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 2/13/23 and 4/18/24 were 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 “electric motor having a rotary axis that is different from an axis of rotation of the corresponding proximal link, and each stepped spur gear is mechanically coupled to a corresponding planetary gearbox” (Claim 7) 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.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the provided Figures 3A and 3C shows dark and unclear drawings which fail to clearly disclose the essential subject matter (i.e., electric motor, gears, and spur gears, step spur gear). Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizuno et al. (US 2010/0005918).
RE claims1, Mizuno et al. (US 2010/0005918) discloses an apparatus for a robot (see paragraphs [0001] and [0002]) comprising: a proximal link (3), each proximal link configured to rotate about a respective joint, each joint aligned on a common axis; and a distal link (1), each distal link coupled to a corresponding proximal link and configured to rotate about a second respective joint, wherein each proximal link comprises a motor (13), an actuator, configured to move at least one of the proximal link or the corresponding distal link. Note that the provided Figs. 1-20 of Mizuno et al. apparatus (US 2010/0005918) show only at least one finger having a proximal link (3), each proximal link configured to rotate about a respective joint, each joint aligned on a common axis; and a distal link (1). However, Mizuno et al. apparatus is for the application of a prosthetic hand which comprises at least three fingers (see paragraph [0002]) and a joint mechanism for use in a robotic manipulator(see paragraph [0001]). Therefore, Mizuno et al. apparatus inherently meets the recitation of three proximal links (3), each proximal link configured to rotate about a respective joint, each joint aligned on a common axis; and three distal links (1).
RE claims 2 and 3, Figs. 1-13 of Mizuno et al. robot hand (US 2010/0005918) shows each proximal link is configured to rotate independently of each other proximal link wherein each distal link is configured to rotate independently of each other distal link and each proximal link.
RE claims 5, 6, and 8-11, Figs. 1-13 of Mizuno et al. robot hand (US 2010/0005918) employ each proximal link comprises a geared transmission (8, 10( (see Fig. 14) wherein each proximal link and each corresponding distal link form a modular finger member wherein each proximal link is coupled to a common rigid member rotatable along an axis that is perpendicular to the common axis wherein each proximal link (3) has a linear dimension that is longer than a linear dimension of each corresponding distal link wherein any two of the at least three proximal links are capable of rotation to an angular separation of at least 180 degrees wherein any two of the at least three distal links are capable of rotation to an angular separation of at least 180 degrees when the two corresponding proximal links are aligned.
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE claims 13-16, Figs. 1-13 of Mizuno et al. robot hand (US 2010/0005918) meet the structural limitations of at least one of the proximal links comprises a slip clutch (see Figs. 8A, 8B, and 17B) configured to slip when a threshold is met, further comprising a set of at least three additional links (2) , each additional link coupled to a corresponding distal link and configured to rotate independently about a third respective joint, wherein at least one distal link comprises an exterior geometry that differs from at least one other distal link wherein at least one distal link comprises a flat surface exterior (see Fig. 13), at least one distal link comprises a first tapered surface (see at the distal ends) having a first pitch, and at least one distal link comprises a second tapered surface having a second pitch, the second pitch tapered away from the first pitch.
Claims 1-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Japanese Publication (JP 2007-298114) (See IDS).
RE claims 1-3 and 20, Figs. 1-7 of the Japanese Publication (JP 2007-298114) show a set of at least three proximal links (Fig. 5), each proximal link (20, 21) configured to rotate about a respective joint, each joint aligned on a common axis; and a set of at least three distal links (11), each distal link coupled to a corresponding proximal link and configured to rotate about a second respective joint, wherein each proximal link comprises an actuator configured to move at least one of the proximal link or the corresponding distal link.
RE claims 4, 7, and 20, Figs. 6 and 7 of the Japanese Publication (JP 2007-298114) disclose an electric motor (13, 15), a gear or spur gear (41a, 41b), and other structural elements as recited in the 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al. robot hand (US 2010/0005918) in view of Zasche (11,279,047).
Mizuno et al. robot hand (US 2010/0005918), as presented above, does not specifically teach an electric motor having a rotor configured to rotate about a rotary axis; a first spur gear mechanically coupled to the rotor. However, Zasche (11,279,047) teaches an electric motor having a rotor configured to rotate about a rotary axis; a first spur gear mechanically coupled to the rotor (see paragraph [0043]). 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 an electric motor having a rotor configured to rotate about a rotary axis; a first spur gear on the Mizuno et al. robot hand (US 2010/0005918) as taught by Zasche (11,279,047) to firmly grasp an object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are allowed.
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 9:00-5:30 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, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-2097. 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 3654