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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korean on 14 August 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant still has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0106007 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 25 November 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 and 4-10 are 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.
In regards to Claim 1, the structure is unclear. The claim states the knot-architectured fabric actuator comprises “a unit knot”. This is not a plurality of unit knots, but a single unit knot. As such, the phrase “extending the unit knot in a vertical direction” is unclear. Does this mean the unit knot is stretched? How is this performed? Claim 1 also states “wherein the unit knots are continuously formed in the vertical and horizontal directions”. First, the phrase “the unit knots” lacks proper antecedent basis. Second, how does one unit knot become two unit knots? Third, what is meant by “continuously formed”? For how long? Does this mean knot after knot after knot infinitely, or does this mean the knots are stretched, with infinitely extended nodes and petals?
Further in regards to Claim 1, the phrase “a fiber strand intersects each other” is illogical. What is the each other? A fiber strand is a single object.
Still further in regards to Claim 1, the phrase “the knot” is unclear. Is this the unit knot, or one of the two knots?
The remaining claims inherit the rejection by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al (KR 20220019191; see translation).
In regards to Claim 1, Han teaches a knot-architectured fabric actuator comprising:
a unit knot (two of the knots below), each knot including a node formed by fiber strands crossing each other; and at least one petal including a closed curve formed by fibers extending from both ends of the knot (see annotated figure below). The unit knot would thus have nodes and two petals. The columns would extend in the vertical direction as the unit knot has a height, and would extend in the horizontal direction as the unit knot has a width.
PNG
media_image1.png
265
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 4, Han teaches two or more of the two-dimensional architectures overlap each other to form a multi-layer (Figure 1).
In regards to Claim 5, Han teaches two knots and two petals form a unit knot (two adjacent knots from Figure 2).
In regards to Claim 6, Han teaches d ≤ 2w0, here, w0 indicates a width of the unit knot, and d indicates a distance from one side of one unit knot to the other side of another unit knot adjacent thereto in a width direction when the unit knot extends in the width direction insomuch as 2 w0 units equal d. As long as the 2 w0 units are not spaced apart, d must be equal to or less than 2 w0 units. Figure 2 shows overlap, so d < 2w0.
In regards to Claim 7, Han teaches the fiber is a shape memory polymer (translation; 7th paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS: “ionic polymer”).
In regards to Claim 8, Han teaches the actuator is part of a wearable robot (translation; 3rd paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS).
In regards to Claim 9, Han teaches the actuator is part of a soft gripper (wearable robot, which would grip around the wearer).
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(s) 10 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al in view of Ahlquist et al (20190257326).
In regards to Claim 10, while Han essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach the soft gripper is formed with an adaptive sleeve surrounding a surface of an object. Ahlquist, however, teaches that when dealing with similar wearable robot actuators, it is well known to form as an adaptive sleeve surrounding a surface of an object (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the soft gripper as a sleeve, so as to allow for ease of use (Paragraph 18). The form of a sleeve would make use as a wearable easier, and also allow for customization (Paragraph 16).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to foreign priority, Applicant argues that a foreign priority access codes was provided in the ADS. Respectfully, an attempt to electronically retrieve the priority document failed on 14 January 2025. As such, the foreign priority document has not been provided by Applicant.
In regards to the prior art of record, Applicant argues that Han et al fails to teach two petals. As best understood, a unit knot is two knots. If each knot has a petal, then the unit knot would have two petals. Examiner made this point in the previous office action, and Applicant has not addressed it. Further, Applicant has now amended Claim 1 in a manner that makes the actual limitations difficult to discern. Since the prior art of record (Han et al) still appears to teach the limitations as best understood, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
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 Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732