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 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 (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 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shindo (JP H0655472 A).
Regarding claim 1, the robot gripper of Shindo teaches a gripper structure comprising:
a screw-rod main body extended along a first direction (6, Fig 2);
a first rotatory nut (21 left side, Fig 2) and a second rotatory nut (21 right side, Fig 2) sleeved on two sides of the screw-rod main body, respectively, and bilaterally symmetrical to each other (Fig 2);
a first driving module (Annotated Fig 2) connected to the first rotatory nut, and configured to drive the first rotatory nut to rotate and displace relative to the screw-rod main body in the first direction, wherein the first rotatory nut is allowed to pass through a midline of the screw-rod main body (Fig 2; Pg 3 body 4);
a second driving module (Annotated Fig 2 below) connected to the second rotatory nut, and configured to drive the second rotatory nut to rotate and displace relative to the screw-rod main body in the first direction, wherein the second rotatory nut is allowed to pass through the midline of the screw-rod main body (Fig 2; Pg 3 body 4);
and a first clamping element (11) and a second clamping element (12) connected to the first rotatory nut and the second rotatory nut (Fig 2), respectively, wherein when the first driving module drives the first rotatory nut or/and the second driving module drives the second rotatory nut, the first clamping element and the second clamping element are relatively displaced in the first direction and cooperated with each other to achieve a clamping operation (Abstract; Fig 2; Pg 3 body 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
519
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Shindo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Shindo further teaches the first driving module comprises a motor (23 left side, Fig 2), a belt (26 left side, Fig 2) and a pulley (25 left side, Fig 2), the pulley is concentrically connected with the first rotatory nut, the motor drives the pulley and the first rotatory nut to rotate through the belt, and the first rotatory nut is allowed to drive the first clamping element to move relative to the screw-rod main body in the first direction (Abstract; Fig 7; Pg 3 body 4).
Regarding claim 3, Shindo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Shindo further teaches the second driving module comprises a motor (23 right side, Fig 2), a belt (Annotated Fig 2 above) and a pulley (Annotated Fig 2 above), the pulley is concentrically connected with the second rotatory nut, the motor drives the pulley and the second rotatory nut to rotate through the belt, and the second rotatory nut is allowed to drive the second clamping element to move relative to the screw-rod main body in the first direction (Abstract; Fig 7; Pg 3 body 4).
Regarding claim 4, Shindo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Shindo further teaches a main fixing plate (2, Fig 2), wherein the screw-rod main body is disposed on the main fixing plate (Fig 2).
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.
Claims 5 & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo in view of Liu (TW 201422394 A).
Regarding claim 5, Shindo teaches the limitations of claim 4 as described above, Shindo further teaches an extension plate (3) docked to a lateral end of the main fixing plate (Fig 2). Shindo does not teach a connection component in the first direction. However, the lead screw robot of Liu teaches an extension plate (46, Pg 14 Fig) detachably docked to a lateral end of the main fixing plate through a connection component (G) in the first direction (Pg 14 Fig). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the robot hand of Shindo a connection component in the first direction to lock the extension plate in place and provides an easier location for removal and installation of the connection component.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 5 as described above, Shindo further teaches a linear rail (5, Fig 2), a first sliding block and a second sliding block (Annotated Fig 2 above), wherein the linear rail is disposed on the main fixing plate along the first direction and spatially corresponding to the screw-rod main body (Fig 2), wherein the first clamping element is connected to the first rotatory nut through the first sliding block, and the first rotatory nut, the first sliding block and the first clamping element are allowed to displace relative to the screw-rod main body and the linear rail in the first direction (Fig 2; Pg 2 [0008] paragraph 2); wherein the second clamping element is connected to the second rotatory nut through the second sliding block, and the second rotatory nut, the second sliding block and the second clamping element are allowed to displace relative to the screw-rod main body and the linear rail in the first direction (Fig 2; Pg 2 [0008] paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 5 as described above, the combination does not teach an extension rail connected to an end of the linear rail. However, the court has held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance and therefore, breaking the linear rail into a main linear rail piece and an extension piece to make the rail length adjustable is not patentable (In re Steven, 101 USPQ 284). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination gripper by making the linear rail adjustable with a detachable extension rail portion to allow for a smaller storage footprint during transportation.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo & Liu in view of Klaus (US Patent 1,644,477 A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 5 as described above, the combination does not teach a connection component with a first and second fastening element. The fastener of Klaus teaches the connection component comprises a first fastening element (10), a second fastening element (16) and a restricting element (20+21), the first fastening element and the second fastening element are arranged concentrically (Fig 1), an operation end of the first fastening element and an operation end of the second fastening element face each other (Fig 1), and the restricting element is disposed between the first fastening element and the second element and configured to restrict an axial direction between the first fastening element and the second fastening element (Fig 1; ln 39-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination gripper by replacing the fastener of Liu with the fastener of Klaus to join two members together without using a bolt that extends through the entirety of the extension plate, therefore, saving material cost.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 6 as described above, Klaus further teaches a window (Annotated Fig 1 below; Pg 2 ln 1-5). The window of the combination is placed between the main fixing plate and the extension plate, and the operation end of the first fastening element (10) and the operation end of the second fastening element (16) are exposed through the window.
PNG
media_image2.png
291
437
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 6 as described above, Klaus further teaches the first fastening element (10) and the second fastening element (16) are two screws with the same thread-rotation direction or two screws with reverse thread-rotation directions (threads 12, threads 17, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 6 as described above, Klaus further teaches the connection component does not exceed an overlapping range of the extension plate and the main fixing plate along the first direction in a viewing direction of the first direction (Fig 1).
Claims 12-15 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo, Liu & Klaus in view of Whicker (US Patent 3,266,827 A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 5 as described above, the combination robot hand does not teach an extension screw. However, the externally screw-threaded shaft of Whicker teaches the extension screw (4) and the screw-rod main body (3) are arranged concentrically in the first direction (Pg 1 Fig), the screw-rod main body comprises a main external thread (Annotated Pg 1 Fig below), the extension screw comprises an extension external thread (Annotated Pg 1 Fig below), and the main external thread has an ending point continuously connected with a starting point of the extension external thread (Pg 1 Fig; Col. 1 ln 61-68). Replacing the screw rod of the combination with the screw rod of Whicker leads to the combination configured with the extension screw disposed on the extension plate and detachably connected to an extension end of the screw-rod main body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination robot hand by replacing the screw rod with the screw rod of Whicker to allow for disassembly of the robot hand into smaller pieces for storage.
PNG
media_image3.png
545
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, Liu further teaches a supporting portion (461) disposed on two opposite ends, the supporting portion is fixed on the extension plate (Pg 14 Fig). Whicker further teaches a docking portion (7), the docking portion is detachably connected to the extension end of the screw-rod main body (Pg 1 Fig).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 13 as described above, Whicker further teaches the screw-rod main body comprises a front docking screw hole (Pg 1 Fig), the docking portion (7) comprises a docking external thread (6), and the front docking screw hole and the docking external thread have an identical thread pitch (Col. 1 ln 27-32), wherein the docking portion has a docking length, the docking length is N times the thread pitch, N is an integer, and N>=1 (Pg 1 Fig; Col. 1 ln 42).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 13 as described above, Whicker further teaches the starting point of the extension external thread has an extension-thread leading angle (Pg 1 Fig), the screw-rod main body comprises a front docking screw hole disposed on the first extension end (Pg 1 Fig), the docking portion comprises a docking external thread (6) corresponding to the front docking screw hole (Pg 1 Fig), wherein a starting point of the docking external thread comprises a docking-thread leading angle, and the extension-thread leading angle is equal to the docking-thread leading angle (Pg 1 Fig).
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, Liu further teaches a supporting portion (461) disposed on two opposite ends, the supporting portion is connected to the extension plate (Pg 14 Fig). Whicker further teaches the screw-rod main body comprises a front docking screw hole disposed on the extension end (Pg 1 Fig), the extension screw comprises a rear docking screw hole and respectively (Pg 1 Fig), the front docking screw hole and the rear docking screw hole are engaged with two opposite ends of a docking element (7), respectively, so that the extension screw is docked with the extension end of the screw-rod main body (Pg 1 Fig).
Claims 16 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo, Liu, Klaus & Whicker in view of Hollander (US Patent 3,232,638 A)
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 15 as described above, the combination does not teach a positioning section. However, the rod threaded coupling of Hollander teaches the docking portion further comprises a positioning section arranged between the docking external thread and the extension external thread (Annotated Fig 3 below), the screw-rod main body comprises a front positioning opening spatially corresponding to the positioning section (Fig 3), and the front docking screw hole is in communication with an exterior through the front positioning opening (Fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the threaded coupling of the screw-rod with a positioning section to increase the strength of the connection.
PNG
media_image4.png
471
318
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 17 as described above, Whicker teaches a docking element (7, Pg 1 Fig) comprises a front docking thread and a rear docking thread (Pg 1 Fig), and the front docking thread and the rear docking thread are arranged on two opposite ends of the positioning body and configured to engage with the front docking screw hole and the rear docking screw hole (Pg 1 Fig). However, Hollander teaches a positioning section for the docking of two rods with threaded docking portion (Fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the threaded coupling of the screw-rod with a center positioning section on the docking element and associated positioning sections of the front and rear docking screw holes to increase the strength of the connection.
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 18 as described above, Whicker further teaches a docking element is smaller than a length of the docking element to allow for the external threads to align (Pg 1 Fig). The combination with the addition of a positioning section results in the sum of the front and rear positioning opening lengths to be greater than the positioning body and less than the docking element to maintain screw rod external thread alignment.
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 18 as described above, Hollander further teaches a thread-rotation direction of the front docking thread and a thread-rotation direction of the rear docking thread are identical or reverse (Pg 1 Fig).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 11,219,983 B2 discloses a gripper device with a lead screw, motor, pulleys and belt drive system.
JP 2001050365 A discloses a screw movement device with a rail, ball screw shaft and motor.
US Patent 5,769,583 A discloses a connecting element with two threaded sides that rotate independently.
CN 103453101 A discloses a double rotary screw with an unthreaded center section.
KR 102268780 B1 discloses a gripper device with a lead screw motorized drive system.
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
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights