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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Couvillon et al (US PGPub No. 2004/0068220).
Couvillon teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a hydrodynamic drive (FIG. 4B-C), comprising: a flexible body (215) having an interior chamber extending between a first end and a second end (“V”, FIG. 2; paragraphs 45 and 58), the flexible body comprising an actuated helical coil (211) extending between the first end and the second end, where activation of the actuated helical coil contracts the flexible body and deactivation of the actuated helical coil allows expansion of the flexible body (paragraphs 38-39, 45, 57-58);
limitations from claim 3, further comprising: inlet (216a; FIG. 3A) and outlet valves (216b) on the first and second ends of the flexible body (paragraph 52-54), where the outlet valve is configured to allow discharge of fluid from the interior chamber of the flexible body during contraction and to prevent entrance of fluid to the interior chamber of the flexible body during expansion, and the inlet valve is configured to prevent discharge of fluid from the interior chamber of the flexible body during contraction and to allow entrance of fluid to the interior chamber of the flexible body during expansion (paragraphs 47-48, 52-54);
limitations from claim 4, wherein the actuated helical coil is electrically or thermally actuated (paragraphs 57-58);
limitations from claim 5, wherein the flexible body comprises a second helical coil (FIG. 4C shows two helical coils 211) extending between the first end and the second end, wherein the second helical coil expands the flexible body when the actuated helical coil is deactivated (paragraphs 56-58);
limitations from claim 7, wherein the second helical coil (the other of coils 211 in FIG. 4C) is an actuated helical coil that is electrically or thermally actuated (paragraphs 56-58);
limitations from claim 9, wherein the actuated helical coil and the second helical coil are wound in opposite directions (paragraph 58 and FIG. 4C);
limitations from claim 10, wherein the inlet and outlet valves are one-way valves (paragraphs 47-48, 52-54);
limitations from claim 11, wherein the inlet and outlet valves are duckbill valves (paragraph 53);
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boey et al (US PGPub No. 2009/0312709).
Boey teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a hydrodynamic drive (FIG. 6), comprising: a flexible body (605; paragraph 34) having an interior chamber (602) extending between a first end and a second end (FIG. 2 and FIG. 6; paragraph 27), the flexible body comprising an actuated helical coil (603) extending between the first end and the second end, where activation of the actuated helical coil contracts the flexible body and deactivation of the actuated helical coil allows expansion of the flexible body (paragraphs 22-25, 34);
limitations from claim 2, wherein the first end is closed off (at bottom wall 607) and the second end comprises an opening (604);
limitations from claim 4, wherein the actuated helical coil (603) is electrically or thermally actuated (paragraph 10, 25);
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Browne et al (US PGPub No. 2012/0161579).
Browne teaches:
limitations from claim 1, hydrodynamic drive (FIG. 1 and FIG. 4C), comprising: a flexible body (14) having an interior chamber extending between a first end and a second end (within tube 14, see FIG. 4C), the flexible body comprising an actuated helical coil (12, 26) extending between the first end and the second end, where activation of the actuated helical coil contracts the flexible body and deactivation of the actuated helical coil allows expansion of the flexible body (paragraphs 52-53);
limitations from claim 5, wherein the flexible body (14) comprises a second helical coil (26; see paragraph 52 in which two coils are provided) extending between the first end and the second end, wherein the second helical coil expands the flexible body when the actuated helical coil is deactivated (paragraph 52 teaching alternating activation of the coils sets);
limitations from claim 13, wherein the actuated helical coil comprises a shape memory alloy (paragraph 46), wherein electrical or thermal activation of the shape memory alloy causes the actuated helical coil to contract from its initial shape and subsequent deactivation allows the actuated helical coil to return to its initial shape (paragraph 45, 51-52);
limitations from claim 14, wherein the shape memory alloy is an electrically or thermally activated shape memory alloy (paragraph 46);
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couvillon et al (US PGPub No. 2004/0068220) as applied to claims 3 and 12 above, and in further view of Mantz (US Patent No. 6,527,011).
Couvillion teaches the use of duckbill valves (paragraph 53), but does not teach a backstop grating;
However, Mantz teaches a duckbill valve (FIG. 5A-5B) in which a backstop grating (60) is provided;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to provide a backstop in the pump of Couvillion, as taught by Mantz, in order to prevent inversion of the duckbill valves (see C. 5 Lines 11-21 of Mantz).
Claim(s) 16-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108652570 (herein Liao) in view of Browne et al (US PGPub No. 2012/0161579).
A machine translation of Liao is provided with the current Office Action and is relied upon herein.
Liao teaches:
limitations from claim 16, a soft robotic system (abstract; FIG. 1, 3-4) comprising at least one hydrodynamic drive (31-33; FIG. 2, 4, 7);
Liao does not teach the drive of claim 1;
Browne teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a hydrodynamic drive (FIG. 1 and FIG. 4C), comprising: a flexible body (14) having an interior chamber extending between a first end and a second end (within tube 14, see FIG. 4C), the flexible body comprising an actuated helical coil (12, 26) extending between the first end and the second end, where activation of the actuated helical coil contracts the flexible body and deactivation of the actuated helical coil allows expansion of the flexible body (paragraphs 52-53);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of robots at the time the invention was filed to substitute one known drive for another, such as the drive of Browne for the drive of Liao, as a matter of design choice in order to reach an expected result (in this case the driving of the robot by expansion of the actuator/drive). Browne additionally teaches that its actuators provide more robust characteristics with less tradeoffs (paragraph 4).
Liao further teaches:
limitations from claim 17, wherein the at least one hydrodynamic drive operates as a pump or thruster (Page 8; “the propelling structure 3 of one end or two ends fixed in a certain position the cavity to realize soft robot body standing stop detection, or pause point is telescopic providing propelling structure 3 to realize the soft robot main body can move in the cavity of the worm type self-propulsion”);
limitations from claim 18, comprising a plurality of hydrodynamic drives (FIG. 12-13; 31-33);
limitations from claim 19, wherein the plurality of hydrodynamic drives are positioned in different orientations (FIG. 12-13), wherein the plurality of hydrodynamic drives are individually controllable to provide directional thrust for propulsion or rotational thrust for reorientation of the soft robotic system (Page 4, “can control each drive unit or combination of individual axial elongation or contraction, realizes precise control of various walking posture of self-propelling type soft robot main body”);
limitations from claim 21, wherein the plurality of hydrodynamic drives are distributed in a triangular arrangement (FIG. 12-13);
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/257664 (herein Zhao) in view of Couvillon et al (US PGPub No. 2004/0068220).
Zhao teaches:
limitations from claim 16, a soft robotic system including a hydrodynamic drive (Page 30 Line 32 through Page 31 Line 3);
Zhao does not teach the drive of Claim 1;
Couvillon teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a hydrodynamic drive (FIG. 4B-C), comprising: a flexible body (215) having an interior chamber extending between a first end and a second end (“V”, FIG. 2; paragraphs 45 and 58), the flexible body comprising an actuated helical coil (211) extending between the first end and the second end, where activation of the actuated helical coil contracts the flexible body and deactivation of the actuated helical coil allows expansion of the flexible body (paragraphs 38-39, 45, 57-58 in which the body expels fluid and therefore can act as a propulsive drive);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of robots at the time the invention was filed to substitute one known drive for another, such as the drive of Couvillion for the drive of Zhao, as a matter of design choice in order to reach an expected result (in this case the driving of the robot by expansion of the actuator/drive). Browne additionally teaches that its actuators provide more lower costs (paragraph 17).
Claim(s) 18, 20, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/257664 (herein Zhao) in view of Couvillon et al (US PGPub No. 2004/0068220) as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of McBride et al (US PGPub No. 2002/0178990).
Zhao does not teach a plurality of drives;
McBride teaches a controllable vehicle (1), in which hydrodynamic drives (27, 30) are used to move the vehicle (paragraph 68); and
limitations from claim 18, comprising a plurality of hydrodynamic drives (see FIG. 5-6 for example);
limitations from claim 20, comprising control circuitry configured to individually control operation of each of the plurality of hydrodynamic drives (paragraph 142, 215 “electronic controllers”, the examiner maintains that circuits are a commonly known part of electronic controllers and would have been obvious to include here to allow programmable control of the robot);
limitations from claim 24, comprising control circuitry configured to control operation of the at least one hydrodynamic drive based at least in part upon sensed orientation or location of the soft robotic system (paragraph 142, 215 “electronic controllers”, the examiner maintains that circuits are a commonly known part of electronic controllers and would have been obvious to include here to allow programmable control of the robot; paragraph 138 teaching vector control of the drives);
limitations from claim 25, wherein the control circuitry comprises an orientation sensor, a temperature sensor, and a pressure sensor (paragraph 69 teaches the inclusion of sensors in the vehicle, the examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose sensors for the vehicle in order to control and monitor the vehicle);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of propelled vehicles at the time the invention was filed to include multiple controllable drives in the robot of Zhao, as taught by McBride, in order to provide a more robust driving control of the robot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach the limitations of claim 1, and additionally wherein multiple helical coils are provided, on being actively actuated and the other being passively actuated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6352455 teaches a reciprocating marine propulsion device;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH whose telephone number is (571)270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights