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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/4/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figures 4, 8-9, 11-13 and 15 show(s) modified forms of construction in the same view. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “curved boom sections”, “thermoset structure”, “carbon fiber composite structure”, “fiberglass structure”, “thermoplastic structure”, “spool axis”, and “axis of rotation of a spool” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The Examiner finds that the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for the claimed “combination of rigid, curved boom sections and less rigid boom sections endowed with SMA material to form joints; and a thermoset structure, a carbon fiber composite structure, a fiberglass structure, a thermoplastic structure.” The drawings and specification do not show or describe the curved rigid boom sections, less rigid boom sections “endowed with SMA material”, the thermoset structure, carbon fiber composite structure, fiberglass structure or thermoplastic structure. There is no teaching of how these structures are formed, relate to one another, or function to have the claimed results.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for the claimed “spool configured to rotate the boom, wherein the rotation is traverse to a spool axis”. The drawings and specification do not show or describe the rotation of boom, the spool axis, or how they are related to the claimed “axis of rotation of the spool”.
The state of the prior art, which one skilled in the art would have known at the time the application was filed, about the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, does not teach the necessary structure to make and use the invention to have the claimed results.
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 1-21 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 “and a thermoset structure, a carbon fiber composite structure, a fiberglass structure, a thermoplastic structure.” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if the claim is requiring all of these “structures” or is attempting to claim an alternative. Additionally, it is unclear how these structures related to the other elements of the claimed invention, as there is no language linking these structures with anything else in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the complex shapes” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 5 recites “”grippers”” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. The use of quotation marks in the claims makes it unclear if the limitations within the marks are required.
Claim 6 recites “an extended version of the configurable boom” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear how “a configurable boom” can comprise a different version of itself.
Claim 7 recites “to act as a joint to perform pivoting” which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already recites “joints” and it is unclear if the joint of claim 7 is one of the previously claimed joints, an additional joint, and the number of joints required by the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 7 recites “laced with SMA material” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already recites “endowed with SMA material” and it is unclear how “laced” is different from “endowed”, and the manner the SMA material is required to be incorporated into the claimed boom cannot be determined.
Claim 9 recites “configured to lock long edges” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, the term “long edges” is relative, and the structure required by the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 9 recites “forming a rigid configurable boom” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Similar to claim 6 above, it is unclear how a configurable boom comprises a rigid version of itself.
Claim 10 recites “with SMA material laced therein” which is unclear for the same reasons given for claim 1 above.
Claim 11 recites “each of the plurality of periodic joints are laced or intertwined with SMA material to perform pivoting of the boom” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, the manner in which the entire boom is pivoted, rather than the joints pivoting, based on SMA material “laced or intertwined” in the joints, cannot be determined.
Claim 12 recites “a spool configured to rotate the boom, wherein the rotation is transverse to a spool axis” which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what is rotating, what axis it is rotating about, how the axes are related to one another cannot be determined.
Claim 13 recites “causing an extended version of the boom to rotate” which is unclear for the same reasons given for claim 7 above.
Claim 14 recites “a single spool of material” which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what material is being referenced by “a spool of material”.
Claim 14 recites “at one or more joints” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if the “one or more joints” is one or more of the claimed “periodic joints”, and the number of joints required by the claims cannot be determined.
Claim 15 recites “a flat shape gripper” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what is required by the term “a flat shape”. The claims already require the boom to be comprised of a flat sheet, and it is unclear how this differs from or relates to “a flat shape gripper”. A flat shape is generally considered to be a two-dimensional representation of a shape without any depth, which is not possible for the claimed boom structure and associated gripper.
Claim 17 recites “a flat shape gripper” which is unclear for the same reasons given for claim 15 above.
Claim 18 recites “a spool configured to rotate the boom, wherein the rotation is transverse to a spool axis” which is unclear for the same reasons given for claim 12 above.
Claim 19 recites “a single spool of material” and is unclear for the same reasons given for claim 15 above.
Claim 21 recites “a flexible circuit” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, “a flex circuit” is previously claimed, and it is unclear how this differs from or is related to the claimed “flexible circuit”.
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, 3-5 and 7-8, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKnight et al. (USPN 7,901,524) in view of Gafford et al. (10,376,326).
McKnight discloses a configurable boom of a trained plastic flex circuit robotic appendage, the configurable boom configured to be unrolled or unfold to form a self-supporting structure where a plastic element constitutes a flex circuit containing one or more closely-coupled SMA actuators, the configurable boom comprising: a combination of rigid, curved boom sections and less rigid boom sections (1000 are variable stiffness portions in an alternating sequence, considered curved as they are depicted bent in Fig. 9A, some are necessarily less rigid than those with higher stiffness) endowed with SMA material (column 6, lines 26-27) to form joints (points between variable stiffness portions can be considered joints); further comprising: one or more sections on the configurable boom laced with SMA material, the SMA material is configured to act as a joint to perform pivoting; wherein the one or more sections of the configurable boom are configured to move in a vertical direction or horizontal direction (the directions of movement of the boom of McKnight can be considered vertical or horizontal).
McKnight does not disclose a thermoset structure, a carbon fiber composite structure, a fiberglass structure, or a thermoplastic structure, wherein the thermoset structure comprises polyimide film, or wherein the thermoplastic structure comprises a polyester film; or that wherein the complex shapes comprise end-effectors or “grippers”.
The selection of a known material suitable for a given intended use only requires routine skill in the art.
Nevertheless, Gafford discloses a carbon fiber structure (12) and a thermoset structure (Column 7, line 36, polymer film being of polyester or polyimide) and discloses a gripper (50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the configurable boom of McKnight to have a carbon fiber structure, in order to provide strength to the boom without adding unnecessary weight, and to include a polyester or polyimide film in order to provide flexibility, and to provide a gripper, in order to allow the boom to manipulate objects.
Claim(s) 11, 15- 17 and 20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gafford et al. (US2016/0184041) in view of Koehler et al. (USPN 8,950,795).
Gafford discloses a boom, comprising: a flex circuit (Paragraph [0007], line 7) comprising a flat sheet (see Figs. 12-13); and a plurality of periodic joints (21) dispersed through the flat sheet, wherein each of the plurality of periodic joints are laced or intertwined with SMA material (Paragraph [0097], lines 1-3 on page 6) to perform pivoting of the boom, and wherein the flex circuit comprises a flat shape gripper (50) at a distal end, wherein the flat shape gripper comprising SMA material intertwined therein, wherein each of the plurality of joints is configured to cause the flex circuit to move in a vertical direction or horizontal direction (direction of actuation of Gafford can be considered vertical or horizontal) depending on the placement and orientation of the SMA material within each of the plurality of joints.
Gafford does not specifically disclose that the flat shape gripper is configured to hold or grasp a target when the SMA material intertwined with the flat shape gripper is heated, and is configured to release grasping when the SMA material cools.
It is known in the art of robotics that shape memory alloys are activated by changes in temperature.
Nevertheless, Koehler discloses a flat shape gripper that is configured to hold or grasp a target when the SMA material intertwined with the flat shape gripper is heated and is configured to release grasping when the SMA material cools (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the boom of Gafford to apply heat to the shape memory alloys, in order to provide means of actuating the gripper.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gafford and Koehler as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of McKnight et al. (USPN 7,901,524).
The combination of Gafford and Koehler disclose the claimed invention, except for a second SMA material or SMA wire disposed to cause a flexible circuit to deform, bend, or curl in an opposing direction from that caused by the SMA material.
McKnight disclsoes a second SMA material (one of 600) or SMA wire disposed to cause a flexible circuit to deform, bend, or curl in an opposing direction (see Fig. 5) from that caused by the SMA material (other of 600).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the boom of the combination of Gafford and Koehler to have opposing SME actuators, in order to allow for the gripper to be moved in multiple directions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 19 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