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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 1/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/13/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “an adjacent rigid link” in lines 7-8 and again in lines 8-9, which is a double inclusion and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear how many rigid links are required by the claim, and how the links and pulleys are arranged cannot be determined.
Claim 1 recites “ a respective rigid link” in line 14, which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear how many links are required by the claims.
Claim 2 recites “the robot comprises only a first rigid link and a second rigid link” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, claim 1 already recites “a first rigid link and a final rigid link” and the second recitation of “a first rigid link” makes it unclear how many “first rigid links” are required by the claims. Additionally, it is unclear if the claimed “final rigid link” is required by the claims, as claim 2 appears to suggest otherwise. As such, the number of rigid links, and their configuration in relation to the other claimed elements cannot be determined.
Claim 3 recites “at least three rigid links” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. First, it is unclear how many links the claims already define, and it is further unclear of the claimed “three rigid links” are some of the previously claimed links, or an additional three links.
Claim 6 recites “a respective controller” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, the number of controllers required by the claims, and how the controller defined by claim 1 relates to those recited in claim 6, cannot be determined.
Claim 9 is generally unclear for reasons similar to those given above. Specifically, the number of spools, pulleys and cables required by the claim cannot be determined.
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) 1-4 and 8, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes et al. (USPN 4,806,066) in view of D’Souza et al. (USPN 10,941,555).
Rhodes discloses a robot having a series of rigid links including a first rigid link (28) and a final rigid link (32), wherein: the first rigid link having a proximal end (at 30) fixedly coupled to a first pulley (64) and a distal end (at 34) rotatably coupled to a second pulley (74), the first pulley configured to move the first rigid link in response to rotation of the first pulley, the second pulley fixedly coupled to an adjacent rigid link (as best understood, 32) and configured to move the adjacent rigid link in response to rotation of the second pulley, the final rigid link having a proximal end (at 34) fixedly coupled to a final pulley (54) of an adjacent rigid link (as best understood, 28), a distal end (80) coupled to a tool (36) configured to transmit a force toward a surface to be worked (the tool is considered capable of transmitting a force to a surface), the second pulley of the adjacent rigid link configured to move the final rigid link in response to rotation of the second pulley of the adjacent rigid link, each of the pulleys being coupled to a respective spool (60/68) via a respective cable assembly (62/70) coupled therebetween to provide thereby a respective tendon-driven joint configured for manipulating a respective rigid link, each cable assembly comprising at least an elastic cable portion (62/70); each of the spools being rotatably driven in either of two directions of rotational motion by a respective motor (one of 14); and a controller (12), configured to cause the motors to move the tool against the surface to be worked in accordance with desired position and desired force (Column 16, lines 41-48, both position and force can be determined, and controller is therefore capable of performing the recited function); wherein the robot comprises only a first rigid link (as best understood, 28) and a second rigid link (as best understood, 32); wherein the robot comprises at least three rigid links (as best understood, 16 can be considered a rigid link in addition to 28 and 32); wherein the robot is mounted on a rotating platform (24) having associated with it a base motor (one of 14) configured to rotate the series of rigid links towards the surface to be worked (24 is considered capable of the recited function).
Rhodes does not disclose a force sensor configured to generate a signal indicative of the transmitted force, or wherein the tool comprises a scrubbing tool and the controller is configured to cause the scrubbing tool to move against the surface to be worked in accordance with a surface decontamination motion.
D’Souza discloses a force sensor (332) configured to generate a signal (Column 14, lines 50-55) indicative of the force transmitted by a scrubbing tool (124) to a surface (108) in what can be considered a decontamination motion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the robot of Rhodes to have a force sensor that generates a signal indicative of the force transmitted by a tool to a surface, in order to allow precise control of the amount of force the tool applies to a surface in order to scrub a surface clean.
Claim(s) 5, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes et al. (USPN 4,806,066) and D’Souza et al. (USPN 10,941,555) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Edsigner et al. (USPN 9,512,912).
The combination of Rhodes and D’Souza disclose the claimed invention, except wherein the controller comprises a proportional- integral-derivative (PID) controller.
PID controllers are old and well known in the art of robotics.
Edsigner discloses a robot actuator that utilizes a PID controller (Column 11, lines 55-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the robot of the combination of Rhodes and D’Souza to utilize a PID controller, as the selection of a known controller suitable for a given intended use only requires routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 6, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes et al. (USPN 4,806,066) and D’Souza et al. (USPN 10,941,555) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Quaid et al. (USPN 7,683,565).
The combination of Rhodes and D’Souza disclose the claimed invention, including wherein each motor is controlled by a respective controller (as best understood, as each motor 14 of Rhodes is controlled by controller 12 of Rhodes, they are considered controlled by a respective controller).
The combination of Rhodes and D’Souza do not disclose each controller is programmed via a respective programming signal derived using an inverse kinematic process.
Quaid discloses an inverse kinematics process (536) for controlling a robot (100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the robot of the combination of Rhodes and D’Souza to utilize an inverse kinematics process, as the selection of a known robotic control program suitable for a given intended use only requires routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes et al. (USPN 4,806,066) and D’Souza et al. (USPN 10,941,555) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karguth et al. (USPN 9,669,542).
The combination of Rhodes and D’Souza disclose the claimed invention, except wherein each cable assembly further comprising a spring portion.
Karguth discloses a robot having cable assemblies (see Fig. 7, 05) that each have a spring portion (See Fig. 7, 07).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the robot of the combination of Rhodes and D’Souza to have each cable assembly comprise a spring portion, in order to allow for some compliance in the robot in order to reduce damage to the robot or environment during collisions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKE COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 PM.
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 at (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.
JAKE COOK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/Jake Cook/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights