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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/24/22 was filed and the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the rolling structure is a combination of at least one spherical rolling structure and at least one cylindrical rolling structure” (Claims 6 and 13) and “the rolling structure comprises tactile sensors either on a surface of each rolling structure, embedded in each rolling structure, or a combination thereof” (claims 9 and 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Both Claims 1 and 10 recite “each finger has a rolling structure with two-coupled substantially orthogonal manipulating degrees of freedom each actuated independently with an actuator.”
The exact meaning of “each finger has a rolling structure with two-coupled substantially orthogonal manipulating degrees of freedom” is confusing and not clearly understood.
First, the recitation of “a rolling structure with two-coupled” is vague and indefinite as to whether “a rolling structure” is made of “two half or two split structures” or “two rolling structures” is constructed. The provided Fig. 2 shows a structure of a roller (170) powered by a mini-DC motor (240) whereas Fig.3 displays two hemispherical structures connected and powered by bevels and gears (360, 370) and a motor.
Secondly, the recitation of “manipulating degrees of freedom” is also not clearly understood as to what is “manipulating degrees of freedom.” Note that the “degrees of freedom” could be clarified by providing axes such as “a longitudinal axis” or other “XYZ” with respect to the gripping fingers or “rolling structure.”
Third, the recited word “each” before “actuated independently” in Claim 1, line 4, and Claim 10, line 5, has to be clearly defined as to whether “each” refers to “each finger” or “each rolling structure.”
Further, the defined recitations of “a grasping degree of freedom” (Claims 2, 3, 10, and 11), “a steering motion of the rolling structure” (Claim 4), and “a steering motion of the rolling structure” (Claim 4) are not clearly understood the exact meaning of the “degrees of freedom.” Clarification must be made to each structural elements with respect to each reference axis.
The recitation of “the rolling structure is a combination of at least one spherical rolling structure and at least one cylindrical rolling structure” as recited in claims 6 and 13 are not clearly understood the combination of the structures. It appears that none of the provided drawings do not show.
It is pointed out that each claim must particularly points out and distinctly claims the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 recites “A method of grasping and manipulating an object,” but other depending claims 12-16 claim apparatus claim and lacks the specific steps of grasping and manipulating an object. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether applicant is claiming a method claim or is claiming a combination of method and apparatus claims.
Claims 5 and 7-9 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claims 1 and 10.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, and 15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitamural (US 2015/0123416).
RE claim 1, Kitamural (US 2015/0123416) discloses a robotic hand (see Figs. 1-10c), comprising: a plurality of fingers (22, 22, 22) (see Exhibit A of Fig. 2), each with a distal end and a proximal end, wherein at the distal end each finger has a rolling structure with two-coupled (42 and 44) substantially orthogonal manipulating degrees of freedom each actuated independently with an actuator (24; 28, 66), wherein the plurality of fingers are spaced and orientated with respect to each other such that the rolling structures are capable of manipulating an object.
RE claims 2 and 3, Figs. 2, 3, and 8-10c) of Kitamural’s robotic hand (US 2015/0123416), as best understood, teach at the proximal end each finger has a grasping degree of freedom, whereby the grasping degrees of freedom for the plurality of fingers are capable of grasping the object, and actuated therewith capable of grasping objects in various sizes and shapes (18) whereas the grasping degree of freedom is substantially orthogonal to one of the two-coupled substantially orthogonal manipulating degrees of freedom.
RE claim 4, Kitamural’s robotic hand (US 2015/0123416), as best understood, appears to show that one of the two-coupled (42, 44) substantially orthogonal manipulating degrees of freedom capable of steering motion of the rolling structure and the other of the two-coupled (42 and 44) substantially orthogonal manipulating degrees of freedom capable of rolling motion of the rolling structure, therewith together capable of rolling and steering the object when held in between the rolling structures of the plurality of fingers.
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE claim 5, Kitamural’s robotic hand (US 2015/0123416) shows each rolling structure (42, 44) is a cylindrical rolling structure.
RE claims 7 and 8, Kitamural’s robotic hand (US 2015/0123416) also discloses the plurality of fingers (22, 22, and 22) is two or more fingers wherein at least one of the plurality of fingers is an articulated multi-segmented finger as shown in Figs. 1-10c.
RE claim 10, Kitamural (US 2015/0123416) discloses a robotic hand (see Figs. 1-10c), comprising: a plurality of fingers (22, 22, 22) (see Exhibit A of Fig. 2), each with a distal end and a proximal end, wherein at the distal end each finger has a rolling structure with two-coupled (42 and 44) substantially orthogonal manipulating degrees of freedom each actuated independently with an actuator (24; 28, 66), wherein the plurality of fingers are spaced and orientated with respect to each other such that the rolling structures are capable of manipulating an object, the method comprising:
steering and moving the object by controlling one of the two-coupled substantially orthogonal manipulating degrees of freedom (see para [0042]) (see Flow Chart of Fig. 6);
rolling and moving the object by controlling the other of the two-coupled substantially orthogonal manipulating degrees of freedom (see para [0043]) (see Flow Chart of Fig. 6); and
grasping the object by controlling the grasping degrees of freedom (see para [0049]) (see S6 and S7 of Flow Chart of Fig. 6).
RE claim 11, Figs. 2, 3, and 8-10c) of Kitamural’s robotic hand (US 2015/0123416), as best understood, teach at the proximal end each finger has a grasping degree of freedom, whereby the grasping degrees of freedom for the plurality of fingers are capable of grasping the object, and actuated therewith capable of grasping objects in various sizes and shapes (18) whereas the grasping degree of freedom is substantially orthogonal to one of the two-coupled substantially orthogonal manipulating degrees of freedom.
RE claim 12, Kitamural’s robotic hand (US 2015/0123416) shows each rolling structure (42, 44) is a cylindrical rolling structure.
RE claims 14 and 15, Kitamural’s robotic hand (US 2015/0123416) also discloses the plurality of fingers (22, 22, and 22) is two or more fingers wherein at least one of the plurality of fingers is an articulated multi-segmented finger as shown in Figs. 1-10c.
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 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.
Claims 6 and 13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamural’s robotic hand (US 2015/0123416) in view of Guinot et al. (4,653,793).
Kitamural’s robotic hand (US 2015/0123416), as presented above, does not specifically teach a combination of at least one spherical rolling structure and at least one cylindrical rolling structure (not shown in the provided drawings). However, Figs. 1-7 of Guinot et al. (4,653,793) shows one spherical rolling structure(22 of Fig. 3); 122 of Fig. 4) and at least one cylindrical rolling structure (22b of Fig. 2b). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a combination of at least one spherical rolling structure and at least one cylindrical rolling structure on the fingers (22, 22) of Kitamural’s robotic hand (US 2015/0123416) as taught by Guinot et al. (4,653,793) to firmly grasp the unusual shape of objects.
Claims 9 and 16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamural’s robotic hand (US 2015/0123416).
Kitamural’s robotic hand (US 2015/0123416), as presented above, shows a force sensor provided on the rollers (26) (See para [0050]), but does not specifically teach
the rolling structure comprises tactile sensors either on a surface of each rolling structure, embedded in each rolling structure, or a combination thereof. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a sensor such as a tactile sensor or a force sensor on the each rolling structure (42, 44, 26) of Kitamural’s robotic hand (US 2015/0123416) to detect the pressing force to inform to a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6922. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Gene Crawford can be reached on (571) 272-6911. 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.
/PAUL T CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651