DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 06/10/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
“Claim 1: Defines a hand where each of the fingers explicitly includes a first part and a second part. The first part is coupled to the second part SO that it is bendable with respect to the second part, and it is this specific first part that includes the integrated damper. The Prior Art (JP 2010-162638): Merely discloses a basic robotic hand that possesses fingers with a damper. It completely lacks the multi-part, relative-bending articulation where the damping capability is isolated inside a distinct, bendable first part. Because JP 2010-162638 fails to teach or suggest these structural limitations, the specific multi-part, bendable damping arrangement of Claim 1 is a novel, non-obvious "special technical feature" that defines a clear contribution over the prior art under 37 CFR § 1.475(a). Consequently, this special technical feature links the groups together. (See Page 2 of the Applicant’s Arguments)”
However, the examiner notes that claims 6-8 do not specify the limitations regarding the “bending” and thus claims 6-8 do not require the technical feature of “bendable” as it is not essential to the core method steps as recited throughout claims 6-8. Additionally, the examiner notes that even if the examiner were to consider all of the limitations of claim 1 as a special technical feature, all of these limitations are rejected in view of the prior art combinations presented in the rejections noted below and do not apply to the inventions of claims 6-8.
The traversal is additionally on the ground(s) that PCT law states:
“37 CFR § 1.475(b): "A national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (2) A product and a process of use of said product... *See Page 3 of the Applicants Arguments)”
However, the examiner notes that this portion of law is only stating what combinations of inventions are eligible for unity of invention; However, it is noted that this combination of inventions (including product and process of using) must still satisfy the special technical feature test as previously discussed. The examiner again noting that the special technical feature is not shared as described above.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The examiner noting that if claim 1 is placed into condition for allowance, claims 6-8 which depend upon claim 1 will likely be rejoined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0003], Line 2, replace “H05-6074” with “H05-6074.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,616,599 (Motonaga et al.) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,744,675 (Hsieh et al.).
Regarding Claims 1, 3 and 5, Motonaga et al. teaches: Claim 1 - a hand (235a) comprising: a base (2417); two fingers (each made up of (236/242)) that extend from the base (2417) and are bendable; an opening/closing actuator (2410) that is disposed in the base (2417) and moves the two fingers (236/242) in a predetermined opening/closing direction so that the two fingers (236/242) grip a workpiece; and a bending actuator (2510) that is disposed in the base (2417) and causes the two fingers (236/242) to bend, wherein: each of the fingers (236/242) includes a second part (242) extending from the base (2417) and a first part (236) coupled to the second part (242) to be rotatable about a rotation axis substantially parallel to the opening/closing direction, the first part (236) being bendable with respect to the second part (242), (Figures 16A-16I); Claim 3 - wherein the bending actuator (2510) causes the two fingers (236/242) gripping the workpiece to bend so that the workpiece is moved to a predetermined delivery position of the workpiece, (Figures 16A-16I); Claim 5 - a robot comprising: the hand according to claim 1; and a robot arm (such as arm (111a) as seen in Figure 4B) to which the hand is coupled, (Figures 16A-16I).
Motonaga et al. does not teach: the first part includes a damper that causes the first part to elastically extend and contract in an extension direction of the first part (Claim 1). However, Hsieh et al. teaches: Claim 1 – a tip of two fingers (102) having a damper (101) that causes the tip to elastically extend and contract in an extension direction of the tip, (Figure 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hand of Motonaga et al. to have the first part includes a damper that causes the first part to elastically extend and contract in an extension direction of the first part (Claim 1) as taught by Hsieh et al. as it would have been obvious to try to have the tips/first parts of the fingers of Motonaga et al. to have the dampers (101) of Hsieh et al. to increase the ability of the fingers of Motonaga et al. to grasp the workpiece.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,616,599 (Motonaga et al.) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,744,675 (Hsieh et al.), and further in view of EP 3260248 (Becker et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Motonaga et al. as modified by Hsieh et al. teaches hand as described above, in addition to Motonaga et al. teaching: Claim 2 – wherein: the opening/closing actuator (2410) moves the two fingers (236/242) simultaneously in the opening/closing direction, (Figures 16A-16I). Motonaga et al. as modified by Hsieh et al. does not teach: wherein: the opening/closing actuator moves the two fingers independently of each other in the opening/closing direction (Claim 2). However, Becker et al. teaches: Claim 2 – two fingers (16) movable in an opening/closing direction via an opening/closing actuator (24 and 54), wherein: the opening/closing actuator (24 and 54) moves the two fingers (16) independently of each other (paragraph [0027]) in the opening/closing direction, (Figures 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hand of Motonaga et al. as modified by Hsieh et al. to have wherein: the opening/closing actuator moves the two fingers independently of each other in the opening/closing direction (Claim 2) as taught by Becker et al. for the purposes of adding an added degree of controllability to the fingers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
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 Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. 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).
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights