloses a vine robot (see page 57 Fig. 3.1, vine robot system; and see page 58 Fig. 3.2, vine robot system), comprising: a body having a cylindrical shape (see Fig. 3.1(a), main body tube) and formed from a fabric (see page 60 lines 4-5 wherein thin airtight fabric is disclosed) that at least partially retracts within the cylindrical shape of the body (see page 16 Fig. 2.2(c), inversion of a vine robot is shown), the body is a flexible structure when inflated according to fluid pressure (see Fig. 3.1(a) and 3.1(b)); and shape units (see Fig. 3.1(b), series pouch motors) integrated with the body along a length of the body, wherein the shape units are on a first side of the body (see Fig. 3.1, lower series pouch motors) and an opposing second side of the body (see Fig. 3.1, upper series pouch motors), the shape units controlling the body to flex at an angle (see Fig. 3.1(b), wherein the series pouch motors bend the robot at an angle), a pressure source (see Fig. 3.2, air compressor) providing body pressure from a fluid pressure within an interior of the body to maintain the cylindrical shape of the body (see Fig. 3.1(a), pressure P), wherein the shape units are controlled to selectively flex the cylindrical shape against the body pressure (see Fig. 3.1(b), wherein the series pouch motors are controlled to selectively flex the main body tube against the pressure P), wherein the body extends from an end to change the length according to the fluid pressure increasing above a threshold (see Fig. 3.1(a)), a fluid within the body (see Fig. 3.2, via air compressor), and wherein the shape units are distributed along the length in separate segments to control the robotic device at different locations along the length, the separate segments being groups of three opposing pairs of the shape units (see annotated Fig. 3.1(b) below, wherein AB are a first opposite pair, BC are a second opposite pair, and CA are a third opposing pair) that are separately activated to control the angle at which the body flexes (see annotated Fig. 3.1(b) below, wherein AB can be activated without BC or CA being activated). The embodiment of Coad disclosed in Fig. 3.1 and 3.2 fails to disclose the fabric is thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)-coated nylon. However, an alternative embodiment of Coad teaches the fabric is thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)-coated nylon (see Table 2.1; TPU-coated nylon). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Coad with thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)-coated nylon since it is known for fast prototyping, having moderate burst pressure and good structural characteristics (see Table 2.1). The embodiment of Coad disclosed in Fig. 3.1 and 3.2 fails to disclose the shape units include a first polymer and a second polymer. However, an alternative embodiment of Coad teaches the shape units include a first polymer and a second polymer (see page 161, lines 15-19, wherein heat-shrinking plastic is disclosed). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Coad with a first and second polymer to bend the robot body with high curvature without requiring complex addressable control and is not prohibitively complex to manufacture (see page 161, lines 15-19). The combination would necessarily result in the following limitations: a heat source that provides heat to the shape units (inherent heat source) to activate the shape units to flex the body (see Fig. 3.1(b), wherein the series pouch motors flex the main body tube), the heat source providing heat at a defined temperature to activate the shape units as defined by a glass transition temperature of the first polymer and the second polymer (inherent disclosure of heat-shrinking plastics; note that the glass transition temperature is a critical parameter that dictates the temperature at which the polymer transitions between a hard, glassy state and soft, rubbery state). Coad fails to disclose the shape units are in a plurality of discrete, spatially-separate segments, the separate segments are independently and selectively controllable, and the separate segments each comprised of groups of three opposing pairs of the shape units that are separately activated to control an angle at which the body flexes at the different locations. However, Deglurkar teaches the shape units (see pages 2-3 Fig. 1(a) and 2; photothermal phase-change series actuator (PPSA)) are in a plurality of discrete, spatially-separate segments (see Fig. 2(a)-(d); 5-pouch PPSA), the separate segments are independently and selectively controllable (see page 2 section B, wherein the design builds on previous work using electrically heated [23] and laser-heated [22] phase-change liquid in a single flat plastic pouch; and wherein we isolate the inflation of each PPSA in the series by sealing it individually, thereby enabling localized actuator response), and the separate segments each comprised of groups of three opposing pairs of the shape units (see Fig. 1(b); any group of three opposing pairs of PPSAs) that are separately activated to control an angle at which the body flexes at the different locations (see Fig. 1(b)). to provide a simple and low-cost device embedded in the robot which is capable of growing and steering to advance the capabilities of vine robots in hard-to-access environments (see Abstract); to eliminate the need for a pneumatic supply (see page 2 section B); and to provide shape units that are individually sealed thereby enabling localized actuator response (see page 2 section B). Note that page 2 section B explicitly discloses modifying pneumatic actuators, e.g., the series pouch motors of Coad, with the PPSAs. Coad in view of Deglurkar fail to disclose the pairs of the shape units within a respective one of the segments have an inter-segment spacing of 0.2cm or 1.0cm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to provide the particular claimed dimensions and ratios thereof, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0026]-[0027] read “When the body 110 includes the polymers in the illustrated configuration, the body 110 generally forms the shape shown in the graph 220. The polymers 120/125, as shown in FIG. 2 are generally of a “wide” configuration with limited spacing therebetween, which results in a subtle degree of flexing (e.g., 20 degrees). For example, the polymers 120/125 may have a length of 2cm with spacing of 0.2cm therebetween…When the body 110 includes the polymers in the illustrated configuration, the body 110 generally forms the shape shown in the graph 320. The polymers 120/125, as shown in FIG. 3 are generally of a “narrow” configuration with limited spacing therebetween, which results in a greater degree of flexing (e.g., 30 degrees). For example, the polymers 120/125 may have a length of 1.0 cm with spacing of 1.0 cm therebetween…Accordingly, different sizes and spacing of the polymers 120/125 can result in different flexing of the body when activated”. Applicant explicitly discloses that different sizes and spacing of the polymers results in different flexing of the body. Therefore, the inter-segment spacing is considered a result effective variable, and it would be obvious to modify the inter-segment spacing to change the flexing of the body.
Regarding claim 19, Coad discloses the inter-segment spacing is an inactive region of the body without shape units (see annotated Fig. 3.1(b) below, space between A and B, B and C and C and A).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of claim 18 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the heat source (Coad, inherent heat source) includes heating elements (Deglurkar, see page 2 section B, wherein its photoabsorber absorbs photons over a wide range of frequencies (including IR and visible) and produces heat) disposed proximate to the shape units (Deglurkar, Fig. 2) that, when activated, provide heat to activate the shape units to flex the body (Deglurkar, Fig. 1(b)).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coad in view of Deglurkar and Alsaadi.
Regarding claim 11, the embodiment of Coad disclosed in Fig. 3.1 and 3.2 fails to disclose the fabric is thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)-coated nylon. However, an alternative embodiment of Coad teaches the fabric is thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)-coated nylon (see Table 2.1; TPU-coated nylon). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Coad with thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)-coated nylon since it is known for fast prototyping, having moderate burst pressure and good structural characteristics (see Table 2.1). Coad fails to disclose the first polymer and the second polymer are comprised of acrylate, epoxy, and fumed silica. However, Alsaadi teaches the first polymer and the second polymer are comprised of acrylate, epoxy, and fumed silica (see 4.4.1. Nanosilica-Modified Polymeric Resin, where Griffini incorporated fumed silica within an epoxy-arcylate/TPO-L mixture resin). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Coad with polymers comprised of acrylate, epoxy and fumed silica, as taught by Alsaadi, to improve the curing rate, shaping accuracy, and thermal and mechanical characteristics of the resin (see page 20). Coad in view of Alsaadi fail to disclose the polymers comprise different ratios. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to provide the different polymer ratios thereof, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Paragraph [0027] of the specification reads “the configuration of the polymers on the surface of the body 110 can be varied in several different ways, including the composition of the polymers, the size of the polymers, and the spacing of the polymers, thereby providing several options for tuning the polymers to facilitate generating different shapes/flexing in the body”. In other words, in order to generate a specific shape of the robot body, the composition of the polymers can be adjusted until the desired shape is formed. As such, the composition of the polymers is considered a result effective variable, and only requires routine skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
226
251
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1 - Coad Fig. 3.1(b) Annotated
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections that were necessitated by an amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Hiraki discloses pouch motors that are individually heated via a laser.
Nakahara teaches electrically heated pouch motors.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights