DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This final office action is in response to the amendments filled on 07/16/2026. Claims 1, 4, 11 and 14 are amended. Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-11 and 14-20 are pending and examined below.
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 § 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, 9, 10, 11, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0079871 (“Zhang”), and further in view of US 2020/0209085 (“Wettels”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 11), Zhang discloses a robotic massage system (see at least [0009]), comprising:
a robotic arm (see at least fig 1, robotic arm, 402);
an end effector positioned at an end of the robotic arm (see at least fig 1, robotic hand, 401 is interpreted as end effector); and
a controller configured to control the robotic arm to engage a deformable body with the end effector (see at least [0013] and [0027-28], human body is interpreted as deformable body);
wherein: the end effector comprises a plurality of contact sensors embedded in the end effector (see at least fig 4, where 601 contains pressure sensors. See also [0007], [0010], [0013] and [0031]. [0321] of PGPub of current application describe force sensor as contact sensor);
the plurality of contact sensors provide force feedback (see at least [0013], where “The strength is carefully controlled with the feedback from the pressure sensors.”; [0364] of PGPub of current application describe contact area as contact patch).
Zhang does not disclose the following limitations:
a distribution of forces exerted across the end effector caused by interaction between the end effector and the deformable body is determined based on forces measured by the plurality of contact sensors embedded in the end effector; and
a contact patch comprising a portion of the end effector that is in contact with the deformable body is determined based on the distribution of forces exerted across the end effector that is determined based on the forces measured by the plurality of contact sensors embedded in the end effector.
However, Wettels discloses a system wherein a distribution of forces exerted across the end effector caused by interaction between the end effector and the deformable body is determined based on forces measured by the plurality of contact sensors embedded in the end effector (see at least [0008], where “all of the plurality of measurement electrodes to determine a total force or force distribution applied to the assembly, and (iii) generate an output(s) indicative of the point of contact or the total force or force distribution.”; see also [0022], where “assembly is an effector”; see also [0032], where “a point of contact between the object and the assembly”; see also [0043], where “a sensor assembly for sensing a force from an object”; see also [0099], where “The sensing system may be wearable by a human”); and
a contact patch comprising a portion of the end effector that is in contact with the deformable body is determined based on the distribution of forces exerted across the end effector that is determined based on the forces measured by the plurality of contact sensors embedded in the end effector (see at least [0199], where “FIG. 15E shows an example of a pressure sensitive garment. The depicted pressure sensitive garment may comprise patches of sensate areas (e.g., 1581, 1582) and non-sensate areas (e.g., 1583).”; see also [0034]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Wettels by including the above feature for providing appropriate amount of massage/force by detecting contact area which will increase comfort and reduce any pain during massage.
Regarding claim 9 (and similarly claim 19), Wettels further discloses a system wherein a pressure map is determined based on the contact patch (see at least [0107], where “generate a pressure map”).
Regarding claim 10 (and similarly claim 20), Wettels further discloses a system wherein a feature of the deformable body is identified based on the force feedback provided by the plurality of contact sensors embedded in the end effector (see at least [0013] and [0043]).
Claim(s) 4-8 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0079871 (“Zhang”), in view of US 2020/0209085 (“Wettels”), as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2022/0379469 (“Zeng”).
Regarding claim 4 (and similarly claim 14), Zhang in view of Wettels does not disclose claim 4. However, Zeng discloses a system wherein the contact patch comprises locations on the end effector for which measured forces exceed a threshold force value (see at least [0060] and [0065-66]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zhang in view of Wettles to incorporate the teachings of Zeng by including the above feature for increasing precision and targeted treatment.
Regarding claim 5 (and similarly claim 15), Zeng further discloses a system wherein the controller is configured to use the force feedback provided by the contact sensors embedded in the end effector to adapt control of the robotic arm to facilitate at least one of a positioning task or a force application task (see at least [0024] and [0032]).
Regarding claim 6 (and similarly claim 16), Zeng further discloses a system wherein the force application task comprises applying an intended amount of force to the deformable body (see at least [0032], where “desired massage intensity” is interpreted as intended amount of force).
Regarding claim 7 (and similarly claim 17), Zeng further discloses a system wherein the positioning task comprises positioning of an intended portion of the end effector relative to an intended portion of the deformable body (see at least [0032], where “desired massage trajectory” is interpreted as positioning of an intended portion).
Regarding claim 8 (and similarly claim 18), Zeng further discloses a system wherein adapting control of the robotic arm includes providing torque commands based at least in part on the force feedback (see at least [0045], where “a desired torque adapted to the (environmental) curvature of the target massage area.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, 3-11 and 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination used in the current rejection that is due to the newly added claim amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights