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 the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections of claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
Applicant has amended claim to recite “embedded channels disposed at least partially between the first layer and the second layer, the embedded channels being at least partially defined by the first layer and the second layer and at least partially bounded by bonded portions of the first layer and the second layer” and “prior to pressurization of the pneumatic network.” In response to Applicant’s amendment Examiner has added reference Martinez (US Pub No.: 2015/0070904) and Kennedy (US Pub No.: 2009/0024087). With respect to Laby, as the channels are fabricated in the substrate layers as per column 45 lines 35-67 into column 46 lines 1-15, the channels are defined by the layers and bounded by the portions of said layers. The channels of Laby are in separate plate layers in column 59 lines 12-39. As such, while Laby does not teach all of the new limitations, an embedded channel is still viewed as being taught by Laby.
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) 1-4, 11 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laby (US Patent No.: 10/814,102) in view of Martinez (US Pub No.: 2015/0070904).
Regarding claim 1, Laby (US Patent No.: 10/814,102) discloses a soft robotic (soft robot structures with flexible polymers in column 42 lines 32-67) device comprising: a first layer bonded to a second layer (bonding of at least one layer in column 46 lines 16-50, implying a minimum of two layers), wherein at least one layer is comprised of an extensible thermoplastic material (thermoplastics in column 19 lines 42-67 to column 20 lines 1-3, polyethylene and polypropylene (also in column 45 lines 6-34) are extensible thermoplastics); at least one layer comprises a pneumatic network (being parts 36 in figures 5, disclosed as actuation balloons in column 46 lines 16-50) comprising embedded channels (S-Channel Skeleton 670 with frame 672 defined in figure 20A-22A, and column 61 lines 32-60) disposed at least partially between the first layer and the second layer (channels in substrate layers in column 45 lines 35-67 into column 46 lines 1-15), the embedded channels being at least partially defined by the first layer and the second layer and at least partially bounded by bonded portions of the first layer and the second layer (as the channels are fabricated in the substrate layers as per column 45 lines 35-67 into column 46 lines 1-15, the channels are defined by the layers and bounded by the portions of said layers. Channels in separate plate layers in column 59 lines 12-39); and wherein an initial conformation of the soft robotic device, is a low-volume conformation or a zero-volume configuration (deflation of the balloons are present in column 22 lines 3-34. Further deflation details in column 32 lines 13-60) in which opposing sides of the soft robotic device are collapsed toward one another (as a plurality of inflating actuators are present in Laby, like in figure 7 with balloons 36 or figure 11 with parts 272, 274, and 276, a collapsing of balloons toward each other occurs when balloons are deflated. Column 60 lines 14-29 in view of figures 20A-22A also detail).
Lavy does not teach that, prior to pressurization of the pneumatic network, is a low-volume conformation or a zero-volume configuration. Martinez (US Pub No.: 2015/0070904) teaches a prior to pressurization of a pneumatic member is a low-volume conformation or a zero-volume configuration (in figure 6A in view of [0049], where the elastic device in figure 6A is a resting state of the device). When incorporated into figure 7 of Laby, the actuator in figure 6A of Martinez will take the place of balloons 272, 274, and 276 of Laby, the opposing sides of the robotic device are collapsed toward one another when the actuator of Martinez in the figure 6a configuration as where opposing sides of the soft robotic device are collapsed toward one another as the actuator of figure 6a of Martinez in a collapsed configuration compared to figure 6b and 6c.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the actuator of figure 6 of Martinez into the device of Laby for the purpose of providing a pneumatic actuator that are “inexpensive, simple to fabricate, light in weight, and easy to actuate” as per the abstract of Martinez.
Regarding claim 2, Laby in view of Martinez teach the soft robot device of claim 1, wherein Laby discloses the pneumatic network is in contact with a pressurizing source (being the fluid source in column 53 lines 13-36) such that the pressurizing source facilitates transition of the soft robot device from a low-volume or zero-volume conformation to an extended or actuated conformation via pressurizing the pneumatic network (actuation of the balloons via the fluid source in column 53 lines 13-36 and column 22 lines 45-63).
Regarding claim 3, Laby in view of Martinez teach the soft robotic device of claim 2, wherein Laby discloses the pneumatic network comprises a plurality of channels (in column 22 lines 2-34) arranged in a pattern (shown in figure 7 as per column 29 lines 14-21) such that, upon pressurization by the pressurizing source, the soft robotic device undergoes at least two types of actuation (inflation and deflation in column 36 lines 36-67 to column 37 lines 1-20, movement shown in figures 24A-24E as per column 66 lines 8-17).
Regarding claim 4, Laby in view of Martinez teach the soft robot device of claim 1, wherein Laby discloses the thermoplastic material comprises a polyurethane or silicone, or ant extensible polymer (polyurethane and silicone in column 45 lines 6-34).
Regarding claim 11, Laby in view of Martinez teach the soft robotic device of claim 1. Laby does not teach wherein the soft robotic device is substantially planar in the initial conformation prior to pressurization of the pneumatic network.
Martinez teaches wherein the soft robotic device is substantially planar in the initial conformation prior to pressurization of the pneumatic network (in figure 6A in view of [0049], where the elastic device in figure 6A is a resting state of the device, where said resting state is shown as being substantially planar). When incorporated into figure 7 of Laby, the actuator in figure 6A of Martinez will take the place of balloons 272, 274, and 276 of Laby, the opposing sides of the robotic device are collapsed toward one another when the actuator of Martinez in the figure 6a configuration as where opposing sides of the soft robotic device are collapsed toward one another as the actuator of figure 6a of Martinez in a collapsed configuration compared to figure 6b and 6c.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the actuator of figure 6 of Martinez into the device of Laby for the purpose of providing a pneumatic actuator that are “inexpensive, simple to fabricate, light in weight, and easy to actuate” as per the abstract of Martinez.
Regarding claim 18, Laby in view of Martinez teach the soft robotic device of claim 1, wherein Laby discloses the pneumatic network is one of a plurality of pneumatic networks laminated together within the soft robotic device (column 45 lines 35-67 into column 46 lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 19, Laby in view of Martinez teach the soft robotic device of claim 18, wherein Laby discloses at least two of the plurality of pneumatic networks are configured to provide different mechanical actions upon pressurization (in figures 20A-22A, extension balloons 660 and contraction balloons 662 are present along C Channel members, detailed in column 59 lines 59-67 into column 60 lines 1-29. Said balloons provide different mechanical actions as per column 60 lines 30-53).
Regarding claim 20, Laby in view of Martinez teach the soft robotic device of claim 19, wherein Laby at least one of the different mechanical actions comprises anchoring, valving, sealing, or grasping (valving provided in certain layers in column 58 lines 42-67 into column 59 lines 1-11).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laby (US Patent No.: 10/814,102) in view of Martinez (US Pub No.: 2015/0070904) in further view of Barish (US Patent No.: 10,646,696).
Regarding claim 5, Laby in view of Martinez teach the soft robotic device of claim 1, wherein Laby discloses the soft robotic device is a heart valve (heart valve disclosed in column 28 lines 30-39).
However, Laby does not specifically teach a heart valve in the device disclosed.
Instead, Barish (US Patent No.: 10,646,696) teaches wherein the soft robotic device is a heart valve (in column 72 lines 4-56 and column 98 lines 8-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the heart valve to be placed on a catheter as presented in Barish in order to provide a beneficial use for the device in Laby that involves a heart valve with a deployment, redeployment, and positioning of said valve in column 98 lines 8-32.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laby (US Patent No.: 10/814,102) in view of Martinez (US Pub No.: 2015/0070904) in further view of Kennedy (US Pub No.: 2009/0024087).
Regarding claim 12, Laby in view of Martinez teach the soft robotic device of claim 1, wherein Laby discloses the soft robotic device is rolled in the initial conformation (shown in 24E where the assembly is wrapped around a mandrel to provide the configuration, as per column 70 lines 41-67 into column 71 lines 1-18) conformation prior to pressurization of the pneumatic network, and wherein the rolled initial conformation is sized for insertion into a catheter.
Martinez teaches wherein the soft robotic device is rolled in the initial conformation prior to pressurization of the pneumatic network (in 6A of Martinez). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the actuator of figure 6 of Martinez into the device of Laby for the purpose of providing a pneumatic actuator that are “inexpensive, simple to fabricate, light in weight, and easy to actuate” as per the abstract of Martinez.
However, Laby in view of Martinez does not teach wherein the rolled initial conformation is sized for insertion into a catheter. Instead, Kennedy (US Pub No.: 2009/0024087) teaches wherein the rolled initial conformation is sized for insertion into a catheter (rolling of a flattened balloon in [0054] for insertion into a catheter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the balloon that is rollable in place of the actuators of Laby in view of Martinez for the purpose of providing a means to contract a balloon and allowing for a balloon to be positionable, as per [0002].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Laby (US Pub No.: 2018/0071492) discloses an articulating soft robotic device in the abstract. Barrish (US Pub No.: 10/525,233) discloses a catheter with a heart valve on the proximal end of a catheter in column 62 lines 3-27.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AREN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0144. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:30 M-Th.
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, Jerrah C. Edwards can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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.
/AREN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights