Robotic End Effector with Tactile Sensing
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2025 is being 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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, the limitation “the set of proximity sensors and the set of pressure sensors configured to have overlapping sensing region” is unclear if the proximity sensors sensing regions overlap the pressure sensors sensing regions and vice versa, or if the individual proximity sensors sensing regions overlap with other individual proximity sensor sensing regions and if the individual pressure sensors sensing regions overlap with other individual pressure sensor sensing regions, or both scenarios are required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “the set of proximity sensors sensing regions overlap and the set of pressure sensors sensing regions overlap”. The dependent claims are similarly interpreted and rejected.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation, “the set of proximity sensors includes a single proximity sensor” is unclear since claim 1 limits the proximity sensors “to have overlapping sensing region” and one sensor cannot overlap a non-existent second sensor.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golda (US 12103182, “Golda”), in view of Piacenza (IEEE, "Data-driven super-resolution on a tactile dome", 2018; "Piacenza").
Regarding claim 1, Golda discloses, in figures 1-26, a sensor module (146) for an end effector (800) of a robot (col. 15, lines 52-57, “wearable device may be integrally formed with the mechanical device 800 (e.g., the sensing glove may be inseparable from the robotic hand)”), the sensor module (108) comprising: a substrate (137, 143, 160) having formed thereon, a set of proximity sensors ((140) col. 10, lines 55-56, Golda’s arrays include proximity sensors) and a set of pressure sensors ((140) col. 10, lines 51-52, Golda’s arrays include force sensors); and a cover (174) coupled to the substrate (160), the cover (174) comprising a material that permits transmission of signals (see fig. 6, col. 10, lines 59-61, examiner notes Golda’s piezoelectric proximity sensors transmit an ultrasonic wave to sense distance to an object, therefore the silicon encapsulation layer permits transmission of signals) from the set of proximity sensors (140) through the material (col. 14, line 11, “encapsulation layer 174 (e.g., silicone)”).
Golda does not explicitly disclose the set of proximity sensors have overlapping sensing regions and the set of pressure sensors have overlapping sensing regions.
Piacenza teaches using super resolution to leverage overlapping receptive field to provide localization (p. 2, col. 2 ¶ 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Piacenza’s scheme of using super resolution techniques to localize a target in overlapping sensor fields to teach Golda to design a proximity sensor array and a pressure sensor array with overlapping sensing regions. Doing so would provide a hardware configuration capable of constructing a continuous map of a target object’s location before and after an end effector makes contact.
Regarding claim 2, Golda and Piacenza, as combined in claim 1, fail to disclose a rigid structure formed between the substrate and the cover.
However, Piacenza further teaches, in figures 2 and 5-6, a rigid structure (see fig. 5, p. 3, col. 1, ¶ 1, examiner notes Piacenza’s dome design cases have a substrate and idented rim formed of ABS plastic) formed between the substrate (see previous comment) and the cover (see fig. 1, examiner notes Piacenza’s dome extends above the indented rim, thus the rim is between the top of the dome and the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Piacenza’s sensor design with ABS rim as Golda’s separate section border. Doing so provides a form for casting the encapsulation layer.
Regarding claim 5, Golda and Piacenza disclose the cover (Golda (174)) is mechanically coupled (Golda, col. 14, line 11, the examiner construes the silicone encapsulation layer to be deposited on the sensor layer) to the substrate (Golda (160)).
Regarding claim 6, Golda and Piacenza fail to disclose the cover wraps around an edge of the substrate.
However, applicant has not disclosed that designing at least a portion of the cover wraps around an edge of the substrate is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design a cover of a sensor module so that at least a portion of the cover wraps around an edge of the substrate as a matter of design choice to provide an improved seal at a critical portion of the assembly. Do so would protect a sensitive portion from damage.
Regarding claim 7, Golda and Piacenza disclose, in Golda’s figures 1-26, the cover (Golda (174)) comprises an elastomer (Golda, col. 14, line 11, “silicone”).
Regarding claim 8, Golda and Piacenza disclose, in Golda’s figures 1-26, the set of proximity sensors ((140) col. 10, lines 55-56, Golda’s arrays include proximity sensors) comprises at least one time-of-flight sensor (Golda, col. 11, lines 7-11, “to sense proximity to an object, one section may utilize a single piezoelectric sensor configured to transmit an ultrasonic wave and sense a reflection of the ultrasonic wave”, the examiner construes these sensors to be time-of-flight sensors).
Regarding claim 10, Golda and Piacenza fail to explicitly disclose the set of proximity sensors includes a single proximity sensor, and the set of pressure sensors includes at least four pressure sensors arranged adjacent to the single proximity sensor.
However, applicant has not disclosed that designing a sensor array where the set of proximity sensors includes a single proximity sensor, and the set of pressure sensors includes at least four pressure sensors arranged adjacent to the single proximity sensor is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the set of proximity sensors such that it includes a single proximity sensor, and the set of pressure sensors includes at least four pressure sensors arranged adjacent to the single proximity sensor as a matter of design choice to provide optimal proximity and tactile pressure sensing. Doing so would improve robotic operability.
Regarding claim 11, Golda and Piacenza, as combined in claim 1, fail to disclose the pressure sensors provide a contact pressure distribution.
However, Piacenza further teaches, in figures 2-4, the set of pressure sensors (see fig. 2) is configured to provide a distribution of contact pressure on the cover (see fig. 4, “the graph represents the pressure distribution among the five Takktile sensors as we indent along the symmetry line”) when in contact with an object (see fig. 3, “indentor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Piacenza’s sensor array function of reports pressure distributions when in contact with an object as Golda’s pressure sensor array function. Doing so reduces data saving processing bandwidth.
Regarding 12, Golda and Piacenza fail to explicitly disclose a sense contact rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the set of pressure sensors configured to sense contact data at a rate of at least 200 Hz, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, to provide an adequate data rate for operability. Doing so allows a determination of minimum or maximum pressure before a robotic mechanical device falls below or exceeds a minimum or maximum grip threshold.
Regarding 13, Golda and Piacenza fail to explicitly disclose a sense distance rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the set of proximity sensors is configured to sense distance data at a rate of at least 100 Hz, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, to provide an adequate data rate for operability. Doing so allows a determination of minimum distance before a robotic mechanical device makes contact.
Regarding claim 14, Golda and Piacenza disclose, in Golda’s figures 1-26, a component (Golda (152)) configured to combine contact data from the set of pressure sensors (col. 12, lines 40-41, “Sensors 150A and 150C could be normal force sensors”) and distance data from the set of proximity sensors (col. 12, lines 41-42, “sensors 150B and 150G could be proximity sensors”) to produce a single data stream (Golda (151), col. 12, lines 55-60, “circuitry 152 may… generate a serial bit stream (corresponding to the sensor readings) as the digital output”).
Regarding claim 15, Golda and Piacenza disclose, in Golda’s figure 6, the substrate (16) comprises a printed circuit board (162).
Regarding 18, Golda and Piacenza fail to explicitly disclose a dynamic range of each pressure sensor.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a dynamic range of each pressure sensor in the set of pressure sensors is 1-300N, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, to provide an adequate range for operability. Doing so allows a determination contact pressure for a full range of planned operations, while reducing the cost of using sensors with greater range.
Regarding claim 19, Golda discloses, in figures 1-26, an apparatus (104) for a robot (col. 15, lines 52-57, “wearable device may be integrally formed with the mechanical device 800 (e.g., the sensing glove may be inseparable from the robotic hand)”), the apparatus comprising: a base (not enumerated, see fig. 8A, the examiner construes Golda’s base as depicted to be a dorsal and palm part of the hand); and at least two modules coupled to the base (see figs. 8A-8B, examiner notes Golda’s robotic device includes 1 module comprising each of four fingers including one link aligned with each phalanges type structure), each module comprising a proximal link and a distal link coupled to the proximal link ((146) see previous comment, see fig. 8B, examiner notes Golda depicts an example module with proximal and distal links), wherein each of the distal links (see figs. 8A & 8B) includes a sensor module (146), the sensor module (146) comprising: a substrate (137, 143, 160) having formed thereon, a set of proximity sensors ((140) col. 10, lines 55-56, Golda’s arrays include proximity sensors) and a set of pressure sensors ((140) col. 10, lines 51-52, Golda’s arrays include force sensors); and a cover (174) coupled to the substrate (160), the cover (174) comprising a material that permits transmission of signals (see fig. 6, col. 10, lines 59-61, examiner notes Golda’s piezoelectric proximity sensors transmit an ultrasonic wave to sense distance to an object, therefore the silicon encapsulation layer permits transmission of signals) from the set of proximity sensors (140) through the material (col. 14, line 11, “encapsulation layer 174 (e.g., silicone)”).
Golda does not explicitly disclose the set of proximity sensors have overlapping sensing regions and the set of pressure sensors have overlapping sensing regions.
Piacenza teaches using super resolution to leverage overlapping receptive field to provide localization (p. 2, col. 2 ¶ 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Piacenza’s scheme of using super resolution techniques to localize a target in overlapping sensor fields to teach Golda to design a proximity sensor array and a pressure sensor array with overlapping sensing regions. Doing so would provide a hardware configuration capable of constructing a continuous map of a target objects location before and after an end effector makes contact.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golda (US 12103182, “Golda”) and Piacenza (IEEE, "Data-driven super-resolution on a tactile dome", 2018; "Piacenza") as combined in claim 1, in view of Hwang (US 20210394360; “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 9, Golda and Piacenza fail to disclose the pressure sensors are barometric transducers.
Hwang teaches, in figure 3A, the set of pressure sensors (12) comprises a set of barometric transducers (¶ 0033, “Preferably, the force sensor 12 is a barometric pressure sensor because it has a relatively simple configuration and a small volume”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hwang’s scheme of using barometric pressure sensors as force sensors in an end effector sensing assembly into Golda and Piacenza’s design of a pressure sensor array since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of sensing pressure with a small volume, simple configuration technology.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting, at least, the subject matter combination of claims 1-2 including the rigid structure comprises a plate having holes formed therein for the set of proximity sensors and the set of pressure sensors. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable. Dependent claim 4 would be allowable for at least the same reason as above.
Regarding claim 16, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting, at least, the subject matter of claim 1 including the set of proximity sensors is configured to project optical signals, and the cover comprises an optically translucent material. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable.
Regarding claim 17, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting, at least, the subject matter of claim 1 including the set of proximity sensors is configured to project electromagnetic signals, and the cover comprises a non-conductive material. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights