Ex Parte POPOVIC et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

14780015 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/780,015 09/25/2015 Aleksandra POPOVIC
24737 7590 11/01/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2012P00783WOUS 3095
EXAMINER
KRAMER, DEAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEKSANDRA POPOVIC, SITHARTHAN KAMALAKARAN,
and DOUGLAS ALLEN STANTON
Appeal 2018-0024 77
Application 14/780,015 1
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-3, 16, and 17. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Koninklijke Philips N.V. ("Appellant") is the applicant, under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 6--15 and 18-20 are allowed, and claims 4 and 5 are objected to.
Final Act. 1 (Office Act. Summ.).
Appeal2018-002477
Application 14/780,015
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosure "generally relates to force feedback gripping
devices, particularly for medical interventions" and "specifically relates to
force feedback control of a magnetorheological elastomer ('MRE') in
actuating a mechanical gripper for applying a gripping force upon an object,
particularly an anatomical object (e.g., an organ, a blood vessel, a foreign
body, etc.)." Spec. 1, 11. 4--8.
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and reads:
1. A MRE gripping device, comprising:
a mechanical gripper operable to be actuated to one of a
plurality of gripping poses for gripping an object; and
an electromagnetic actuator structurally segregated from
the mechanical gripper and including a magnetorheological
elastomer,
wherein the magnetorheological elastomer is operable to
be transitioned between a plurality of shapes dependent upon a
variable strength of a magnetic field applied to the
magnetorheological elastomer, and
wherein each shape of the magnetorheological elastomer
actuates the mechanical gripper to one of the gripping poses.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated by
Mankame (US 2011/0071670 Al, published Mar. 24, 2011) ("Mankame
'670").
Claims 1-3, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Davis (US 6,400,549 B 1, issued June 4, 2002) and
Mankame (US 2011/0089708 Al, published Apr. 21, 2011) ("Mankame
'708").
2
Appeal2018-002477
Application 14/780,015
ANALYSIS
Anticipation of claim 1 by Mankame '670
The Examiner finds that Mankame '670 discloses all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner finds that Mankame '670 discloses a
gripping device comprising an arm portion (variably compliant mechanical
implement 10) including an actuator formed of a magneto-rheological
material, such that a gripper can be moved into various gripping poses. Id.
( citing Mankame '670, Fig. 1 ); see also id. ,r 31.
Appellant contends that Mankame '670 fails to disclose the limitation
"wherein each shape of the magnetorheological elastomer actuates the
mechanical gripper to one of the gripping poses." Appeal Br. 10 ( emphasis
added). Appellant contends that Mankame '670 teaches that variable
compliant mechanical implement 10 "may include a magnetorheological
elastomer for actuating the distal pronged end-effector to one of a plurality
of orientation poses relative to the proximal pivoting arm." Id. at 11
( emphasis added). Appellant asserts that one skilled in the art would
recognize that the distal pronged end-effector does not have a gripping
functionality, but instead has a lifting functionality, whereby the prongs have
a fixed orientation relative to each other to lift an object as implement 10 is
actuated from a curved to a straight shape. Id. According to Appellant, even
if the distal pronged end-effector is considered to have a gripping
functionality, Mankame '670 fails to teach that implement 10 actuates the
prongs between a plurality of gripping poses, that is, laterally moves the
prongs toward or away from each other as the shape of the
magnetorheological elastomer is varied. Id.
3
Appeal2018-002477
Application 14/780,015
The Examiner responds by clarifying that, in Mankame '670, the
orientation or position of the pronged end-effector can assume different
"poses" upon actuation of the compliant portion (10). Ans. 4--5. The
Examiner explains, "the spatial position or location of the entire end
effector, regardless of any relative movement between the prongs, would
change once the arm portion (10) was actuated thereby inherently changing
the 'pose' of the gripper." Id. at 5.
In reply, Appellant provides definitions of "functional pose" and
"spatial pose." Reply Br. 9-11. Appellant asserts, "as [is] well known in all
arts, every object at any given moment of time has a functional pose and a
spatial pose." Id. at 9. First, we note neither one of these terms is recited in
claim 1 or mentioned in the Specification. Second, Appellant does not direct
us to any evidence of record supporting the definitions, or submit the
definitions as evidence with a corresponding declaration attesting to the
accuracy, and relevancy, of the information. Accordingly, Appellant's
contentions are essentially unsubstantiated attorney argument of little
probative value. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
( explaining that arguments and conclusions unsupported by factual evidence
carry no evidentiary weight). Appellant's contentions as to the meaning of
"functional pose" and "spatial pose" do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Claim 1 recites the term "gripping poses." Appellant contends that
the "mechanical gripper" limitation requires the gripping device to have
multiple "functional gripping poses, not a single functional gripping pose."
Reply Br. 12. According to Appellant, "the qualifier 'gripping' [limits] the
noun 'pose' to including functional poses of a mechanical gripper and
excluding spatial poses of a mechanical gripper as would be understood by
4
Appeal2018-002477
Application 14/780,015
those skilled in the art of [Popovic]." Id. at 15 (emphasis added). Based on
these contentions, we understand Appellant's position to be that the term
"gripping poses" should be construed to mean "functional gripping poses"
and to exclude any "spatial poses" of the mechanical gripper.
As recognized by the Examiner, Appellant's Specification states,
"[f]or purposes of the present invention, the term 'gripping' is broadly
defined herein as any forceful contact of device 20 upon object 10 including,
but not limited to, device 20 gripping, grasping, clamping, squeezing,
clutching and/or holding object 10." Ans. 5; see Spec. 3, 11. 25-28
( emphasis added). This description broadly defines what actions of device
20 can be considered as "gripping" object 10. Appellant does not direct us
to any definition of the term "gripping pose" in the Specification. Nor does
Appellant direct us to any disclosure, or other evidence of record, that
supports Appellant's construction of this term as meaning "functional
gripping pose" and excluding "spatial poses."
Appellant contends that variable impedance implement 10 in
Mankame '670 is not, for example, "operable to actuate a vertical extension
of the prongs of the distal pronged end-effector 103 and/or to actuate a
lateral shift of the prongs of the distal pronged end-effector 103." Reply Br.
15. The Examiner notes correctly, however, that claim 1 does not recite
"lateral movement of the prongs toward or away from each other." Ans. 5.
In fact, claim 1 does not recite that the mechanical gripper includes prongs.
Nor does claim 1 recite any movement of any element of the mechanical
gripper associated with gripping an object required by one of the gripping
poses. As noted, the Specification defines the term "gripping" broadly as
including, for example, holding. The Examiner submits that the pronged
5
Appeal2018-002477
Application 14/780,015
end-effector of Mankame '670 is capable of gripping articles within
Appellant's broad definition. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant's
contentions that operating Mankame '670's mechanical gripper by changing
the spatial position of the pronged end-effector while, for example, holding
an object with its prongs, cannot be considered as changing the "gripping
pose."
Appellant contends that mechanical device 100 of Mankame '670
"may not itself be interpreted as a "mechanical gripper," as encompassed
by claim 1. Reply Br. 16. However, this argument does not seem to be
responsive to any argument raised in the Examiner's Answer. For this
situation, 37 C.F .R. § 41.41 (b )(2) states:
Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not
raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument
raised in the examiner's answer, including any designated new
ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for
purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.
(Emphasis added). As Appellant has not shown good cause, we will not
consider this untimely argument in this appeal.
Appellant also contends that "variable impedance implement 10 may
not be considered as structurally segregated apart from the mechanical
gripper if mechanical device 100 of [Mankame '670] is interpreted as the
'mechanical gripper."' Reply Br. 16 ( emphasis added). As Appellant has
not shown good cause as to why this argument should be considered, we will
not consider this untimely argument in this appeal.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Mankame
'670.
6
Appeal2018-002477
Application 14/780,015
Obviousness of claims 1-3, 16, and 17 over Davis and Mankame '708
Claims 1-3
As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Davis discloses a mechanical
gripper comprising an electromagnetic actuator ( deflection elements 10, 20,
first electromagnet 40, second electromagnet 50) segregated from gripper
elements (gripping elements 61, 71) through structural members ( support
arms 60, 70 or distal ends 62, 72). Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that
Davis's electromagnetic actuator does not include a magnetorheological
elastomer, as claimed. Id. The Examiner relies on Mankame '708 for
teaching a gripping device having fingers that use magnetorheological
elastomer members ( variable impedance members 14) to assume various
gripping poses upon actuation of the variable strength of a magnet. Id.
(citing Mankame '708 ,r 37). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to substitute the electromagnetic actuators of Davis with
shape-changeable magnetorheological elastomer material, as disclosed in
Mankame '708, as a functionally equivalent means of actuating the gripper
elements between open and closed positions. Id. at 4; see also Ans. 6 ("in
order for the resulting combination suggested above to continue to operate
similarly to [Davis], the MRE actuators would simply replace the
electromagnetic actuator assemblies while being structurally segregated
from the distal gripping elements"). The Examiner explains that the
resulting "gripper would continue to have its gripper elements ( 61, 71)
structurally segregated from its magnetorheological elastomer actuators at
least through support arm members (60, 70)." Ans. 6.
Appellant contends that Davis and Mankame '708 fail to render
obvious the claim limitation "an electromagnetic actuator structurally
7
Appeal2018-002477
Application 14/780,015
segregated from the mechanical gripper and including a magnetorheological
elastomer." Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis added). Appellant contends that Davis
describes a mechanical gripper including a pair of deflection elements 10, 20
"structurally integrating" electromagnetic actuators ( electromagnets 40, 50)
for actuating deflection elements 10, 20 between gripper poses. Id. at 14.
According to Appellant, Davis fails to describe, teach, or suggest that
electromagnets 40, 50 are structurally segregated from the mechanical
gripper. Id. ( citing Davis, col. 2, 1. 66-col. 6, 1. 33).
Appellant contends that Figure 2 of Mankame '708 shows a structural
integration of variable impedance member 14 within finger 12 to thereby
form a mechanical gripper consisting of one or more actuable fingers 12. Id.
Appellant asserts that the fingers are not actuable to form a mechanical
gripper without the structural integration of the variable impedance member
and, consequently, Mankame '708 does not disclose or suggest a mechanical
gripper and an electromagnetic actuator as segregated elements. Id.
Appellant contends that any modification of Davis in view of Mankame '708
would, at best, involve an electromagnetic actuator structurally integrated
into gripper arms of the mechanical gripper, as taught by both references,
and the electromagnetic actuator including a magnetorheological elastomer
as taught by Mankame '708. Id. at 15.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant provides annotated versions of Figures 5
and 6 of Davis. Reply Br. 20. According to Appellant, the Examiner
"asserts that a pair of electromagnetic actuators, each including a
magnetorheological elastomer as taught by [Mankame '708], could be
substituted for the electromagnets 40 and 50 of [Davis]." Id. However,
these contentions do not address the rejection, as stated. The Examiner
8
Appeal2018-002477
Application 14/780,015
proposes substituting Davis's electromagnetic actuator (i.e., deflection
element 10, first electromagnet 40; deflection element 20, second
electromagnet 50) with Mankame '708's MRE actuators, which "would
simply replace the electromagnetic actuator assemblies while being
structurally segregated from the distal gripping elements." Ans. 5---6.
The Examiner's position is that gripper elements 61, 71 would be
"structurally segregated" from the magnetorheological elastomer actuators at
least through support arm members 60, 70. Ans. 6. Appellant does not
provide any persuasive argument why Davis's gripping elements 61, 71
would not be "structurally segregated" from the electromagnetic actuators in
the modified Davis gripping apparatus. Appellant's position is premised on
definitions of the terms "structurally segregated" and "structurally
integrated" presented in the Reply Brief. Reply Br. 11-12. First, neither
one of these terms is described in the Specification. Second, Appellant does
not direct us to any evidence of record supporting the definitions, or submit
the definitions as evidence with a corresponding declaration attesting to the
accuracy, and relevancy, of the information. Accordingly, Appellant's
contentions are essentially unsubstantiated attorney argument of little
probative value. For these reasons, Appellant's contentions as to the
meaning of "structurally segregated" and "structurally integrate" do not
apprise us of Examiner error.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of dependent claims 2
and 3, which are not separately argued, as unpatentable over Davis and
Mankame '7 0 8.
9
Appeal2018-002477
Application 14/780,015
Claims 16 and 1 7
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and recites that "the electromagnetic
actuator is connected to the plurality of gripper arms." Appeal Br. 19--20
(Claims App.). Claim 17 also depends from claim 1 and recites that "the
electromagnetic actuator is coupled to the plurality of gripper arms." Id. at
20 (Claims App.).
Appellant contends that Mankame '708 does not disclose or suggest a
mechanical gripper and an electromagnetic actuator as "segregated
elements" whereby these elements meet the noted limitations in claim 16 or
17. Appeal Br. 14--15. As Appellant does not explain persuasively why
Mankame '708 fails to teach or suggest a segregated mechanical gripper and
electromagnetic actuator, this contention does not apprise us of any error in
the Examiner's findings or reasoning. Thus, we sustain the rejection of
claims 16 and 17 as unpatentable over Davis and Mankame '708.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-3, 16, and 17.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10