DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-18 as originally presented and filed on 12/16/2022.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is June 29, 2020 (20200629).
The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
This application is a U.S. National Phase of International Patent Application No. PCT/JP2021/021279 filed on June 03, 2021, which claims priority benefit of Japanese Patent Application No. JP 2020-112135 filed in the Japan Patent Office on June 29, 2020 (20200629).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609 [R-07.2022], Applicant's 12/16/2022 and 01/14/2024 submission(s) of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)(s) is/are acknowledged by the Examiner and the reference(s) cited therein has/have been considered in the examination of the claim(s) now pending. A copy of the submitted IDS(s) initialed and dated by the Examiner is/are attached to the instant Office action.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because IT IS LONGER THAN 150 WORDS. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: it contains an erroneous “.” (period) after the first limitation. For examination purposes said erroneous “.” (period) has been considered as a comma “,”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 18 recite(s) the limitation " distal side ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim has been considered as reciting and amending the claim to recite “a distal side”, would overcome this rejection.
Claims 9 and 10 recite(s) the limitation " the target object ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim has been considered as reciting and amending the claim to recite “ a target object ”, would overcome this rejection.
Those claims not cited above are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-10 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006000966 A to ISHII S et al. (hereinafter Ishii) in view of JP 2012024882 A to MIYAZAWA O et al. (hereinafter MIYAZAWA).
Regarding claim 1 Ishii teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
350
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
313
257
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
723
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
691
259
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
232
361
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts a robot hand (as shown in AT LEAST Fig. 1, connotes “robot 1” and “a robot hand 23”) comprising:
a palm section (connotes “hand main body 62 (hereinafter referred to as the plane of the hand) “ as described in for example the following citation:
“As shown in FIGS. 6 (A) and 6 (B), the robot 23 has a hand portion 23 having first to fifth finger portions 60 sub 1 to 60 sub 5 corresponding to a human thumb, index finger, middle finger, ring finger, and little finger, respectively. 60 is provided.
In this case, the first finger portion 60 1 is constituted by a fingertip portion 61 1 and the Yubimoto portion 61 2 is refracted rotatably connected toward the inside of the first knuckle 61 3 via the hand portion 23 are, the lower end portion of the Yubimoto portion 61 2, the inner surface of the hand main body 62 (hereinafter referred to as the plane of the hand) lower near the right end position in 62A (right hand) or lower near the left end position (left hand), It is bent rotatably connected toward the inside of the hand portion 23 through the second knuckle 61“) ;
a first finger extending from the palm section to (a) distal side (connotes the thumb portion 60 sub 1 as explained above as well as “Yubimoto portion 61 sub 1-4” as shown in Fig. 11 above and annotated immediately below:
PNG
media_image6.png
460
575
media_image6.png
Greyscale
”),
and having a finger pad surface opposed to a central axis of the palm section (as shown in Figs. 11(A) above and 13 below connotes “fingerprint portions 87” as explained in for example only para:
“Further, in the case of this embodiment, on the side of the abdominal surface 60 1 A to 60 5 A of each fingertip portion 61 1 , 63 1 in the first to fifth finger portions 60 1 to 60 5 , as shown in FIG. A fingerprint portion 87 having a concavo-convex pattern made up of a plurality of concentric concavo-convex portions is provided for improving the frictional force. As a result, for example, as shown in FIG. The second finger portions 601 and 602 can be picked up using friction generated between the finger portions 87 and the fingerprint portions 87.”
PNG
media_image7.png
748
484
media_image7.png
Greyscale
);
and a second finger extending from the palm section to the distal side (connotes inter alia and at least “index finger 60 sub 2 as shown in the figures above and explained above:
“As shown in FIGS. 6 (A) and 6 (B), the robot 23 has a hand portion 23 having first to fifth finger portions 60 1 to 60 1 corresponding to a human thumb, index finger, middle finger, ring finger, and little finger, respectively. 60 5 is provided.”),
and having a finger pad surface opposed to the finger pad surface of the first finger with the central axis interposed therebetween (as shown in the figures above it is understood that each finger portion 60 sub 1-5 has “fingerprint portions 87”:
“Thereby, in this robot 1, a target object can be hold | gripped more reliably, and, for example, the frictional force by each fingerprint part 87 of the 1st- 5th finger parts 601-605, and each said fingerprint part As shown in FIG. 19 (A), the ball 91 can be gripped at a position higher than the position of the center of gravity GP by using the suction force in the hollow portion 87A of 87 and the flexibility of the fingertip. Has been made.
