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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “grippes” (ln 10) should be replaced by “grippers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: “comprise” (ln 1) should be replaced by “comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Driving unit” in claims 1, 5, 11, & 20
“Pressing unit” in claims 6, 16, & 20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Regarding claim 20, applicant uses the phrase “electric spring” (ln 22) which is not a well understood term of the art and applicant does not provide sufficient information in the disclosure or claims to clarify the scope of this term
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9-11, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinugawa (JP 2015048194 A).
Regarding claim 1, the gripping apparatus of Kinugawa teaches gripping a gripping object provided with a head unit (8+9), in which a fitting groove is formed (Annotated Fig 7), comprising:
a base unit (32) made of a frame, plate, box, or a combination thereof;
a first gripper (31S) including a first distal end unit bent corresponding to the fitting groove (Annotated Fig 7), wherein a separation distance of the first distal end unit is adjusted at the base unit, and a plurality of first grippers facing each other are provided (Fig 7);
a second gripper (31L) located outside the first gripper and including a second distal end unit bent toward a lower edge of the gripping object (Fig 6), wherein a separation distance of the second distal end unit is adjusted at the base unit, and a plurality of a second grippers facing each other are provided (Fig 6);
an adjusting unit (40S + 40L + 41) provided in the base unit and for adjusting a separation distance of the first distal end units of the plurality of first grippers and a separation distance of the second end units of the plurality of second grippers (Fig 5-8);
and a vertical driving unit (39a & 39b) for manipulating the adjusting unit (Pg 5 body 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
707
1180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the gripping apparatus of Kinugawa teaches a sliding unit (Annotated Fig 8) provided between the first gripper and the adjusting unit and between the second gripper and the adjusting unit, and including a ball bearing or an LM guide unit for supporting sliding of the first gripper and the second gripper.
PNG
media_image2.png
704
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the gripping apparatus of Kinugawa teaches the gripping object comprises a probe card with a chip or a FOUP with a wafer (Pg 2 body 5 ln 1-4; Fig 2-3).
Regarding claim 11, the autonomous driving robot of Kinugawa comprises a driving vehicle (Pg 10 Body 1, Fig 1-4) for transporting a gripping object provided with a head unit (8 + 9) having a fitting groove (Annotated Fig 7) from a first place to a second place;
and a gripping apparatus provided in the driving vehicle and for gripping the gripping object (Fig 5-7), wherein the gripping apparatus comprises,
a base unit made of a frame, plate, box, or a combination thereof (32);
a first gripper (31S) including a first distal end unit bent corresponding to the fitting groove (Annotated Fig 7 above), wherein a separation distance of the first distal end unit is adjusted at the base unit, and a plurality of first grippers facing each other are provided (Fig 7);
a second gripper (31L) located outside the first gripper and including a second distal end unit bent toward a lower edge of the gripping object (Fig 6), wherein a separation distance of the second distal end unit is adjusted at the base unit, and a plurality of second grippers facing each other are provided (Fig 6);
an adjusting unit (40S + 40L + 41) provided in the base unit and for adjusting a separation distance of the first distal end units of the plurality of first grippers and a separation distance of the second distal end units of the plurality of second grippers (Fig 5-8);
and a vertical driving unit (39a & 39b) for manipulating the adjusting unit (Pg 5 body 8).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 11 as described above, the autonomous driving robot of Kinugawa teaches a sliding unit (Annotated Fig 8 above) provided between the first gripper and the adjusting unit and between the second gripper and the adjusting unit, and including a ball bearing or an LM guide unit for supporting sliding of the first gripper and the second gripper (Fig 8),
wherein the gripping object comprises a FOUP with a wafer or a probe card with a chip (Pg 2 body 5 ln 1-4; Fig 2-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowed if applicant removes “electric” from “electric spring” (ln 22).
Claim 2-8 and 12-18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2-3 & 12-13 require the combination of a vertical driving unit for manipulating the adjusting unit and the first gripper is provided at the base unit to be capable of axial rotation, sliding in a horizontal direction, or both axial rotation and sliding in a horizontal direction, wherein any one of the base unit and the first gripper is provided with a first shaft supporting axial rotation of the first gripper, and the first shaft passes through the other one so that the first shaft moves in a horizontal direction and axially rotates, wherein any one of the base unit and the second gripper is provided with a second shaft, and the second shaft is connected to the other one so that the second gripper is provided at the base unit to be capable of axial rotation.
Claims 4-5 & 14-15 require the combination of an adjusting unit provided in the base unit and for adjusting a separation distance of the first distal end units of the plurality of first grippers and a separation distance of the second end units and the adjusting unit comprising a first and second block member with tapers. CN 105345834 A discloses a driving unit using adjusting blocks to manipulate the second set of grippers but not the first set. It would require hindsight reconstruction to incorporate adjusting blocks that move the first set of grippers.
Claims 6-8 & 16-18 require a pressing unit provided outside the plurality of first grippers to press in a direction, in which the plurality of first grippers are approached, and for pressing with a pressing force lower than a pressing force of the adjusting unit to allow movement of the first grippers by the adjusting unit. The gripping apparatus of Kinugawa teaches a pressing unit (30S) but in a direction, in which the plurality of first grippers are retracted (Fig 8; Pg 5 body 6).
Claim 20 requires the combination of at least one of the claims above and is in independent form.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 105345834 A discloses an adjustable clamping claw with two sets of grippers controlled by a vertical driving unit and tapered moving blocks.
US Patent 8,061,748 B2 discloses a robot gripper with two sets of grippers controlled by a vertical driving unit.
CN 111844096 A discloses a robot gripper with two sets of grippers controlled by a vertical driving unit.
CN 114380047 A discloses a robot gripper with two sets of grippers.
PGPub US 2013/0088031 A1 discloses a gripping apparatus with horizontal and axial movement for the fingers and a vertical screw drive system.
CN 107972056 A discloses a gripping robot hand with two sets of fingers and a vertical drive unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4, M-Fr.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RALPH D WILKINSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619