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 .
Detailed Action
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a gripping element, a probe element in claims 1-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson et al (N. Hanson, H. Hochsztein, A. Vaidya, J. Willick, K. Dorsey and T. Padir, "In-Hand Object Recognition with Innervated Fiber Optic Spectroscopy for Soft Grippers," 2022 IEEE 5th International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 2022, pp. 852-858, doi: 10.1109/RoboSoft54090.2022.9762166) (Hanson) in view of Yu et al (PGPub 2013/0100439) (Yu)
Regarding Claims 1, 16, & 21, Hanson discloses a system for determining one or more properties of an object, the system comprising:
a gripping element configured to bend with respect to an axis (See fig. 1);
at least one waveguide, operatively coupled with the gripping element, configured to transport a light signal from a light source through at least a portion of the gripping element, the at least one waveguide further configured to transmit the light signal transported, at least a portion of the light signal transmitted illuminating the object (Section III. Materials, D. Full Spectrum Illumination). In this section it is disclosed that it is known to transport the illumination to the tip of the finger via a fiber;
a probe element (Ball lens) operatively coupled with the gripping element, the probe element including a probe waveguide configured to collect reflected light from the object (Section IV. Fabrication, A. Fiber Optic Cables, Fig. 5);
a spectrometer (See fig. 7) optically coupled to the probe element and configured to generate spectral data based on the reflected light collected (Section III. Materials, B. Spectrometer Specifications); and
a processor, communicatively coupled to the spectrometer, configured to apply a calibration factor to produce calibrated spectral data (Section V. Data Acquisition) and to determine one or more properties of the object based on the calibrated spectral data (Section VII. Discussion);
Hanson fails to explicitly disclose a detector configured to detect at least a portion of the light signal transmitted and to sense a curvature or a change in curvature of the gripping element with respect to the axis based on the light signal detected; and a processor, communicatively coupled to the detector and the spectrometer, configured to apply a calibration factor to the spectral data generated based on the curvature or the change in curvature sensed to produce calibrated spectral data and to determine one or more properties of the object based on the curvature or the change in curvature sensed, the calibrated spectral data, or a combination thereof;
However, Yu discloses a detector (108, Fig. 1, SPEC C) configured to detect at least a portion of the light signal transmitted and to sense a curvature or a change in curvature of the gripping element with respect to the axis based on the light signal detected (Paragraph 31);
Further, from the combination, the limitation, “a processor, communicatively coupled to the detector and the spectrometer, configured to apply a calibration factor to the spectral data generated based on the curvature or the change in curvature sensed to produce calibrated spectral data and to determine one or more properties of the object based on the curvature or the change in curvature sensed, the calibrated spectral data, or a combination thereof” would be met since calibration of the signal is already shown in Hanson and Yu shows a spectrometer in which fiber bending is monitored to calibrate the detected spectral signal;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hanson with a detector configured to detect at least a portion of the light signal transmitted and to sense a curvature or a change in curvature of the gripping element with respect to the axis based on the light signal detected; and a processor, communicatively coupled to the detector and the spectrometer, configured to apply a calibration factor to the spectral data generated based on the curvature or the change in curvature sensed to produce calibrated spectral data and to determine one or more properties of the object based on the curvature or the change in curvature sensed, the calibrated spectral data, or a combination thereof because this would improve the accuracy of the measured spectral signal that would be attenuated by the bending of the fiber in the gripper.
The limitations of Claims 16 & 21 are also met by this disclosure.
Regarding Claim 2, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the at least one waveguide is configured to enable a change in a characteristic of the light signal transported based on a bending of the waveguide,” is just stating a property of a fiber waveguide and thus met by the disclosed waveguides in both Hanson and Yu.
Regarding Claim 3, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the characteristic of the light signal is an intensity of the light signal and further wherein the detector is configured to sense the curvature or the change in curvature of the gripping element based on a change in the intensity of the light signal detected,” again this is a property of the waveguide and further, this is met by the disclosure of Yu (Paragraph 31).
The reasons for combination remain the same.
Regarding Claim 4, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned. Further Yu discloses sensing fiber bending loss caused by the bending of the instrument which results in intensity fluctuations (Paragraph 31). Thus, the limitation, “Wherein the detector is further configured to acquire a first measurement of the characteristic of the light signal transmitted and a second measurement of the characteristic of the light signal transmitted, the detector further configured to sense the curvature or change in curvature based on a difference between the first measurement and the second measurement,” is met since sensing the fluctuations of intensity implies multiple measurements and those fluctuations are related to the bending of the fiber which would mean a curvature change.
Regarding Claim 5, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the waveguide and the probe waveguide include a polymer core and a polymer cladding, the polymer core composed of polymethyl methacrylate, urethane rubber, or other polymer, the polymer cladding composed of fluorinated polymer or other polymer;
However, the examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would know to use a Plastic optical fiber (POF);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hanson as modified by Yu with wherein the waveguide and the probe waveguide include a polymer core and a polymer cladding, the polymer core composed of polymethyl methacrylate, urethane rubber, or other polymer, the polymer cladding composed of fluorinated polymer or other polymer because a POF offers such advantages as being robust under bending and stretching conditions and materials such as polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) used as the core of the fiber can offer such advantages as a high index of refraction difference between the core and the cladding with high flexibility and low cost.
