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 on pages 4 – 5 have been fully considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection, Cardenas.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curhan et al. (US Pub No: 2019/0143538 A1, hereinafter Curhan) in view of Cardenas et al. (US Patent No: 12,285,861 B2).
Regarding Claim 1:
Curhan discloses:
A grasping device using a plurality of fluid pressure actuators that are curved during contraction, wherein the fluid pressure actuators are a flexible soft actuator. Paragraph [0059] describes a soft robotic actuator finger 100 that contracts upon a change in fluid pressure. The contraction causes curling in one direction or another.
a spoon-shaped housing portion is provided at a tip portion of each of the fluid pressure actuators. Paragraph [0046] and figure 1A describes accordion extensions 104 that allows the actuator to bend or flex when inflate3d or deflated.
Curhan does not disclose fluid pressure actuators being mounted on a mounting base and a partition plate is provided on the mounting base to cover an opening of the housing portion when the fluid pressure actuator is non-curved or curved.
Cardenas, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
the fluid pressure actuators are mounted on a mounting base. Column 6, line 66 to column 7, line 5 describes a base 12 that serves as an actuator manifold connection plate with connect fittings. This is also shown in figure 9.
and a partition plate is provided on the mounting base to cover an opening of the housing portion when the fluid pressure actuator is non-curved or curved. Column 6, line 66 to column 7, line 5 describes a base 12 that serves as an actuator manifold connection plate with connect fittings. This is also shown in figure 9.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Curhan to incorporate the teachings of Cardenas to show fluid pressure actuators being mounted on a mounting base and a partition plate is provided on the mounting base to cover an opening of the housing portion when the fluid pressure actuator is non-curved or curved. One would have been motivated to do so that each wrist assembly 14 is supported and can also be mounted to another structure such as an arm portion of a larger robotic system ([Column 5, lines 20 – 27] of Cardenas).
Regarding Claim 3:
Curhan discloses:
The grasping device according to claim 1, wherein the fluid pressure actuator is provided on both sides of the partition plate. Paragraph [0049] and figure 1A describes a valve 116 that allows fluid to enter the actuator 100 and can also exit if the valve is opened.
The reason to add a partition plate is for the same reason as described in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4:
Curhan discloses:
The grasping device according to claim 1, wherein the partition plate forms a plurality of spaces, and the fluid pressure actuators are provided respectively in the plurality of spaces partitioned by the partition plate. Paragraph [0101] and figure 1A describes actuators 100 that are displaced around the gripper allowing it to curl. These are placed between the valve 116 and the inflator valve 124 shown in figure 1C.
The reason to add a partition plate is for the same reason as described in claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curhan in view of Cardenas and further in view of Kanesugi (US Pub No: 2021/0395927 A1, hereinafter Kanesugi)
Regarding Claim 2:
Curhan discloses:
The grasping device according to claim 1, wherein the fluid pressure actuators comprise: a tube that is cylindrical, and expands and contracts under fluid pressure. Paragraph [0049] and figure 1A describes a flexible tubing 118 that has a fluidic connection to the actuator which allows the tube to expand/contract.
Curhan does not disclose a sleeve that covers a surface of a tube.
Kanesugi, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
and a sleeve having a stretchable structure in which fiber cords oriented in a predetermined direction are woven and that covers an outer peripheral surface of the tube. Paragraph [0002] describes a sleeve that is a cylindrical structure woven by high tensile strength fiber cords that regulates expansion movements of the tube.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Curhan to incorporate the teachings of Kanesugi to show a sleeve that covers a surface of a tube. One would have been motivated to do so that the fluid tube is protected from sharp objects, dirt, debris and other contaminants.
Regarding Claim 5:
Curhan discloses:
The grasping device according to claim 2, wherein the fluid pressure actuators comprise a restricting member provided inside in the sleeve from one end to another end in the axial direction of the tube. Figure 1A and 1C show a valve 116 and inflator valve 124 that controls the fluid flow through the flexible tubing 118. This is equivalent to the claim because the fluid flow restricts flow in the tube.
Regarding Claim 6:
Curhan discloses:
The grasping device according to claim 2, wherein the fluid pressure actuator is provided on both sides of the partition plate. Paragraph [0049] and figure 1A describes a valve 116 that allows fluid to enter the actuator 100 and can also exit if the valve is opened.
The reason to add a partition plate is for the same reason as described in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7:
Curhan discloses:
The grasping device according to claim 2, wherein the partition plate forms a plurality of spaces, and the fluid pressure actuators are provided respectively in the plurality of spaces partitioned by the partition plate. Paragraph [0101] and figure 1A describes actuators 100 that are displaced around the gripper allowing it to curl. These are placed between the valve 116 and the inflator valve 124 shown in figure 1C.
The reason to add a partition plate is for the same reason as described in claim 1.
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 JAY KHANDPUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5090. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 6:30.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/JAY KHANDPUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights