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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 4, should be amended “layer is in the fully inflates state”.
Claim 6, line 6, should be amended “layer is in the fully deflated state”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Samia (US2021/0370493).
Samia discloses:
Re claim 1.
A fluidic actuator comprising:
a plurality of fluidic actuator layers (See annotated Fig. 10a below), each fluidic actuator layer comprising:
two walls bonded together at a common periphery to form a seam and to define therebetween a sealed fluidic pressurization chamber, wherein each wall is a sheet of flexible and/or elastic material (See annotated Fig. 10a below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
405
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a fluid inlet (portion between each fluidic actuator layer where fluid enters/exit as it passes from one fluidic actuator layer to another) in at least one of the walls providing fluidic access to the sealed fluidic pressurization chamber;
wherein:
one of the plurality of fluidic actuator layers is an end fluidic actuator layer (see the fluidic actuator layer in Fig. 10a that is connected directly to pneumatic line 145);
the end fluidic actuator layer has an outer fluid inlet (at pneumatic line 145) in an outer wall of end fluidic actuator layer;
the outer fluid inlet of the end fluidic actuator layer provides fluidic access outside of the fluidic actuator to the sealed fluidic pressurization chamber of the end fluidic actuator layer (see Fig. 10a);
the fluidic actuator has an expansion axis and a transverse axis orthogonal to the expansion axis, wherein the expansion axis is orthogonal to a plane of the walls of the fluidic actuator layers when the fluidic actuator is in a fully deflated state (para. [0061]); and
for each one of the fluidic actuator layers, a ratio (compare Fig. 12a and Fig. 12b) of a fully inflated height (see Fig. 12a) of the fluidic actuator layer along the expansion axis when the fluidic actuator layer is in a fully inflated state to a fully deflated height (see Fig. 12b) of the fluidic actuator layer along the expansion axis when the fluidic actuator layer is in a fully deflated state (compare Figs. 12a and 12b) is at least 2.1.
(Note that MPEP 2125 states “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979)”. In this instance, the drawings of Samia clearly show, reasonably disclose and reasonably suggest a ratio of at least 4:1, therefore Samia discloses a ratio of at least 2:1.)
Re claim 9.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
respective fluid inlets of adjacent pairs of the plurality of fluidic actuator layers provide fluidic access between the respectively corresponding sealed fluidic pressurization chambers (see annotated Fig. 10a below).
PNG
media_image2.png
517
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 10.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
the inner fluid inlet (by pneumatic line 145) of the end fluidic actuator layer provides fluidic access between the sealed fluidic pressurization chamber of the end fluidic actuator layer and the sealed fluidic pressurization chamber of an adjacent one of the fluidic actuator layers (see annotated Figs. 10a above).
Re claim 12.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
at least two of the plurality of the fluidic actuator layers are pivoting fluidic actuator layers (See Figs. 13a and 13b);
a pivot (at 125) is hingedly or bendingly coupled to the pivoting actuator layers (see Figs. 13a, 13b); and
inflation or deflation of at least one of the fluidic actuator layers causes relative rotation between at least some of the fluidic actuator layers about the pivot (See Figs. 13a, 13b).
Re claim 13.
The fluidic actuator of claim 12, wherein:
the pivot (at 125) is at respective pivot ends at the peripheries of the pivoting fluidic actuator layers (see Figs. 13a, 13b) hingedly or bendingly connected (connected via 135 that hinge or bend around 125) at the respective pivot ends (see Figs. 13a, 13b).
Re claim 14.
The fluidic actuator of claim 12, wherein:
each of the pivoting fluidic actuator layers is connected to a corresponding tether (135; see Figs. 13a, 13b); and
the tethers are connected at the pivot (at 125; see Figs. 13a, 13b).
Re claim 16.
The fluidic actuator of claim 12, wherein:
the pivot (125) is a hinge or a ball joint (see para. [0047]).
Re claim 17.
The fluidic actuator of claim 12, further comprising:
a linkage structure comprising:
for each of the pivoting fluidic actuator layers, a pivot flap (135; see Fig. 13a, 13b) connected at an actuator end thereof to the periphery of the corresponding pivoting fluidic actuator layer;
wherein: the pivot (at 125; see Figs. 13a, 13b) is at hingedly or bendingly connected (via 135) pivot ends of the respective pivot flaps of the pivoting fluidic actuator layers (See Figs. 13a, 13b).
Re claim 20.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein the walls of the fluidic actuator layers are circular (See Fig. 10a as well as 14a. The walls are circular in cross-section).
Re claim 21.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein the walls of the fluidic actuator layers are lens-shaped (See Figs. 10a and 14a. A circular shape may be considered lens shape, and the walls are circular in cross-section. Furthermore, the circular cross-section changes in diameter along a longitudinal axis, similar to a lens).
Re claim 22.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein a cross-section of a fluidic actuator layer in a plane coincident with the expansion axis is lens-shaped (See Figs. 10a and 14a. A circular shape may be considered lens shape, and the walls are circular in cross-section. Furthermore, the circular cross-section changes in diameter along a longitudinal axis, similar to a lens).
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.
Claim(s) 2-8, 11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samia (US2021/0370493).
Re dependent claims 2-8, 11, and 19
Samia suggests the claimed invention claimed in following claims except does not explicitly disclose the claimed ranges in those following claims. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize each of the ranges below, since it has been held by the courts that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233:
Re claim 2.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
for each one of the fluidic actuator layers, a gap between opposing interior surfaces of the walls along the expansion axis is at most 0.3 mm when the fluidic actuator layer is in the fully deflated state (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 3.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
for each one of the fluidic actuator layers, the ratio of the fully inflated height of the fluidic actuator layer along the expansion axis when the fluidic actuator layer is in the fully inflated state to the fully deflated height of the fluidic actuator layer along the expansion axis when the fluidic actuator layer is in the fully deflated state is at most 25,000:1 (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 4.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
for each one of the fluidic actuator layers, a fully deflated volume of the fluidic pressurization chamber is at most 75,000 mm3 when the fluidic actuator layer is in the fully deflated state (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 5.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
a total deflated volume of the fluidic actuator layers is at most 0.025 m3 when the fluidic actuator is in the fully deflated state (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 6.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
for each one of the fluidic actuator layers, a ratio of a fully inflated volume of the fluidic pressurization chamber when the fluidic actuator layer in the fully inflated state to a fully deflated volume of the fluidic pressurization chamber when the fluidic actuator layer in the fully deflated state is at least 2:1 (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 7.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
for each one of the fluidic actuator layers, a ratio of a fully inflated width of the fluidic actuator layer along the transverse axis when the fluidic actuator layer is in the fully inflated state to a fully deflated width of the fluidic actuator layer along the transverse axis when the fluidic actuator layer is in the fully deflated state is at most 1:2 (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 8.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
for each one of the fluidic actuator layers, a ratio of a fully deflated height of the fluidic actuator layer along the expansion axis to a fully deflated width of the fluidic actuator layer along the transverse axis when the fluidic actuator layer is in the fully deflated state is at most 1:25,000 (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 11.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
abutting walls of adjacent pairs of the fluidic actuator layers are bonded together less than an entire width along the transverse axis of the corresponding fluidic actuator layers so as to form gaps between the respective peripheries of the corresponding fluidic actuator layers (see annotated Fig. 10a below); and
PNG
media_image3.png
517
766
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a ratio of a fully inflated gap between the respective peripheries of the corresponding fluidic actuator layers when in the fully inflated state to a fully deflated gap between the respective peripheries of the corresponding fluidic actuator layers when in the fully deflated state is at least 10:1 (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 19.
The fluidic actuator of claim 17, wherein a ratio of a common length of the pivot flaps (135) to a common fully deflated width of the pivoting fluidic actuator layers when in a fully deflated state is at least 1:10 (See Figs. 13a) (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Claim(s) 1-14, 16, 17, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samia (US2021/0370493) in view of Gardner (US 3,469,502). (Parent claim 1 rejected in the alternative to the 35 USC 102 rejection hereinabove).
Re claim 1, in the alternative rejected under 35 USC 103.
Samia discloses a fluidic actuator comprising:
a plurality of fluidic actuator layers (See annotated Fig. 10a below), each fluidic actuator layer comprising:
two walls bonded together at a common periphery to form a seam and to define therebetween a sealed fluidic pressurization chamber, wherein each wall is a sheet of flexible and/or elastic material (See annotated Fig. 10a below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
405
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a fluid inlet (portion between each fluidic actuator layer where fluid enters/exit as it passes from one fluidic actuator layer to another) in at least one of the walls providing fluidic access to the sealed fluidic pressurization chamber;
wherein:
one of the plurality of fluidic actuator layers is an end fluidic actuator layer (see the fluidic actuator layer in Fig. 10a that is connected directly to pneumatic line 145);
the end fluidic actuator layer has an outer fluid inlet (at pneumatic line 145) in an outer wall of end fluidic actuator layer;
the outer fluid inlet of the end fluidic actuator layer provides fluidic access outside of the fluidic actuator to the sealed fluidic pressurization chamber of the end fluidic actuator layer (see Fig. 10a);
the fluidic actuator has an expansion axis and a transverse axis orthogonal to the expansion axis, wherein the expansion axis is orthogonal to a plane of the walls of the fluidic actuator layers when the fluidic actuator is in a fully deflated state (para. [0061]); and
for each one of the fluidic actuator layers, a ratio (compare Fig. 12a and Fig. 12b) of a fully inflated height (see Fig. 12a) of the fluidic actuator layer along the expansion axis when the fluidic actuator layer is in a fully inflated state to a fully deflated height (see Fig. 12b) of the fluidic actuator layer along the expansion axis when the fluidic actuator layer is in a fully deflated state (compare Figs. 12a and 12b).
Assuming arguendo that the drawings of Samia cannot be relied upon to teach the claimed ratio because the drawings are not to scale, then Samia discloses the claimed invention except does not explicitly disclose in the text of its disclosure that the ratio being at least 2:1 (While Fig. 12a and 12b are not per se to scale, the figures appear to show a ratio of at least 2:1 and therefore appear to show the required minimum ratio of 2:1 would be met.).
Gardner teaches the ratio (i.e. ratio of fully inflated height to fully deflated height) being at least 2:1 (C1/L11-13, C1/L32-45), for the purpose of achieving a deflection ratio that is high enough to accommodate the actuator in a wide variety of applications (See CL46-60 and C3/L33-38).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Samia such that the ratio being at least 2:1, as taught by Gardner, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of achieving a deflection ratio that is high enough to accommodate the actuator in a wide variety of applications.
Samia as modified above further suggests:
Re claim 9.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
respective fluid inlets of adjacent pairs of the plurality of fluidic actuator layers provide fluidic access between the respectively corresponding sealed fluidic pressurization chambers (see annotated Fig. 10a below).
PNG
media_image2.png
517
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 10.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
the inner fluid inlet (by pneumatic line 145) of the end fluidic actuator layer provides fluidic access between the sealed fluidic pressurization chamber of the end fluidic actuator layer and the sealed fluidic pressurization chamber of an adjacent one of the fluidic actuator layers (see annotated Figs. 10a above).
Re claim 12.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
at least two of the plurality of the fluidic actuator layers are pivoting fluidic actuator layers (See Figs. 13a and 13b);
a pivot (at 125) is hingedly or bendingly coupled to the pivoting actuator layers (see Figs. 13a, 13b); and
inflation or deflation of at least one of the fluidic actuator layers causes relative rotation between at least some of the fluidic actuator layers about the pivot (See Figs. 13a, 13b).
Re claim 13.
The fluidic actuator of claim 12, wherein:
the pivot (at 125) is at respective pivot ends at the peripheries of the pivoting fluidic actuator layers (see Figs. 13a, 13b) hingedly or bendingly connected (connected via 135 that hinge or bend around 125) at the respective pivot ends (see Figs. 13a, 13b).
Re claim 14.
The fluidic actuator of claim 12, wherein:
each of the pivoting fluidic actuator layers is connected to a corresponding tether (135; see Figs. 13a, 13b); and
the tethers are connected at the pivot (at 125; see Figs. 13a, 13b).
Re claim 16.
The fluidic actuator of claim 12, wherein:
the pivot (125) is a hinge or a ball joint (see para. [0047]).
Re claim 17.
The fluidic actuator of claim 12, further comprising:
a linkage structure comprising:
for each of the pivoting fluidic actuator layers, a pivot flap (135; see Fig. 13a, 13b) connected at an actuator end thereof to the periphery of the corresponding pivoting fluidic actuator layer;
wherein: the pivot (at 125; see Figs. 13a, 13b) is at hingedly or bendingly connected (via 135) pivot ends of the respective pivot flaps of the pivoting fluidic actuator layers (See Figs. 13a, 13b).
Re claim 20.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein the walls of the fluidic actuator layers are circular (See Fig. 10a as well as 14a. The walls are circular in cross-section).
Re claim 21.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein the walls of the fluidic actuator layers are lens-shaped (See Figs. 10a and 14a. A circular shape may be considered lens shape, and the walls are circular in cross-section. Furthermore, the circular cross-section changes in diameter along a longitudinal axis, similar to a lens).
Re claim 22.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein a cross-section of a fluidic actuator layer in a plane coincident with the expansion axis is lens-shaped (See Figs. 10a and 14a. A circular shape may be considered lens shape, and the walls are circular in cross-section. Furthermore, the circular cross-section changes in diameter along a longitudinal axis, similar to a lens).
Re dependent claims 2-8, 11, and 19
Samia as modified above suggests the claimed invention claimed in following claims except does not explicitly disclose the claimed ranges in those following claims. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize each of the ranges below, since it has been held by the courts that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (Note that these claims have been treated together in this paragraph to avoid burdensome and un-necessary repetition.):
Re claim 2.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
for each one of the fluidic actuator layers, a gap between opposing interior surfaces of the walls along the expansion axis is at most 0.3 mm when the fluidic actuator layer is in the fully deflated state (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 3.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
for each one of the fluidic actuator layers, the ratio of the fully inflated height of the fluidic actuator layer along the expansion axis when the fluidic actuator layer is in the fully inflated state to the fully deflated height of the fluidic actuator layer along the expansion axis when the fluidic actuator layer is in the fully deflated state is at most 25,000:1 (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 4.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
for each one of the fluidic actuator layers, a fully deflated volume of the fluidic pressurization chamber is at most 75,000 mm3 when the fluidic actuator layer is in the fully deflated state (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 5.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
a total deflated volume of the fluidic actuator layers is at most 0.025 m3 when the fluidic actuator is in the fully deflated state (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 6.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
for each one of the fluidic actuator layers, a ratio of a fully inflated volume of the fluidic pressurization chamber when the fluidic actuator layer in the fully inflated state to a fully deflated volume of the fluidic pressurization chamber when the fluidic actuator layer in the fully deflated state is at least 2:1 (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 7.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
for each one of the fluidic actuator layers, a ratio of a fully inflated width of the fluidic actuator layer along the transverse axis when the fluidic actuator layer is in the fully inflated state to a fully deflated width of the fluidic actuator layer along the transverse axis when the fluidic actuator layer is in the fully deflated state is at most 1:2 (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 8.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
for each one of the fluidic actuator layers, a ratio of a fully deflated height of the fluidic actuator layer along the expansion axis to a fully deflated width of the fluidic actuator layer along the transverse axis when the fluidic actuator layer is in the fully deflated state is at most 1:25,000 (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 11.
The fluidic actuator of claim 1, wherein:
abutting walls of adjacent pairs of the fluidic actuator layers are bonded together less than an entire width along the transverse axis of the corresponding fluidic actuator layers so as to form gaps between the respective peripheries of the corresponding fluidic actuator layers (see annotated Fig. 10a below); and
PNG
media_image3.png
517
766
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a ratio of a fully inflated gap between the respective peripheries of the corresponding fluidic actuator layers when in the fully inflated state to a fully deflated gap between the respective peripheries of the corresponding fluidic actuator layers when in the fully deflated state is at least 10:1 (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Re claim 19.
The fluidic actuator of claim 17, wherein a ratio of a common length of the pivot flaps (135) to a common fully deflated width of the pivoting fluidic actuator layers when in a fully deflated state is at least 1:10 (See Figs. 13a) (This range is obvious to optimize as held by the courts as discussed above. See also para. [0205]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lessing (US2019/0168382) discloses a pressurizing housing for a soft robotic actuator. Herrstrom (US2019/0263002) discloses a vacuum power tool. Simmons (US6,513,418) discloses an air actuator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY T PRATHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 AM - 5 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.
/GREGORY T PRATHER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/JOSEPH BROWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618