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 .
Claims, 1, 10 and 17 have been amended.
Claim 12, 18-19 have been canceled.
Claim 20 has been added
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/15/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 3, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bagley [US Pat # 7,662,091].
Regarding claim 1: Bagley shows a continuum arm robot segment comprising: a proximal end section (44); a distal end section (34); at least one vertebra (72) between the proximal end section and the distal end section (44, 34), the vertebra being linked to the proximal end section and to the distal end section by linkages, wherein the proximal end section (44), the distal end (34) section and the at least one vertebra (72) are configured to have hollow cores to provide a passage within the continuum arm robot segment; and at least two tendons (80, 82) that are connected to the distal end section (34) and pass through the at least one vertebra (72) and the proximal end section; wherein the at least two tendons (80, 82) are routed helically so that they undergo substantially at least a 360o rotation between the proximal end section and the distal end section (see fig 4).
Regarding claim 3: Bagley shows wherein there are from 1 to 20 vertebrae (see fig 4) between the proximal end section and the distal end section.
Regarding claim 7: Bagley shows wherein an angle of the tendons (80, 82) as they pass through the continuum arm robot segment is from 5 degrees to 90 degrees (see fig 4).
Regarding claim 8: Baley shows wherein the angle of the tendons as they pass through the continuum arm robot segment is from 5 degrees to 45 degrees (see fig 4).
Regarding claim 9: Bagley shows a continuum arm robot including at least one continuum arm robot segment of claim 1 (see fig 4).
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 2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagley [US Pat # 7,662,091] in view of Durrant [US Pat # 8,182,418].
Regarding claim 2 and 4: Bagley does not explicitly disclose the material of tendons made from made from nitinol, steel, fibre or a plastics material and wherein the continuum arm robot segment is provided with friction reducing elements at points where the tendons pass through the at least one vertebra. However Durant shows wherein the tendons are made from nitinol, steel, fibre or a plastics material (“…Without limitation tendons 50 can be made from stainless steel, titanium, nitinol, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene…”).
wherein the continuum arm robot segment is provided with friction reducing elements at points where the tendons pass through the at least one vertebra ( “… The main benefit with using a spiraled structure identified by the inventors is reduced friction between a coil pipe and vertebra-type ring structures by virtue of the elimination or reduction of sliding of the coil pipes along the elongate body…”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in that art to have made the art to have made the robot continuum including vertebra and proximal end and distal end from aluminum, titanium or any other material due to its property of light weight and durability resulting in increased life time of the robot.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagley [US Pat # 7,662,091] in view of Guarnaschelli [US Pat # 3,430,662].
Regarding claim 5 and 6: Bagley is silent about the material of the proximal end section and the distal end section are made from steel, titanium, aluminum, a metal alloy, or a plastics material.
wherein the at least one vertebra is made from steel, titanium, aluminum, a metal alloy, or a plastics material. However Guarnaschelli shows about the material of the proximal end section and the distal end section are made from steel, titanium, aluminum, a metal alloy, or a plastics material. wherein the at least one vertebra is made from steel, titanium, aluminum, a metal alloy, or a plastics material (“…The rings may be made of aluminum that will be nonmagnetic and not carry magnetic currents resulting from any current flow in the cables…”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in that art to have made the art to have made the robot continuum including vertebra and proximal end and distal end from aluminum, titanium or any other material due to its property of light weight and durability resulting in increased life time of the robot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 and 20 allowed.
The prior art of the record failed to show at least two tendons are connected to the distal end section and pass through the at least one vertebra and the proximal end section, and wherein in at least one of the continuum arm robot segments the at least two tendons are routed helically, and wherein each tendon is connected to an actuator to control the tension of the tendon and wherein a linked set of N segments are linked, so that the tendons in each segment have at least a 360o/N angular rotation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant argument that Bagley failed to disclose “wherein the at least two tendons are routed helically so they undergo substantially at least 360 degrees”
Figure 3 clearly shows cable 52 has more than one rotation resulting in at least 360 degrees.
In response to applicant argument that Bagley fails to disclose the vertebra being linked to the proximal end section and to the distal end section by linkages, and Bagley vertebra fits to another using ball-socket joint not together with linkage.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, A ball joint is a type of linkage, ball joints are considered linkages. They are mechanical components that connect various parts
PNG
media_image1.png
707
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
786
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
729
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
743
551
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example cited references US 5727391, US 8182418, US 20190015978, 20160151908 in 892 they are all showing a continuum robot with tendons and vertebrae, tendons with different routing and configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618