Further, in the case of this embodiment, the surface layers 75 and 86 of the first to fifth finger portions 60 1 to 60 5 are formed using a colorless and transparent material, and the surface layers 75 and 86 (FIG. 13 ( C), the boundary surface (the inner surface of the surface layers 75 and 86) with the flexible layers 74 and 85 (FIG. 13C and FIG. 14C) in FIG. 14C, or the surface layer in the flexible layers 74 and 85 Identification information unique to the robot 1 is printed as a two-dimensional barcode as shown in FIG. 20, for example, on the boundary surfaces with 75 and 86 (surfaces of the flexible layers 74 and 85).“)),
wherein the palm section includes a proximal joint that couples the second finger to the palm section pivotably about a first axis (connotes finger knuckle 63 sub 6 as shown in the annotated figures below:
PNG
media_image8.png
333
444
media_image8.png
Greyscale
“
PNG
media_image9.png
360
482
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Similarly, in the fingers 60 2-60 5 of the second to fifth, as shown in FIG. 14 (A) and (B), the hardness of the resin or an aluminum alloy or the like constituting the bone of the fingertip portion 63 1 first skeletal layer 80 1 made of high material, and the second skeletal layer 80 2 of the same material which constitutes the bone of the finger central 63 2, first made of the same material constituting the bone Yubimoto 63 2 3 and a skeleton layer 803, these first to third skeletal layer 80 1-80 3, the first shaft member 81 which constitutes the first knuckle 63 3, second finger joint by a second shaft 82 which constitutes a 63 5 are integrally and bendably connected.”)
the second finger includes a base phalanx section provided close to the palm section,
a distal phalanx section provided closer to the distal side than the base phalanx section,
and a middle phalanx section provided between the base phalanx section and the distal phalanx section,
and the second finger includes a middle joint and a distal joint,
the middle joint that couples the middle phalanx section to the base phalanx section bendably and strechably about a second axis,
and the distal joint that couples the distal phalanx section to the middle phalanx section bendably and strechably about a third axis (as shown in the annotated figure below:
“
PNG
media_image10.png
337
503
media_image10.png
Greyscale
”).
Ishii does not appear to expressly disclose the first finger does not have degrees of freedom in bending and stretching directions.
In analogous art MIYAZAWA teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image11.png
488
372
media_image11.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts a first finger does not have degrees of freedom in bending and stretching directions (as shown by item 320 as explained in for example only lines:
“FIG. 12 is an explanatory diagram showing a state in which an object is gripped using a robot provided with a finger part 310 composed of a plurality of links and a fixed finger part 320 having no movable part. FIG.2 (a) shows a robot hand portion (robot hand 30) before the gripping operation is started. As shown, the finger 310 includes a first joint 312a and a second joint 3.Four joints 14a, a third joint 316a, and a fourth joint 318a are provided. A fixed finger 320 is erected from the palm 300 at a position facing the finger 310.
Even when a target is gripped using a robot equipped with such a robot hand 30, first, the shape of the finger part 310 is changed to a gripping shape corresponding to the target. For example, if a large object Wa is gripped, it is deformed into a gripping shape as illustrated in FIG. On the other hand, if a small object Wb is to be gripped, it is deformed into a gripping shape as illustrated in FIG. Then, after moving the robot hand 30 to the target, the finger unit 310 is moved.The finger part 310 and the finger part 320 are moved by moving only the joint (first joint 312a)“).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the finger design disclosed in MIYAZAWA with the finger design taught in Ishii with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “no moving parts” and be “simple to control” as taught by MIYAZAWA Lines:
“As described above, even when the finger parts provided opposite to each other have different shapes or different structures, various shapes of objects can be obtained by changing the shape of the finger parts into gripping shapes corresponding to the objects. It becomes possible to grip appropriately. In addition, since the operation of actually gripping the object is the same as that of a so-called gripper type robot hand, it can be realized by simple control.”.
Regarding claim 4 and the limitation the robot hand according to claim 1, wherein the first finger has a shape in which the finger pad surface is gradually separated from the central axis of the palm section toward a fingertip section from a base of the finger pad surface (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that MIYAZAWA Fig. 12 shows the claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 5 and the limitation the robot hand according to claim 4, wherein the first finger has an initial opening angle that is an angle formed between a straight line connecting the base and a tip of the finger pad surface and a reference line parallel to the central axis of the palm section, and the initial opening angle is within a range from 10 degrees to 60 degrees (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that MIYAZAWA Fig. 12 shows the claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation the robot hand according to claim 1, wherein the first, second, and third axes are parallel to each other (as shown in at least Ishii Figs. 6(A) and (B) above).
Regarding claim 7 and the limitation the robot hand according to claim 1, wherein the first axis three-dimensionally intersects with the central axis of the palm section (see the teachings of MIYAZAWA figs 13 and 14 immediately below.
PNG
media_image12.png
351
664
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the finger design disclosed in MIYAZAWA with the finger design taught in Ishii with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “no moving parts” and be “simple to control” as taught by MIYAZAWA Lines:
“As described above, even when the finger parts provided opposite to each other have different shapes or different structures, various shapes of objects can be obtained by changing the shape of the finger parts into gripping shapes corresponding to the objects. It becomes possible to grip appropriately. In addition, since the operation of actually gripping the object is the same as that of a so-called gripper type robot hand, it can be realized by simple control.”.
Regarding claim 8 and the limitation the robot hand according to claim 1, wherein the proximal joint has a larger diameter than the middle joint and the distal joint.
Regarding claim 9 and the limitation the robot hand according to claim 1, wherein the palm section includes a sensor that is configured to be able to detect the (a) target object (see Ishii:
“A sensor for detecting a contact state with the object is provided. In the following, such a robot hand is referred to as an “articulated finger type robot hand”. In the proposed multi-joint finger type robot hand, the joint is moved so that the link of each finger contacts the target evenly while detecting the contact state with the target with a plurality of sensors provided on each finger. As a result, even objects having different shapes and sizes can be appropriately gripped.”).
Regarding claim 10 and the limitation the robot hand according to claim 1, wherein the second finger includes a sensor that is configured to be able to detect the (a) target object in at least one of the distal phalanx section, the middle phalanx section, or the base phalanx section (see the teachings of Ishii “a plurality of sensors provided on each finger.”:
“A sensor for detecting a contact state with the object is provided. In the following, such a robot hand is referred to as an “articulated finger type robot hand”. In the proposed multi-joint finger type robot hand, the joint is moved so that the link of each finger contacts the target evenly while detecting the contact state with the target with a plurality of sensors provided on each finger. As a result, even objects having different shapes and sizes can be appropriately gripped.”).
Regarding claim 15 and the limitation the robot hand according to claim 1, further comprising a wrist section that is coupled to proximal side of the palm section, and is configured to be able to give rotation about a fifth axis to the palm section, the fifth axis being parallel or perpendicular to the central axis (see the teachings of Ishii lines:
“(In the case of this robot 1, the hand body portion 62 in the hand portion 23 is made to correspond to the first to fifth finger portions 60 1 to 60 5 as shown in FIGS. 21 (A) and 21 (B). The first to fifth actuator portions 100 1 to 100 5 for driving the first to fifth finger portions 60 1 to 60 5 to extend or bend are housed, and the hand portion 23 and the forearm portion are stored. the wrist joint 101 for connecting the sixth actuator biaxial integral for driving the hand portion 23 in the roll direction (axial theta about the direction R) and (around the axis theta P) pitch direction A unit 102 is provided. “).
Regarding claim 16 and the limitation the robot hand according to claim 1, comprising a brake mechanism that is configured to be able to fix a relative positional relationship of the base phalanx section, the middle phalanx section, and the distal phalanx section (see the teachings of Ishii with regard to biasing the various finger parts and the figures of MIYAZAWA with regard to the various poses the fingers can be made to take).
Regarding claim 17 and the limitation the robot hand according to claim 1, comprising a biasing mechanism that is configured to be able to bias the proximal joint, the middle joint, and the distal joint in a bending or stretching direction of the second finger (see the teachings of MIYAZAWA Figs. 12a-e and obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 18 and the limitation A manipulator provided with an operation arm and a robot hand (see Ishii Fig. 1 above),
the operation arm including a base end and a terminal end, and extending in an axial direction from the base end to the terminal end (see Ishii Fig. 1 above),
and the robot hand coupled to the terminal end of the operation arm (as shown in Ishii Fig. 1 above),
the robot hand comprising:
a palm section;
a first finger extending from the palm section to distal side,
and having a finger pad surface opposed to a central axis of the palm section;
and a second finger extending from the palm section to the distal side, and having a finger pad surface opposed to the finger pad surface of the first finger with the central axis interposed therebetween,
wherein the palm section includes a proximal joint that couples the second finger to the palm section pivotably about a first axis,
the first finger does not have degrees of freedom in bending and stretching directions,
the second finger includes a base phalanx section provided close to the palm section, a distal phalanx section provided closer to the distal side than the base phalanx section, and a middle phalanx section provided between the base phalanx section and the distal phalanx section,
and the second finger includes a middle joint and a distal joint, the middle joint that couples the middle phalanx section to the base phalanx section bendably and strechably about a second axis,
and the distal joint that couples the distal phalanx section to the middle phalanx section bendably and strechably about a third axis (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Claims 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006000966 A to ISHII S et al. (hereinafter Ishii) in view of JP 2012024882 A to MIYAZAWA O et al. (hereinafter MIYAZAWA) as applied to the claims above in view of Du, Tins “Newest--WJ Tech DEVO Robot Demo Video” (hereinafter Du) and further in view of MPEP 2144.04. IV.CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENT.A. Changes in Size/Proportion and B. Changes in Shape and 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions [R-01.2024] I.OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Ishii teaches the limitation the robot hand according to claim 1 in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference.
The combination of Ishii does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the first finger has a narrower finger width than the second finger.
In analogous art Du teaches in for example, the figures below:
.
PNG
media_image13.png
992
613
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
316
482
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
394
422
media_image15.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts a robot with a hand with fingers wherein the first finger has a narrower finger width than the second finger.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the finger design disclosed in Du with the finger design taught in the combination of Ishii with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the robot to grasp differently sized items using different sized fingers.
While it is considered that the combination of Ishii teaches the invention as claimed and explained above, additional support for differently dimensioning the fingers of the robot hand of Ishii may be had from the MPEP sections 2144.04 and 2144.05
Per MPEP 2144.04. A. Changes in Size/Proportion
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
B. Changes in Shape
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PER 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions [R-01.2024]
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) ("Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933)(the prior art teaching an alkali cellulose containing minimal amounts of water, found by the Examiner to be in the 5-8% range, the claims sought to be patented were to an alkali cellulose with varying higher ranges of water (e.g., "not substantially less than 13%," "not substantially below 17%," and "between about 13[%] and 20%"); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(reversing the Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding, that certain claims were not prima facie obvious due to non-overlapping ranges); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.).
As is here, it is considered:
“the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”;
“The court held that the configuration of the claimed have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed
“In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. “;
“Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner”.
As is here, it is considered that the relative proportions/size of the fingers “overlap”, “lie inside” or are at least “merely close” to the claimed finger dimensions and as such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 3 and the limitation the robot hand according to claim 2, wherein the first finger has a fingertip section having a narrower finger width than a finger width of the distal phalanx section of the second finger (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 2 above incorporated herein by reference and especially the annotated figure of the hand of the Devo Robot).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006000966 A to ISHII S et al. (hereinafter Ishii) in view of JP 2012024882 A to MIYAZAWA O et al. (hereinafter MIYAZAWA) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20130325181 A1 to Moore; Douglas A.
Regarding claim 11 and the limitation the robot hand according to claim 10, wherein the second finger includes the sensor in each of the distal phalanx section and the middle phalanx section (Ishii teaches the use of sensors as explained above in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 10 above incorporated herein by reference.).
The combination of Ishii and MIYAZAWA do not appear to expressly disclose and the sensor included in the distal phalanx section has higher resolution than the sensor included in the middle phalanx section.
Moore teaches it was known for a robot hand that a sensor included in a distal phalanx section has higher resolution than the sensor included in a middle phalanx section (in for example the figure 2 below:
PNG
media_image16.png
522
620
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Wherein it is understood that tactile skin sensor 400 has more resolution than proximity sensor 350 as explained in for example only para:
“[0024] In various embodiments, the proximity sensor 350 may be offset from a surface making contact with an object (e.g., contact surface). The surface making contact with an object and/or a portion thereof may compress or move towards the mounting surface of the sensor 350 as an object is grasped and additional force is applied to the object by the manipulator 105. This movement may be very slight. This compression may be in any direction or in a preconfigured direction. In this way, additional proximity sensing may be accomplished after contact with an object is made to determine force on a grasped object. This sensing of the sensor 350 may be in concert with other force sensing sensors 300, such as a tactile skin sensor 400. Stated another way, the optical proximity sensor 350 may continue to make proximity measurements after contact is made as a compressible and/or movable surface of the end-effector 200, such as a finger 220 surface, is moved closer to the fixed proximity sensor 350. This is in contrast to other proximity sensors which at best may only determine if an object is in continuous contact with the surface making contact with the object. In the system 100, the amount of displacement towards the offset, generally mounted in relief in the direction normal to the surface of the manipulator 105 contact surface of the proximity sensor 350, may allow for an enhanced grasping force determination. In an embodiment, based on the configuration and orientation of the surface making contact, a shear deflection may result, thus a determination of shear forces may be calculated by the sensors 350. For instance, the contact surfaces may be designed with various stiffness and flexibility properties in any desired direction.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensors disclosed in Moore with the sensors taught in the combination of Ishii and MIYAZAWA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “improved the quality of industrial processes” as taught by Moore Para:
“[0026] The skin sensor 400, (tactile sensors) may be an array of force sensing cells, i.e., sensels, configured to measure the spatial distribution and magnitude of forces perpendicular to the sensing area. Similar to sensors 350, these tactile sensors 400 may be configured to provide real-time pressure profiles on flat, curved, rigid or soft surfaces and can be used to improve the quality of industrial processes as well as of commercial products.”.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006000966 A to ISHII S et al. (hereinafter Ishii) in view of JP 2012024882 A to MIYAZAWA O et al. (hereinafter MIYAZAWA) as applied to the claims above in view of in view of US 20130325181 A1 to Moore; Douglas A. as applied to the claims above in further view of in view of Butterfass et. al. "DLR-Hand II: next generation of a dextrous robot hand".
Regarding claim 12 and the limitation the robot hand according to claim 10, wherein the second finger includes the sensor in each of the distal phalanx section and the middle phalanx section,
and the sensor included in the middle phalanx section has a higher load range than the sensor included in the distal phalanx section (it is considered that the optical proximity sensors 350 have a higher range than the tactile sensor 400 as explained in for example the teachings of Moore para:
“[0022] One or more sensors 300 may be embedded in any portion of the end-effector 200 and/or manipulator arm 120, such as on a finger 220, joint segment 230,235, wrist 130, palm 140, proximate any external surface and/or combinations thereof. In various embodiments, the distance sensors 350 within the manipulator 105 may direct their line of sensing out from a contact surface of the manipulator 105 in any direction. In general, the optical proximity sensor 350 may direct its sensing beam orthogonal to a contact surface of the manipulator 105. In various embodiments, the orientation and pointing direction of the sensor 350 in the system 100 may be dynamically independently positioned (e.g., independent of the position/movement of manipulator 105 elements). For instance, prior to the manipulator 105 making contact and/or grasping an object, one or more sensors 350 may be directed to sweep in any desired range of angles and/or direction from a contact surface of the manipulator 105 to develop a robust understanding of the surface features of an object targeted. Additionally, as the various joints 230, 235, and fingers 220 of the manipulators 105 are moved, the direction of the beam of the proximity sensor 350 may be directed in a constant and/or desired position despite the sensor moving in three-dimensional space.
[0023] In various embodiments, focusing each sensor 350 may be dynamically adjusted to recognize targets within a dynamically scalable distance/range. This may assist, for example, with approaching an object from a large distance such as several feet. As the distance between the manipulator 105/manipulator arm 120 and the object closes, the focusing of the optical proximity sensor 350 may be focused to a shorter distance with higher precision. This may reduce the computational needs of the system 100 as high precision may not be needed at greater distances. Additionally, the sensors 300 housed on the manipulator 105 and/or associated with the manipulator 105 may assist with dynamic collision prevention/avoidance and/or minimization. In an embodiment, the system 100 may alter the approach of the manipulator 105, to avoid an impact if possible. In an embodiment, the manipulator control system may take an evasive action to reduce the severity of contact if unavoidable. For instance, a glancing impact of the manipulator arm 120 may be less destructive than a head on collision. The manipulator control system may orient the manipulator arm 120 and/or the end-effector 200 in an orientation to reduce the damage caused by a collision. In an embodiment, the system 100 may close the fingers 220 of the end-effector 200 to reduce damage to their mechanics if impact is unavoidable.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensors disclosed in Moore with the sensors taught in the combination of Ishii and MIYAZAWA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided the ability to “recognize targets within a specified distance range” as taught by Moore Para:
[0020] The sensors 300 may also comprise sensor control circuitry. For instance, the control circuitry may be configured to match the pulsing frequency of the transmitter with the light sensor. The transmitter and receiver may be housed in the same package, referred to as a retroflective or retroreflective sensor 300. They detect targets that reflect light back to the sensor 300. This retroreflective sensor 300 may be configured and focused to recognize targets within a specified distance range.
While it is considered that the combination of Ishii teaches the invention as claimed and explained above, if Applicant is of the opinion that said combination does not expressly disclose “and the sensor included in the middle phalanx section has a higher load range than the sensor included in the distal phalanx section” then resort may be had to the teachings of Butterfass to show it was known in the robot hand art to use different load ranges for sensors in different parts of a robot hand subject to different loads in for example :
“
PNG
media_image17.png
713
753
media_image17.png
Greyscale
”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensors disclosed in Butterfass with the sensors taught in the combination of Ishii with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “allowed easy maintenance” as taught by Butterfass Lines:
“
PNG
media_image18.png
93
416
media_image18.png
Greyscale
”.
Claims 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006000966 A to ISHII S et al. (hereinafter Ishii) in view of JP 2012024882 A to MIYAZAWA O et al. (hereinafter MIYAZAWA) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20110241368 A1 to Kurita; Yuichi et al. (hereinafter Kurita).
Regarding claim 13 the combination of Ishii teaches the limitation the robot hand according to claim 1, in for example the motivation to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference, however said combination does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the first finger is further configured to be revolvable about a fourth axis with respect to the palm section, the fourth axis being coincident with the central axis or parallel to the central axis.
In analogous art Kurita teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image19.png
381
499
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
541
628
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
630
565
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
698
486
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
391
521
media_image23.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts a first finger is further configured to be revolvable about a fourth axis with respect to a palm section, the fourth axis being coincident with a central axis or parallel to the central axis (as shown in Fig. 3 and explained in for example only para:
“[0107] The first finger section fixing member 361 fixes the first finger section 31 to the main body section 366 via the first proximal phalange section 311a of the first finger section 31. The second finger section fixing member 362 to the fifth finger section fixing member 365 are configured in the same manner as described above.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first finger/thumb disclosed in Kurita with the first finger/thumb taught in the combination of Ishii with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “provided an easily maintained robot hand” as taught by Kurita Para(s):
“[0001] The present invention relates to a robot hand, specifically, a robot hand that can be easily maintained and capable of obtaining fingertip force although the robot hand is small in size.”.
Regarding claim 14 and the limitation the robot hand according to claim 13, wherein the first axis and the fourth axis three-dimensionally intersect with each other (see Kurita fig. 3 and the motivation to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 13 above incorporated herein by reference).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art of robot end effectors/hands/fingers/etc. at the time of the invention. For example:
US 20110133502 A1 to Koyama; Junji et al. teaches, inter alia a ROBOT HAND AND METHOD FOR HANDLING PLANAR ARTICLE in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image24.png
562
814
media_image24.png
Greyscale
“When dishes are held by means of a robot hand (10), its fixed side engaging plate (13) and movable side engaging finger (14) are moved under horizontal state toward a dish (20) to be handled, and the outer circumferential edge side portion of the dish (20) is inserted between them. The distal end portion (14b) of the movable side engaging finger (14) is then bent by a predetermined amount to the side of the dish (20) and the robot hand (10) is raised. Consequently, the dish (20) is brought into a state where it is held by its own weight between the fixed side engaging plate (13) and the movable side engaging finger (14). Thereafter, the right and left first finger units (15, 16) are bent to the side of the dish (20) and the dish (20) is pushed by their dish pushing faces (15g, 16g), thus bringing about such a state as the dish (20) is held surely between the fixed side engaging plate (13) and the movable side engaging finger (14).”.
US 5200679 A to Graham; Douglas F. teaches, inter alia an Artificial hand and digit therefor in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image25.png
492
535
media_image25.png
Greyscale
“(7) If the artificial hand of FIG. 1 is employed for industrial, robotic purposes, the fingers extending from the bottom of the metacarpal have the same length as the fingers extending from the top of the metacarpal. If, however, the artificial hand is used as a prosthesis, thumb 15 is shorter than fingers 12-14, as illustrated in FIG. 1.
(8) Details of finger 14 and the structure for connecting the finger to metacarpal 16 are illustrated in FIGS. 2, 3, 3A and 4.
(9) Each of channels 17-19 of finger 14 includes a pair of parallel, elongated side walls joined to each other by webs 1-3 and to the side walls of the adjacent channel by pins 22 and 23. In particular, channel 17 includes side walls 24 and 25, channel 18 includes side walls 26 and 27, while channel 19 includes side walls 28 and 29. Pin 22 extends through circular apertures in the distal ends of walls 24 and 25, as well as through circular apertures in the proximal ends of walls 26 and 27. These circular apertures are aligned with each other to receive pin 22. A similar relationship is provided for pin 23 vis a vis walls 26-29. To prevent substantial transverse motion of pins 22 and 23 relative to the aligned longitudinal axis of channels 17-19 the pins include nibs 31 that are located slightly inside of the side walls of channels 17-19. Walls 24 and 26 are arranged so that the inner face of wall 26 contacts the outer face of wall 24, with the inner face of wall 24 engaging nib 31.”.
PNG
media_image26.png
483
590
media_image26.png
Greyscale
US 6247738 B1 to Winkel; Axel et al. teaches, inter alia a Robot hand in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“(3) In FIG. 1, the illustrated robot hand 1 is similar to a human hand in that it has a thumb 2, a first finger 3, a second finger 4, and a hand base 5. The robot hand 1 can be covered by a glove 6 as shown in FIG. 2. As shown in FIG. 1, the thumb 2 includes a base phalanx 7, a middle phalanx 8, and an end phalanx 9. The fingers 3,4 include a base phalanx 7',7", a middle phalanx 8',8", and an end phalanx 9',9", respectively. Each end phalanx 9,9',9" is disposed at a distal end 100, 100', 100" of the thumb 2 or fingers 3,4. Each end phalanx 9,9',9" has a proximal end 102,102',102". Each middle phalanx 8,8', 8" has a proximal end 104,104'104" and a distal end 106,106',106". Each base phalanx 7,7',7" has a distal end 108,108',108". The proximal end 102,102',102" of the end phalanx 9,9',9" is pivotably attached or coupled to the distal end 106,106',106" of the middle phalanx 8,8',8" for rotation around a distal axis 110,110',110". The proximal end 104,104',104" of the base phalanx 7,7",7" is pivotably attached or coupled to the distal end 108,108',108" of the base phalanx 7, 7', 7"for rotation around a proximal axis 112,112',112". The distal axis and the proximal axis are substantially parallel when the middle phalanx 108, 108', 108" is substantially linear. Each phalanx is connected to the next phalanx by a joint 10. As shown in FIG. 1, the end phalanx 9,9',9" is coupled to the distal phalanx 8,8',8" by a middle phalanx joint 115, 115', 115"; and the middle phalanx 8,8',8" is coupled to the base phalanx 7,7',7" by a proximal phalanx joint 116, 116', 116". The joint 10 can be any type of suitable connectors, including a coupled hinge, as shown.”.
US 20080114491 A1 to Takahashi; Kazuyuki teaches, inter alia a ROBOT HAND AND ROBOT in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image27.png
615
514
media_image27.png
Greyscale
“[0026] As shown in FIG. 2, the hand 1 has a palm portion 10, and a first finger mechanism 11, a second finger mechanism 12 and a third finger mechanism 13 extended from the palm portion 10. For example, similar to a finger mechanism described in Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2001-347482, each of the finger mechanisms 11 to 13 can be separately independently bent and stretched, and is respectively similarly constructed. For example, the first finger mechanism 11 has a first link member 112, a second link member 114 and a third link member 116. The first finger mechanism 11 may be also covered with an unillustrated elastic cover. The first link member 112, the second link member 114 and the third link member 116 respectively correspond to a proximal knuckle, a middle knuckle and a distal knuckle of an index finger, a middle finger, or the like of a hand of a human being. The first link member 112 is connected to the palm portion 10 through a first joint 111 in a state able to be rotated around a first axis x1 with respect to the palm portion 10. The second link member 114 is connected to the first link member 112 through a second joint 113 in a state able to be rotated around a second axis x2 perpendicular to the first axis x1 with respect to the first link member 112. The third link member 116 is connected to the second link member 114 through a third joint 115 in a state able to be rotated around a third axis x3 parallel to the second axis x2 with respect to the second link member 114. The first joint 111, the second joint 113 and the third joint 115 respectively correspond to a metacarpophalangeal joint, a proximal interphalangeal joint and a distal interphalangeal joint of the index finger and the middle finger of the hand of the human being.”.
US 8260458 B2 to Kim; Yong Jae et al. teaches, inter alia a Robot, robot hand, and method of controlling robot hand in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image28.png
564
535
media_image28.png
Greyscale
“(18) FIG. 1 is a view illustrating a robot hand in accordance with a first embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 1, a robot hand 100 in accordance with the first embodiment includes a palm 102, and a plurality of fingers 104 connected to the palm 102. Each of the plurality of fingers 104 includes a plurality of segments 104a, 104b, and 104c.
(19) The fingers 104 are connected to the palm 102 by joints. A distance sensor 106, which will be described later, is installed on the palm 102.
(20) Each of the fingers 104 includes a base segment 104a connected directly to the palm 102, a tip segment 104b forming the tip of each of the fingers 104, and a middle segment 104c between the base segment 104a and the tip segment 104b. The middle segment 104c may not be provided or two or more middle segments 104 may be provided, according to the flexibility required by the fingers 104. Further, the tip segment 104b may not be provided and each of the fingers 104 may include only the base segment 104a, as the occasion demands.
”.
US 20200139558 A1 to VU; Hung et al. teaches, inter alia a GRIPPER SYSTEM FOR A ROBOT in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image29.png
494
584
media_image29.png
Greyscale
“A gripper system for a robot includes a first gripper element for carrying an object. The first gripper element includes a gripper hand with a support plane for supporting the object and a gripper thumb opposing the support plane. The first gripper element also includes a slot between the gripper hand and the gripper thumb for allocating at least part of the object to passively secure the object from tilting. This gripper system is advantageous when moving around carrying an object such as a tray or plate on which articles are loosely positioned.
[0041] First 100 and second 200 gripper elements may comprise a constructive core surrounded by a soft lining. As an example, the core may comprise a hard ABS plastic enabling accommodation of the tension and stress upon carrying object 2. Furthermore, the core may allocate electrical connections to sensors 150,250. As a further example, the soft lining may comprise a polyurethane shore, accommodating preferred haptic properties for human-machine interaction. In order to accommodate safe interaction with objects and humans, outer edges of first (100) and second (200) gripper elements may be rounded. Furthermore, the soft lining on external surfaces of gripper system 10, such as bottom and side surface 160 of first gripper element 100 and top and side 260 of second gripper element 200—see FIG. 6—may comprise flexible force sensors arranged to provide a control signal indicative of a collision event with objects or humans. As a result, control system 300 of robot 1 may, based on the control signal, steer gripper system 10 in such a direction to avoid the collision event.”.
US 20180257245 A1 to Takemura; Yoshinari teaches, inter alia an END EFFECTOR, HAND DEVICE AND ROBOT EQUIPPED WITH THE SAME in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A hand section 40 includes a hand base section 40a attached to a link section, a first finger section 40b provided to extend in a direction non-parallel with a direction toward a tip end portion from a base end portion of the hand base section 40a, from the tip end portion of the hand base section 40a, and a camera 40f provided at a side surface of the hand base section 40a, and capable of
PNG
media_image30.png
681
363
media_image30.png
Greyscale
imaging a sideward of the hand base section 40a.
[0097] First, referring to FIGS. 5A and 5B, a configuration of the hand section 40 will be described in detail.
[0098] The hand section 40 comprises a hand base section 40a (a base section) corresponding to a palm and a back of a human hand, a first finger section 40b (a motion section, a motion link member) that is a single member corresponding to a forefinger, a middle finger, a third finger and a little finger of a human being, and a second finger section 40c corresponding to a human thumb.
[0099] The first finger section 40b is provided to extend in a direction (A direction other than the same direction or an opposite direction. A left side in the X-direction in FIG. 5A) non-parallel with a direction (the Z-direction in FIG. 5A (a longitudinal direction of the hand base section 40a)) toward a tip end portion from a base end portion of the hand base section 40a, from the tip end portion of the hand base section 40a. The first finger section 40b is constructed integrally with the hand base section 40a and is fixed to the hand base section 40a. A cushioning member 40d is attached to a surface at an opposite side from the hand base section 40a, of the first finger section 40b.
”.
US 11897122 B2 to Kim; Yong Jae et al. teaches, inter alia a Robot hand in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image31.png
625
476
media_image31.png
Greyscale
“Disclosed is a robot hand comprising a base, a first bracket provided on an upper portion of the base, a second bracket provided on an upper portion of the base and configured such that the other side of the second bracket is rotatable in a horizontal direction about one side of the second bracket, a plurality of finger modules coupled to upper portions of the first and second brackets, respectively, and configured to tilt in order to grip an object, finger drive units installed on the first and second brackets and configured to transmit driving power to the finger modules and a rotation drive unit installed at one side of the second bracket and configured to transmit driving power so that the other side of the second bracket is rotatable in the horizontal direction about one side of the second bracket.
(13) The finger modules 400 are installed on the second bracket 320 and correspond to a human thumb. Link arms 322 are provided on the second bracket 320. The link arms 322 are rotatably coupled to a driving shaft 610 of the rotation drive unit 600. With this configuration, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the second bracket 320 is rotatable about the driving shaft 610 in a horizontal direction.
(14) That is, since the finger module 400, which serves as a thumb of a human hand, is installed to be rotatable in the horizontal direction, a natural motion may be implemented like a human hand, such that an operation corresponding to a shape of an object may be accurately performed.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260205