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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. Note the new grounds of rejection are based on a different embodiment of Adelson, which was previously applied. The applicant’s arguments relevant to the current rejection is addressed herein.
Applicant argues on page 14
“Applicants submit that the tactile sensor of Grundfest is not configured to apply a force to a target structure. Grundfest describes in column 6, lines 13-17, that tactile sensors may measure the stresses placed on the lumen walls, since … Applicants submit that the function of the tactile sensors of Grundfest is to sense forces exerted on the sensors by the lumen walls … Similarly, Adelson teaches a tactile sensor configured to sense forces being exerted on the sensor by a structure (see Fig. 1 of Adelson). Applicants submit that nowhere do Grundfest or Adelson teach or suggest that the tactile sensor device is configured to apply a force to a target.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to Newtons third law, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Applicant admits that forces are being exerted on the sensor in both references Grundfest and Adelson. Hence, there are at least reactive forces applied from sensor on target as per Newtons second law.
Applicant argues on page 15
“Grundfest describes tactile sensors positioned on an exterior surface of an inflatable balloon, which necessarily comprises a deformable material. Therefore, positioning the tactile sensor of Adelson on the surface of the inflatable balloon of Grundfest would cause the balloon to also deform in response to an applied pressure, thereby influencing the local deformation pattern observed by the tactile sensor leading to inaccurate measurements of a target structure's shape, texture, or stiffness. Applicants therefore submit that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the apparatus of Grundfest based on the teaching of Adelson because doing so would frustrate the principle of operation of Adelson.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner does not suggest any modification or changes to the design of Grundfest, where a tactical sensor is placed on a balloon. Tactile sensors 50 are provided on the inflatable balloons and are also linked to the bus 52. The sensors 50 may measure the stresses placed on the lumen walls (Grundfest Col 6 lines 12-15). That is, the device in Grundfest is designed to positional tactile sensor on the surface of the balloon, so that stress can be measured, while the sensor is on the balloon. The measurements will be relative to the balloon deformation, if any as argued by the applicant. Principle of operation of Adelson, i.e. measuring optical property such as luminance or reflectance changes, will not change if it is placed on a balloon. The measurements of the stress will be relative to the ballon movement, if any.
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 1-2, 4-7 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 “a camera” in line 10. In view of specification it is understood that it is referring to a different second camera than the one recited in line 3. However claim language is not clear if it is the case or not. Examiner suggests changing to ---a second camera---.
Claims 2, 4-7, are rejected in view of dependency to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grundfest [US 5662587 A], in view of Adelson [US 20090315989 A1]
As per claim 1, Grundfest teaches a four-dimensional tactile sensing system, comprising:
a housing having a distal end and a proximal end (Grundfest Fig 1, housing implied for endoscope 10. Here, balloons 32 on each segment is considered part of housing. Proximal end is LHS and distal end is RHS),
camera positioned at the distal end of the housing, wherein the camera is oriented to image an area in front of the distal end of the housing (Grundfest Col 5 lines 47-48 “the lead segment 18 includes a video camera 22”); and
at least one tactile sensor device positioned on the exterior surface of the housing (Grundfest Fig 3, Col 6 lines 13-14 “Tactile sensors 50 may be provided on the inflatable balloons and are also linked to the bus 52”),
wherein the at least one tactile sensor device is configured to apply a force to a target (Grundfest Col 8 lines 5-7 “tactile sensors 123 on the exterior of the segment to control the reaction forces”, Col 8 lines 65 to Col 9 line 2, “wherein the at least one tactile sensor device is configured to apply a force to a target”, Col 9 line 33-35 “tactile sensors to measure the forces imposed by the robotic endoscope on the surrounding lumen”. These sections mean that the tactile sensors are configured to apply some force/ reactive force).
Grundfest does not expressly teach a support plate having a first surface and a second surface; an elastomer attached adjacent to the first surface of the support plate a camera positioned at a distance from the second surface of the support plate; and at least one light source positioned proximate to the second surface of the support plate and the camera.
Adelson, in a field of tactile sensors teaches, a support plate having a first surface and a second surface (Adelson Fig 5A item 32);
an elastomer attached adjacent to the first surface of the support plate (Adelson Fig 5A item 38 is attached to one / first side) ;
a camera positioned at a distance from the second surface of the support plate (Adelson Fig 5A item 36 is at a distance from the other surface of 32, i.e. back side of first surface); and
at least one light source positioned proximate to the second surface of the support plate and the camera (Adelson Fig 5A item 31, is proximate so that light can reach and travel through elastomer);
Hence the claimed tactile sensing (utilizing photosensing) is known, as evidenced by Adelson. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Grundfest, by integrating tactile sensor as in Adelson. The motivation would be to so that the robotic endoscope in Grundfest incorporating this sensor can deform elastically in depth, following the profile of the object being manipulated (body cavity), thereby allowing good control (Adelson ¶0019).
As per claim 2, Grundfest in view of Adelson further teaches wherein the housing comprises a pneumatically controlled robot or a cable controlled robot (Grundfest Col 5 lines 60 to Col 6 lines 7, pistons imply pneumatic control), wherein the wherein the robot comprises a compliant material (Grundfest item 32 is inflatable, implying some compliancy or deformability).
As per claim 4, Grundfest in view of Adelson further teaches the housing comprises a pneumatic actuation system configured to actuate the at least one tactile sensor device relative to the housing (Grundfest Col 6 lines 5-8, flow of gas controls movement of the balloon, and hence the movement of the tactile sensors 50), such that the at least one tactile sensor device applies a force to a target (Col 8 lines 65 to Col 9 line 2, “wherein the at least one tactile sensor device is configured to apply a force to a target”. Note reactive forces as noted in response to arguments).
As per claim 5, Grundfest in view of Adelson further teaches wherein the housing further comprises a skin positioned on an exterior surface of the housing, and wherein the at least one tactile sensor device is embedded in the skin (The tactile sensor 50 in Grundfest is on skin /outer surface of balloon 32).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if pending 112 rejections of the independent claim are corrected. Examiner does not find any references of record applied individually or in combination teaching all limitations as in claims 6-7. These claims are not currently objected in view of the 112 (b) rejection.
Conclusion
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 OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/Oommen Jacob/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797