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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 22 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. Claim 22 recites a method for manufacturing a product yet it fails to give any steps as to what the method or process of manufacturing is. As long as the prior art teaches the structure claim 21, it will read on the claim as recited. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is not drawn to one of the statutory classes under 35 U.S.C. 101. Although the preamble recites “A method for manufacturing…”, there are no steps of manufacturing recited in the body of the claim. Instead, the body only recites “using the robot apparatus according to claim 21”, also without reciting steps of using. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1- 8 , 12- 14 and 20-2 2 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" a(1) and a(2) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Sakakibara (US20200078959 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Sakakibara teaches a robot hand comprising: at least one finger 3 , wherein the finger includes a first member 5 configured to come into contact with an object to apply a gripping force to the object, and a second member 6 movable with respect to the first member to come into contact with the object. Regarding claim 2, Sakakibara teaches the robot hand according to claim 1, wherein the second member 6 is capable of being positioned with respect to the first member 5 . (Refer to Paragraph[0034]) Regarding claim 3, Sakakibara teaches the robot hand according to claim 1, wherein the first member 5 is a shaft member extending in a predetermined direction, and the second member 6 is movable in the predetermined direction with respect to the first member 5 . (Refer to Paragraph[0008]) Regarding claim 4, Sakakibara teaches the robot hand according to claim 3, wherein the second member 6 includes a tubular portion in which the first member 5 is inserted and which is capable of coming into contact with the object. (Refer to Paragraph[0008]) Regarding claim 5, Sakakibara teaches the robot hand according to claim 4, wherein an end surface of the tubular portion in the predetermined direction is capable of coming into contact with the object. (Refer to Paragraph[0008]) Regarding claim 6, Sakakibara teaches the robot hand according to claim 1, wherein the second member 6 further includes a driving mechanism 4 capable of driving the second member such that the second member moves with respect to the first member 5 . (Refer to Paragraph[0034]) Regarding claim 7, Sakakibara teaches the robot hand according to claim 6, wherein the second member 6 has a screw hole, and wherein the driving mechanism 4 includes a screw member 44 configured to screw into the screw hole, and a driving portion configured to rotationally drive the screw member 44 . (Refer to Paragraph[0041]) Regarding claim 8, Sakakibara teaches the robot hand according to claim 6, further comprising a support member 2 configured to support the first member 5 , the second member 6 , and the driving mechanism 4 . (Refer to Paragraph[00 34 ]) Regarding claim 12, Sakakibara teaches the robot hand according to claim 1, further comprising a third member 52 detachably attached to the first member 5 and capable of coming into contact with the object. Regarding claim 13, Sakakibara teaches the robot hand according to claim 12, wherein the second member 6 and the third member 52 are capable of coming into contact with the object such that the object is interposed therebetween. Regarding claim 14, Sakakibara teaches the robot hand according to claim 1, wherein the at least one finger includes a first finger and a second finger 3 , and wherein the first finger and the second finger 3 each include the first member 5 and second member 6 . (Refer to Paragraph[00 35 ]) Regarding claim 20, Sakakibara teaches the robot hand according to claim 1, further comprising a hand base portion 2 , wherein the second member 6 is provided on the hand base portion 2 so as to be movable with respect to the hand base portion 2 to come into contact with the object. Regarding claim 21, Sakakibara teaches a robot apparatus comprising: the robot hand according to claim 1, and a robot arm 100 in which the robot hand is disposed 1 . (Refer to Paragraph[0008]) left 950595 Regarding claim 22, Sakakibara teaches the structure of claim 2 1. (see 112(b) rejection above.) right 629920 0 647700 0 0 0 Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 23 -24 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" a(1) and a(2) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by Kim ( US 20210053215 A1 ) . Regarding claim 23 , Kim teaches a m ethod for controlling a robot hand, the method comprising: causing a first member 112 included in the robot hand 100 to come into contact with an object to apply a gripping force to the object; and moving a second member 114 included in the robot hand with respect to the first member to come into contact with the object. ( Refer to Paragraph [0068] ) Regarding c laim 24 , Kim teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the method according to claim 23 . ( Refer to Paragraph [0077] ) 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Sakakibara ( US20200078959 A1 ) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view o f Hagiwara ( US 20190263006 A1 ) . Regarding claim 9 Sakakibara teaches a robot hand 1 according to claim 8, wherein the support member includes a first support 2 portion at which the first member 5 , the second member 6 , and the driving mechanism 4 are provided, and a second support 110 portion . Sakakibara fail to teach a first support 2 detachably attached to a second support 110 . However Hagiwara ( US 20190263006 A1 ) teaches a first aspect of the present invention is a robot hand 1 including: a pair of movable members that is detachable from a wrist flange of a robot body . (Paragraph [004]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Sakakibara and Hagiwara to have a first support detachably attached to the second support in order to be able to pick the movable member that adhere best to hold the workpiece. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Sakakibara ( US20200078959 A1 ) and Hagiwara ( US 20190263006 A1 ) as applied to claim 9 above . Regarding Claim 10 , Sakakibara discloses the claimed invention ex c ept that it teaches different rigidities for the finger members instead of the support members which shows motivation for utilizing different materials to achieve the desired outcome . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize different materials with different rigidity for the support members since it has been held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Sakakibara ( US20200078959 A1 ) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view o f Morissette( US 6314654 B1 ) . Regarding Claim 11, Sakakibara teaches a robot hand according to claim 1, wherein the second member is movable with respect to the first member. Sakakibara fails to teach a robot hand according to claim 1, wherein the second member is manually movable with respect to the first member . However, Morisette teaches an embodiment wherein the second member is manually movable with respect to the first member. (Col 2. , Line 1-4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Sakakibara and Morrisette in the event that the user would want to manually control the gripping force on the object, they c ould adjust the relative distance between the first and second members, as the force is proportional to this distance. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Sakakibara ( US20200078959 A1 ) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view o f Bachmaier ( US 20190389079 A1 ). Regarding Claim 15 , Sakakibara teaches a robot hand 1 according to claim 14, wherein the second member 6 of the first finger 3 and the second member 6 of the second finger 3 are movable in synchronization with each other to move the object gripped by the first member 5 of the first finger and the first member 5 of the second finger. Sakakibara fails to teach a robot hand according to claim 14, wherein the second member 6 of the first finger 3 and the second member 6 of the second finger 3 are movable independently from each other to move the object gripped by the first member 5 of the first finger and the first member 5 of the second finger. However , Bachmaier teaches that in some embodiments, by decreasing the bending angle it is possible for an object to be grasped by the robot unit. The movement of the first member and the second member during which the respective bending angles are decreased may involve a movement requiring a higher degree of dexterity than a movement of the first member and the second member during which the bending angle is increased. Therefore, the first member and the second member may be independently movable by the separate actuators .( Paragraph [0027] ) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Sakakibara and Bachmaier to make the first and second finger member of the first and second finger to move either in synch or independently to achieve better handling of the object interposed therebetween. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Sakakibara ( US20200078959 A1 ) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view o f Kim( US 20030090115 A1 ). Regarding Claim 16 , Sakakibara teaches a robot hand according to claim 1, further comprising a hand base portion 1 , and wherein the first finger 3 , the second finger 3 , and the third finger each include the first member and second member. Sakakibara fails to teach a robot hand according to claim 1, wherein at least one finger includes a first finger fixed to the hand base portion, and a second finger and a third finger that are movable with respect to the hand base portion . However, Kim teaches t he fixed finger 200A serves as a thumb. The first phalanx 251 of the fixed finger is fixed at the side 101 of the hand base portion 100 so that it can only make a hooking movement. The moving fingers 200B and 200C , serving as other fingers (i.e., the forefinger and the third finger, etc.), are connected to the hand base portion 100 through the horizontal moving guides 311 and 312 so as to make the horizontal movement as well as the hooking movement . (See Fig 3.) (Paragraph [0058] ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Sakakibara and Kim to have a fixed first finger and a movable second and third finger with respect to the hand base so that a gripping force can be achieved while the second and third finger move towards the fixed first finger therefore closing their relative distance and interlocking the object therebetween or vice versa. 219075 199390 0 0 Claim 17 , 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Sakakibara ( US20200078959 A1 ) and Kim( US 20030090115 A1 ) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view o f Ueno( US 20190184580 A1 ) . Regarding Claim 17 , Kim teaches the r obot hand according to claim 16, where in the second finger 200B and the third finger 200 C are movable in directions in which the second finger 200B and the third finger 200 C move closer to and away from the first finger 200 A . Kim fails to teach the r obot hand according to claim 16, where in the second finger 200B and the third finger 200 C are respectively independently movable in directions in which the second finger 200B and the third finger 200 C move closer to and away from the first finger 200 A . However, Ueno teaches a robot device which includes a robot hand that has at least three finger portions on a base and grips a target object, and a robot hand control unit that controls the robot hand. Each of the three finger portions includes a plurality of drive mechanisms configured to bring the three finger portions close to or separate from each other independently . (Refer to Paragraph [ 007 ]). Regarding Claim 18 , Kim teaches the r obot hand according to claim 16, wherein the second finger and the third finger are movable . Kim fails to teach the second finger and the third finger are movable in a direction in which the second finger and the third finger move closer to and away from each other. However , Ueno teaches includes a robot hand that has at least three finger portions on a base and grips a target object, and a robot hand control unit that controls the robot hand. Each of the three finger portions includes a plurality of drive mechanisms configured to bring the three finger portions close to or separate from each other . (Refer to Paragraph [ 007 ]) Regarding Claim 19 , Kim teaches the robot hand according to claim 18, wherein the second finger 200B and the third finger 200C are movable in an interlocked manner with each other. ( Paragraph [0063] ) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Sakakibara , Kim and Ueno to have a robot hand that has three gripping fingers, and in order to realize various gripping forms, drive sources are disposed in all the three gripping fingers, respectively, to drive all the gripping fingers independently as mentioned in Paragraph[0003] in Ueno or to drive them in an interlocked manner so their relative distances hence the gripping force doesn’t change while the object is moved. 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN BRAHJA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9777 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8am -5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Robert Hodge can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712722097 . 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. /BRIAN BRAHJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654 /ROBERT W HODGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654