DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The phrase “The present invention provides” contained in the abstract is such a phrase which can be implied.
Drawings
The drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: The Office recommends amending the limitation “configured to wrap on” (Line 11) to recite, e.g., “configured to be wrapped around” or “configured to be wrapped onto.”
Claim 2: The Office recommends amending the limitation “keep pulling” (Line 2) to recite “pull,” amending the word “provides” (Line 3) to recite “provide,” amending the word “its” (Line 3) to recite “an,” and deleting the word “help” (Line 3).
Claim 3: The Office recommends amending the limitation “overlaid” (Line 1) to recite, e.g., “positioned relative.” The Office further recommends amending the word “for” (Line 2) to recite, e.g., “at” or “along.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,400,585 B2 to Manfredi, which discloses:
Claim 1: A tensegrity joint comprising:
a first inner structure 2 having a first frame and a first strut extending orthogonally from the first frame;
a second inner structure 4 having a second frame and a second strut extending orthogonally from the second frame;
at least three actuation tendons 6-9, each being fixed at a respective hole at the first frame and being guided and allowed to slide through a respective hole at the second frame;
a central tendon connecting an apex of the first strut and an apex of the second strut such that the central tendon is in balance with the pulling forces exerted by the at least three actuation tendons; and
an outer elastic protection sheath 3 configured to wrap on a cylindrical surface between the first and second inner structures (see annotated FIG. 3 below).
Claim 3: The tensegrity joint of claim 1, wherein the first strut and the second strut are overlaid to each other at a level to allow the tensegrity joint to bend for a bending angle. See FIG. 3.
Claim 4: The tensegrity joint of claim 1, wherein each of the actuation tendons and central tendon is made of braided metal wires. See Col. 8, Lines 25-26.
Claim 5: The tensegrity joint of claim 1, wherein the first and second frames are circular. See FIG. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
571
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,400,585 B2 to Manfredi.
Claim 2: Manfredi does not expressly disclose wherein the outer elastic protection sheath 3 is made of silicone. However, Col. 8, Lines 19-21 of Manfredi discloses “sheath [3 is] constructed from a soft, elastic and resilient material, for example natural or synthetic rubbers or a suitable polymeric material.” The Office submits that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing that a “suitable polymeric material” which is “soft, elastic, and resilient” extends to silicone, because silicone is a common material which satisfies all of these characteristics.
Thus, the Office submits that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to attain the tensegrity joint recited in Claim 2.
Claims 7-8, 11-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,400,585 B2 to Manfredi, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of the “Soft Tensegrity Robots” video by Jean-Baptiste Mouret which is publicly available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuLQDhrk9tQ.
Claim 7: Manfredi does not expressly disclose “at least three motors” for pulling the at least three actuation tendons 6-9 respectively. However, Col. 9, Line 32 to Col. 10, Line 33 describes movement which, the Office submits, those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing would find obvious would be accomplished through use of individual motors associated with tendons 6-9.
Manfredi does not disclose or suggest a “learning based controller configured for controlling the at least three motors.”
The video “Soft Tensegrity Robots” by Jean-Baptiste Mouret, at 0:35 – 0:50 seconds, describes a “trial and error machine learning algorithm” which allows the robot to learn how to move across a surface.
In view of the Mouret teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the tensegrity robot joint disclosed by Manfredi, such that it further comprises a learning based controller configured for controlling the at least three motors, in order to effectively achieve desired movements of the first inner structure relative to the second inner structure.
Claim 8: Based upon the combination of Manfredi and Mouret, the Office submits that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the learning based tensegrity robot disclosed by Manfredi, as modified by Mouret in the rejection of Claim 7 above, such that
the learning-based controller is trained on basis of a training dataset prepared by a sampling technique including:
generating, based on a geometric model of the tensegrity joint, an actuation sequence containing initial tendon configurations; and
executing all the initial tendon configurations contained in the generated actuation sequence and correcting, during actual joint movement, each of the initial tendon configurations in a torque-control manner by multiple trials of releasing and pulling the tendon individually, because this method corresponds to the “trial and error machine learning algorithm” taught by Mouret.
Claim 11: Manfredi does not expressly disclose wherein the outer elastic protection sheath 3 is made of silicone. However, Col. 8, Lines 19-21 of Manfredi discloses “sheath [3 is] constructed from a soft, elastic and resilient material, for example natural or synthetic rubbers or a suitable polymeric material.” The Office submits that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing that a “suitable polymeric material” which is “soft, elastic, and resilient” extends to silicone, because silicone is a common material which satisfies all of these characteristics.
Thus, based upon the combination of Manfredi and Mouret described above in the rejection of Claim 7, the Office submits that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to attain the tensegrity joint recited in Claim 11.
Claims 12-14: The limitations recited in Claims 12-14, respectively, are the same limitations recited in Claims 3-5, which are anticipated by Manfredi. Thus, the Office submits that Claims 12-14, each of which depend from Claim 7, are rendered obvious over the combination of Manfredi and Mouret.
Claim 16: As described above in the rejection of Claim 7, Mouret teaches a “trial and error machine learning algorithm” which allows the robot to learn how to move across a surface.
Based upon the combination of Manfredi and Mouret, the Office submits that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to attain, with a reasonable expectation of success, a method for training a learning-based tensegrity robot joint of claim 7, the method comprising:
training a learning-based controller of the learning-based tensegrity robot joint on basis of a first training dataset prepared by a sampling technique including:
generating, based on a geometric model of the tensegrity joint, an actuation sequence containing initial tendon configurations; and
executing all the initial tendon configurations contained in the generated actuation sequence and correcting, during actual joint movement, each of the initial tendon configurations in a torque-control manner by multiple trials of releasing and pulling the tendon individually, because this method corresponds to the “trial and error machine learning algorithm” taught by Mouret.
Claim 17: The tensegrity robot joint disclosed by Manfredi includes a central tendon which is perpendicular to the first frame (see FIG. 3), and the Office submits that operation of the Manfredi robot joint is characterized such that there is no axial rotation of the central tendon in the absence of external disturbance.
The Office submits that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to attain, with a reasonable expectation of success, a method for training a learning-based tensegrity robot joint which incorporates a geometric model deduced by assuming:
there is no axial rotation of the central tendon in the absence of external disturbance; and
the central tendon is perpendicular to the first frame,
because the tensegrity robot joint disclosed by Manfredi includes a central tendon which is perpendicular to the first frame and operation of the Manfredi robot joint is characterized such that there is no axial rotation of the central tendon in the absence of external disturbance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9-10, 15, and 18 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:
U.S. Patent No. 11,400,585 B2 to Manfredi and the “Soft Tensegrity Robots” video by Jean-Baptiste Mouret publicly available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuLQDhrk9 tQ are the closest prior art.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15: The closest art does not disclose or suggest first and second struts which are L-shaped.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18: The closest art does not disclose or suggest the “fiber Bragg gratings sensor” recited therein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDELL J KRUG whose telephone number is (313) 446-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00-14:00 AZ time.
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 on 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.
/RANDELL J KRUG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618