Regarding Claim 6, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the light source illuminates at a single wavelength or a plurality of wavelengths,” covers all possibilities thus it is met by the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 7, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned. Further Yu discloses wherein the at least one waveguide includes at least two waveguides (150, 152, 154, 156), a first waveguide (152) of the at least two waveguides configured to illuminate the object and at least one second waveguide (154 & 156) of the at least two waveguides configured to transport the light signal from the light source and to transmit the light signal transported to the detector.
The reasons for combination remain the same.
Regarding Claim 8, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned. Further, Hanson discloses a plurality of light sources (Section III. Materials, D. Full Spectrum Illumination), the at least one waveguide including a respective waveguide configured to transport the light signal from a corresponding respective light source and to transmit the light signal transported. In the Cited section it is disclosed that it is known that one can use an array of LEDs rather than a QTH bulb.
Regarding Claim 9, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned. Further, as Hanson has disclosed it is known to use multiple LEDs to provide the full spectrum of a QTH bulb (Section III. Materials, D. Full Spectrum Illumination) thus meeting the limitation, “wherein spectral characteristics of the plurality of light sources is different,”
Further, the limitation, “wherein the plurality of light sources includes a first light source with a first spectral characteristic configured to illuminate the object and at least one second light source with a second spectral characteristic configured to transmit light signal through a corresponding respective waveguide to the detector.” Would be met by such an array in combination with Yu even if both sources transmitted their light through both fiber channels.
Regarding Claim 10, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned.
Further, the limitation, “wherein the detector is configured to detect the light signal transported at a single wavelength or a plurality of wavelengths, the detector further configured to sense the curvature or the change in curvature of the gripping element based on the light signal detected at a single wavelength or at least one sub-band of the plurality of wavelengths,” is met since the detector in Yu senses the change in curvature based upon the attenuation of the light and a single wavelength or a sub-band of the plurality of wavelengths meets all possible conditions for the light.
Regarding Claim 11, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned. Further, Hanson discloses wherein the properties of the object include a curvature or change in curvature, size, shape, color, composition, quality, class, material,content, texture, a chemical property, or a physical property (Section VII. Discussion).
Regarding Claim 12, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned. Further, Hanson discloses wherein the gripping element includes an elastomeric pad that is arranged to come into contact with the object, and wherein the waveguides are in coupled arrangement with the elastomeric pad (Section VIII. Conclusion). The art has disclosed using a fiber to couple the measured light to the spectrometer (Figs. 5 & 7, Section VIII. Conclusion). Further, it is disclosed to be known to use a fiber to couple the light from the QTH bulb to the tip (Section III. Materials, D. Full Spectrum Illumination) thus the limitation “wherein the waveguides are in coupled arrangement with the elastomeric pad” would be met.
Regarding Claim 13, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned. Further, Hanson discloses wherein the gripping element is configured to bend along multiple directions with respect to the axis (Fig. 1). A curving gripper such as shown in fig. 1 would be bending along at least two axes and thus multiple directions.
Regarding Claim 14, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned. Further, Hanson discloses wherein the gripping element is a first gripping element and wherein the system includes at least one second gripping element, further wherein the first gripping element, the at least one second gripping element, or a combination thereof is configured to grasp the object and to determine the one or more properties of the object (See figs. 1 & 7). As shown, there are multiple grippers for grasping the object each with their own fiber system for sensing the object.
Regarding Claims 15 & 18, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned. Further, Hanson discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine the one or more properties of the object by comparing the curvature sensed, the calibrated spectral data, or a combination thereof by comparing against a database of curvatures, spectral signatures, or a combination there of or by using a machine learning model or an inference model (Section II. Related Work, B. Spectroscopy).
Regarding Claim 17, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein transporting the light signal through at least a portion of a gripping element changes a characteristic of the light signal transported based on a state of the gripping element,” is just stating a property of a fiber waveguide and thus met by the disclosed waveguides in both Hanson and Yu.
Regarding Claim 19, Hanson as modified by Yu discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose acquiring a set of reference properties for the object through use of the gripping element and storing the set of reference properties acquired, wherein acquiring the set of reference properties includes acquiring reference properties over a substantially full range of bending with respect to the axis of the gripping element through use of objects of a similar type over a range of sizes, the method still further comprising grading additional objects of a similar type to the object through use of the gripping element based on the reference properties stored;
However, the examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would know to use a lookup table for identifying a sample based on prior measured spectra;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hanson as modified by Yu with acquiring a set of reference properties for the object through use of the gripping element and storing the set of reference properties acquired, wherein acquiring the set of reference properties includes acquiring reference properties over a substantially full range of bending with respect to the axis of the gripping element through use of objects of a similar type over a range of sizes, the method still further comprising grading additional objects of a similar type to the object through use of the gripping element based on the reference properties stored because a lookup table is well known in the art and offers such advantages as low processing overhead and quick identification of samples based on their spectra.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 11, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights