DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 1/7/2022. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-20 have been amended and no claims have been cancelled or newly added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presenting pending in this application.
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
Claims 5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 5-6 of claim 5 and line 3 of claim 13 recites, “an object being grasp”; it is suggested to amend the claims to recite --an object being grasped-- to make the claim more grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
(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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dollar et al (Dollar et al. “Novel Differential Mechanism Enabling Two DOF from a Single Actuator: Application to a Prosthetic Hand”. 2013 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. June 24-26, 2013).
Regarding claim 1, Dollar teaches a grasping device comprising an anthropomorphic hand or glove with at least three actuated fingers (device of fig 1 with five actuated fingers is an anthropomorphic hand), and a differential that is configured to distribute torque from a motor amongst the at least three actuated fingers to actuate the at least three actuated fingers (Title: ‘Novel Differential Mechanism’ - Fig 1 - differential assembly on right of Fig 1, differential is connected to a single drive motor and has finger or thumb flexion tendons to actuate each finger), wherein the differential is configured to balance the force applied by each of the at least three actuated fingers to an object being grasped (differential on right side of Fig 1 has outputs for each of the actuated fingers and the differential is a whippletree mechanism which is known to specifically distribute force evenly).
Regarding claim 2, Dollar discloses the grasping device comprises a plurality of artificial tendons that connect the differentia! to the at least three actuated fingers (Fig 1 - finger flexion tendons and thumb flexion tendons), the plurality of artificial tendons are configured to transfer forces from the differential to actuate the at least three actuated fingers (Fig 1 - a motor is connected to the differential system and transmits force to actuate the fingers), and the differential is configured to balance the tension in the plurality of artificial tendons (differential shown in fig 1 includes outputs for each of the actuated fingers and the differential is a whippletree mechanism which is known to specifically distribute force evenly).
Regarding claim 3, Dollar discloses the differential comprises an even number of output pulleys (Fig 3 - four output pulleys are shown coupling the fingers and two thumb output pulleys are shown as the pulley at the motor and pulley at the bottom of the thumb and therefore there are six pulleys which output force to the fingers), each of the output pulleys is connected to one of the at least three actuated fingers by one of the plurality of artificial tendons (tendons connect each pulley to a finger), the differential is configured to wind the artificial tendons to actuate the at least three actuated fingers (the device of Dollar is considered ' configured to wind the artificial tendons to actuate the at least three actuated fingers’ as the tendons wind around the output pulleys of the differential and the differential can actuate the fingers by transmitting force from the motor through the wound tendons and pulleys), and at least two of the pulleys are configured to actuate the same finger in different ways (output pulleys attached at top and bottom of thumb, Fig 3 - the figure calls out the upper pulley as actuating the thumb in flexion, and the lower pulley as actuating the thumb in adduction which indicates movement of the same thumb finger in two different ways).
Regarding claim 4, Dollar discloses the grasping device is configured to actuate one of the at least three fingers in both flexion and adduction (Thumb, Fig 3 - the figure calls out the thumb moving in flexion and adduction), and the grasping device is configured to actuate the other two fingers of the at least three fingers in flexion only (lower two fingers, Fig 3 - the figure only teaches the fingers being actuated in flexion).
Regarding claim 5, Dollar teaches a grasping device comprising at least three fingers (device of Fig 1 with five actuated fingers), and a differential that couples the at least three fingers to the output of a motor (Title: ‘Novel Differential Mechanism’ - Fig 1 - differential assembly of pulleys on right of Fig 1, differential is connected to a single drive motor and is connected to finger or thumb flexion tendons to actuate each finger), wherein the differential is configured to distribute torque from the motor between the at least three fingers (differential on right side of Fig 1 includes outputs for each of the actuated fingers. The differential distributes torque as torque from the motor is transferred through the mechanism and used to rotate the fingers, and the differential is known in the art as a whippletree mechanism which is known to specifically distribute force evenly) and independently conform each of the at least three fingers to the shape of an object being grasp (Fig 4 - hand is shown with fingers independently conforming to shapes of irregularly shaped objects, page 4, column 2, second paragraph: ‘The pulleys of the underactuated pulley tree . . . have enough travel to allow the fingers to adapt to various object shapes’).
Regarding claim 6, discloses the differential comprises at least three output pulleys (Fig 3 - output pulley that is labeled as providing flexion to thumb, output pulley coupled to uppermost finger, and output pulley coupled to lowest finger), and each of the at least three fingers is coupled to one of the at least three output pulleys by an artificial tendon (tendons are shown connecting each finger to a pulley).
Regarding claim 7, Dollar discloses the differential comprises at least three outputs (Fig 3 - output pulley that is labeled as providing flexion to thumb, output pulley coupled to uppermost finger, and output pulley coupled to lowest finger), each of the at least three outputs are configured to slip relative to each of the other of the at least three outputs (the device is considered ' configured to slip relative to each of the other of the at least three outputs’ as the three output pulleys are not connected to a common output tendon and therefore are capable of rotating independently of each other and therefore can slip relative to each other), and the differential does not limit slip between each of the at least three outputs (the three output pulleys are not connected to a common output tendon and therefore are capable of rotating independently of each other and therefore can slip relative to each other).
Regarding claim 12, Dollar teaches a grasping device comprising at least three fingers (device of Fig 1 with five actuated fingers), and at least one wound artificial tendon for each of the at least three fingers (Fig 1 - thumb flexion tendon and finger flexion tendon - tendons are shown wound partially around pulleys), wherein the wound artificial tendons couple the at least three fingers to a motor (motor, Fig 1 - motor is coupled to tendons), and the grasping device is configured to distribute torque from the motor to each of the wound artificial tendons in substantially even proportion (differential has outputs for each of the actuated fingers. The differential distributes torque as torque from the motor is transferred through the mechanism and used to rotate the fingers, and differential is a whippletree mechanism which is known to specifically distribute force evenly).
Regarding claim 13, Dollar discloses the device is configured to actuate each of the at least three fingers in flexion (Fig 1 - tendons are referred to as finger flexion tendons, and thumb flexion tendons, therefore each finger can be actuated in flexion), and independently conform each of the at least three fingers to the shape of an object being grasp (Fig 4 - hand is shown with fingers independently conforming to shapes of irregularly shaped objects, page 4, column 2, second paragraph: ‘The pulleys of the underactuated pulley tree . . . have enough travel to allow the fingers to adapt to various object shapes’).
Regarding claim 14, Dollar discloses the device is configured to actuate one of the at least three fingers in adduction (‘bistable ratchet coupled to thumb abduction/adduction' - Fig 1, Dollar teaches the device being able to actuate the thumb in adduction).
Regarding claim 20, Dollar discloses the device comprises four fingers, (four fingers at top of hand, Fig 1) and the device comprises means for distributing torque evenly to each of the four fingers (as shown in fig 1, differential has outputs for each of the actuated fingers and the differential is a whippletree mechanism which is known to specifically distribute force evenly).
Claim(s) 5, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al (CN103690279B).
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses a grasping device (underactuated prosthetic hand), comprising: at least three fingers (robot includes five fingers) (page 8 lines 12-17), and a differential (301) (planetary gearbox) that couples the at least three fingers to an output of a motor (stepper motor, not shown) (planetary gearbox (301) is controlled by two stepper motors (not shown) (page 6, lines 18-20) and include thirteen outputs which are used to control the respective joints of the robot (page 7, lines 19-21), wherein the differential (301) is configured to distribute torque from the motor between the at least three fingers (the thirteen outputs of the thirteen output shafts of the drive system (300) are used to control the respective joints on the robot (100), respectively) (page 7, lines 19-21) and independently conform each of the at least three fingers to the shape of an object being grasp (two sets of inputs from the stepper motor is converted into a coordinated set of thirteen outputs in an underactuated manner through the planetary gear train to perform different grasping motions (page 1, lines 44-46, page 8, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses the differential a first spur gear differential (10) (first planetary gear train) stacked with a second spur gear differential (10) (second planetary gear train) (as shown in fig 2D, planetary gearbox (301) includes seven sets of planetary gear trains (10) and therefore would include a first and second planetary gear train, which is shown in fig 2D to be stacked with each other (col 7, lines 1-13), and in figs 2B-C, each planetary gear train (10) includes spur gears (7) (planet gears) (page 6, lines 28-41), and therefore the first and second differentials (10) are spur gear differentials)
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses the differential (301) comprises a drive interface (30) (discloses the differential (301) comprises a drive interface (30) (two input shafts of the planetary gearbox (301) controlled by stepping motors) (page 6, lines 18-26) and a plurality of output shafts (40) (thirteen output shafts) (page 6, lines 9-16), and wherein the differential (301) comprises a transmission means (10) (planetary gear train (10) includes transmission gears including ring gears, sun gears, and planet gears) (page 7, lines 1-13) for distributing torque amongst the plurality of output shafts (40) (thirteen outputs of the output shafts are used to control the joints of the robot (page 7, lines 19-23), which transmits torque to the joints (page 8, lines 5-10).
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 of this title, 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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ingvast et al (2010/0041521).
Regarding claim 6, Xu discloses a differential.
Xu does not disclose the differential comprises at least three output pulleys, and each of the at least three fingers is coupled to one of the at least three output pulleys by an artificial tendon.
However, Ingvast teaches a grasping device comprising at least three fingers (4a-c) (as shown in fig 1, glove device is configured to actuate at least three fingers (4a-c)) (para [0027]), and a transmission assembly comprising an artificial tendon (7a-c) (cable) that couples the at least three fingers (4a-c) to the output of a respective motor (10b) (actuator) wherein the motor output is coupled to an output pulley (16a-c) (cord reel) and coupled to the artificial tendon (7a-c) (para [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Xu by substituting Xu’s worm gear transmission assembly with a transmission assembly comprising an artificial tendon configured to actuate each joint, and wherein the differential comprises an output pulley configured to actuate the artificial tendon, and each of the at least three fingers is coupled to one of the at least three output pulleys by the artificial tendon as taught by Ingvast in order to provide a suitable transmission means to involved in a gripping movement to balance the pushing forces which occur along a finger from the forces in the artificial tendons which are adapted to effecting the desired strengthening (Ingvast, para [0013]).
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses the differential (301) comprises a drive interface (30) (two input shafts of the planetary gearbox (301) controlled by stepping motors (not shown)) (page 6, lines 18-26) and at least three output shafts (40) (thirteen output shafts) (page 6, lines 8-26), wherein the drive interface (30) is configured to receive torque and/or rotational motion from a motor (page 6, lines 18-26), and each of the at least three output shafts (40) is configured to transfer torque and/or rotational motion to a transmission mechanism (200) (output shaft (40) is coupled to a flexible shaft (13) to drive a worm (17) to control the respective joints on the robot (100) (page 7, lines 19-47), and wherein the drive interface (30) and the at least three output shafts (40) are axially aligned (as shown in fig 2A, drive interface (30) and output shafts (40) are shown to be axially aligned) (page 6, lines 9-16).
Xu does not disclose each of the at least three output shafts is configured to transfer the torque and/or rotational motion to at least one artificial tendon.
However, Ingvast teaches a grasping device comprising at least three fingers (4a-c) (as shown in fig 1, glove device is configured to actuate at least three fingers (4a-c)) (para [0027]), and a transmission assembly comprising an artificial tendon (7a-c) (cable) that couples the at least three fingers (4a-c) to the output of a respective motor (10b) (actuator) wherein the motor output is coupled to an output pulley (16a-c) (cord reel) configured to transfer the torque and/or rotational motion to at least one artificial tendon (7a-c) (para [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Xu by substituting Xu’s worm gear transmission assembly with a transmission assembly comprising an artificial tendon configured to actuate each joint, and wherein each output shaft is configured to transfer the torque and/or rotational motion to at least one artificial tendon using an output pulley as taught by Ingvast in order to provide a suitable transmission means to involved in a gripping movement to balance the pushing forces which occur along a finger from the forces in the artificial tendons which are adapted to effecting the desired strengthening (Ingvast, para [0013]).
Claim(s) 12-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al in view of Ingvast et al and Belter et al (2017/0049583).
Regarding claim 12, Xu discloses a grasping device (underactuated prosthetic hand), comprising: at least three fingers (robot includes five fingers) (page 8 lines 12-17), and a differential (301) (planetary gearbox) configured to couple the at least three fingers to a motor (planetary gearbox (301) is controlled by two stepper motors (not shown) (page 6, lines 18-20) and include thirteen outputs which are used to control the respective joints of the robot) (page 7, lines 19-21), wherein the grasping device is configured to distribute torque from the motor to each of the joints via a transmission mechanism (200) comprising a plurality of flexible shafts and worm gears (page 40, lines 40-50)).
Xu does not disclose at least one wound artificial tendon for each of the at least three fingers, wherein the wound artificial tendons couple the at least three fingers to a motor, and the grasping device is configured to distribute torque from the motor to each of the wound artificial tendons.
However, Ingvast teaches a grasping device comprising at least three fingers (4a-c) (as shown in fig 1, glove device is configured to actuate at least three fingers (4a-c)) (para [0027]), and a transmission assembly comprising an artificial tendon (7a-c) (cable) that is wound about an output pulley (16a-c), wherein the wound artificial tendons (7a-c) couple the at least three fingers to a respective motor (10b), and the grasping device is configured to distribute torque from the motor (10b) to each of the wound artificial tendons (7a-c) (artificial tendons (7a-c) are configured to transfer the torque and/or rotational motion to at least one artificial tendon (7a-c)) (para [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Xu by substituting Xu’s worm gear transmission assembly with a transmission assembly comprising an artificial tendon configured to actuate each joint, and wherein each output shaft is configured to transfer the torque and/or rotational motion to at least one artificial tendon using an output pulley about which the artificial tendon is wound to distribute torque from the motor to each of the wound artificial tendons as taught by Ingvast in order to provide a suitable transmission means to involved in a gripping movement to balance the pushing forces which occur along a finger from the forces in the artificial tendons which are adapted to effecting the desired strengthening (Ingvast, para [0013]).
The now-modified Xu’s device discloses that different gear ratios can cause different gear reduction ratios to achieve different outputs (Xu, page 6, lines 6-13).
Modified Xu does not disclose grasping device is configured to distribute torque from the motor to each of the wound artificial tendons in substantially even proportion.
However, Belter teaches a grasping device comprising an anthropomorphic hand or glove with at least three actuated fingers (device includes thumb unit (218, index finger unit (206), and secondary finger units (204)) (para [0063]), and a differential that is configured to distribute torque from a motor amongst the at least three actuated fingers to actuate the at least three actuated fingers balance bar assembly (300)) (fig 5, para [0072]), and wherein the differential (300) is configured to balance the force applied by each of the at least three actuated fingers to an object being grasped (differential is a floating pulley system configured to distribute force equally across four tendons) (para [0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Xu so that the device includes gear rations configured to distribute torque from the motor to each of the wound artificial tendons in substantially even proportion as taught by Dollar to allow a force distribution that would be beneficial for power grasping (Belter, para [0117])
Regarding claim 13, Xu discloses the device is configured to actuate each of the at least three fingers in flexion (output shafts (40) control the joints of the hand, and as shown in fig 5, can allow each joint to be actuated in flexion) (page 8, lines 28-40, page 9, lines 2-22), and independently conform each of the at least three fingers to the shape of an object being grasp (thirteen sets of outputs can be used to drive the robot to perform different grasping actions) (page 1, lines 44-46).
Regarding claim 14, Xu discloses the device is configured to actuate one of the at least three fingers in adduction (device includes a four finger abduction mechanism (52) and therefore can actuate at least one of the at least three fingers in adduction if the rotation of the abduction mechanism is reversed) (page 9, lines 27-37).
Regarding claim 15, Xu discloses the device comprises a torque splitter (301) (planetary gearbox) that couples the wound artificial tendons to the motor (not shown) (page 6, lines 9-16), and the torque splitter (301) comprises three spur gear differentials (10) (planetary gearbox (301) includes seven planetary gear trains (10) (col 6, ln 9-16), and because each planetary gear train (10) includes spur gears (7) (planet gears) (page 6, lines 28-41), the planetary gearbox (301) includes seven spur gear differentials).
Regarding claim 16, Xu discloses at least one of the spur gear differentials (10) is nested within another one of the spur gear differentials (10) (as shown in fig 2D, each of the seven spur gear differentials (10) are stacked with one another, and an output of one spur gear differential is used an input for an adjacent spur gear differential (page 7, lines 1-13), and therefore, an interior spur gear differential would be nested within two adjacent spur gear differentials).
Regarding claim 17, Xu discloses the torque splitter (301 of Xu) comprises four axially aligned output shafts (40) (as shown in fig 2A, output shafts are shown to be axially aligned with one another) (page 6, lines 18-26), and the modified Xu’s reference discloses the torque splitter is configured to distribute torque evenly amongst the four axially aligned output shafts (Belter, para [0116]).
Regarding claim 20, Xu discloses the device comprises four fingers (as shown in fig 1, device includes five fingers and thirteen joints configured to actuate the joints of the five fingers) (page 7, lines 19-22), and comprises means for distributing torque to each of the four fingers (301) (planetary gearbox (301) includes thirteen output shafts to drive the joints of the device) (page 6, lines 18-26), and the modified Xu’s reference discloses that the and comprises means for distributing torque provides torque evenly to each of the four fingers (Belter, para [0116])..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 18-19 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 following is an examiner’s statement for reasons for allowance: The closest prior art of the record, Dollar et al (Dollar et al. “Novel Differential Mechanism Enabling Two DOF from a Single Actuator: Application to a Prosthetic Hand”. 2013 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. June 24-26, 2013), Ingvast et al (2010/0041521), Xu et al (CN103690279B), and Belter et al (2017/0049583) discloses the limitations of claims 5 and 15. However, the prior art of record does not disclose the differential comprises an outer differential, a first inner differential, and a second inner differential, wherein the outer differential encloses at least a portion of the first inner differential and the second inner differential as recited in claim 11, or the torque splitter comprises an outer differential and two inner differentials, and the outer differential shares at least one gear with each of the two inner differentials as recited in claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Bicchi et al (2018/0311827), Greenhill et al (2005/0121929), Ryu et al (2017/0042704), Zappatore (2020/0047351), and Kuiken et al (2018/0098862) disclose grasping devices that use underactuated differentials and/or artificial tendons to activate the device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS YOUNG SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-5260. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justine Yu can be reached on 571-272-48354835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS Y SUL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785