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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 17 and 18 are apparatus claims which recite no additional
structure to further limit the structure as recited in the respective claims from which they
depend. Recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be
employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1,8,9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Iwazaki(US 20190351562 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
500
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Iwazaki teaches a mechanism for gripping a container, the mechanism comprising: a linear rail mount having first and second, laterally-opposed sides; first and second linear rails 81 and 82 disposed on, respectively, the first and second sides of the linear rail mount; a first gripper finger mount including a first mounting flange 71 disposed below the linear rail mount 8; a first linear rail guide supported on the first gripper finger mount and coupled with the first linear rail 81 on the first side of the linear rail mount; a first rack 31 supported on the first gripper finger mount; a second gripper finger mount including a second mounting flange 72 disposed below the linear rail mount 8; a second linear rail guide 82 supported on the second gripper finger mount and coupled with the second linear rail on the second side of the linear rail mount; a second rack 32 supported on the second gripper finger mount; a first gripper finger 41 secured to the first mounting flange 71 of the first gripper finger mount and extending below the linear rail mount 8; a second gripper finger 42 secured to the second mounting flange 72 of the second gripper finger mount and extending below the linear rail mount 8; a drive motor 6; and a pinion gear 51 coupled to the drive motor and engaged with the first and second racks 31 and 32 such that rotation of the pinion gear 51 by the drive motor 6 in a first direction A causes the first and second gripper fingers to move toward each other and rotation of the pinion gear by the drive motor in a second direction A causes the first and second gripper fingers to move away from each other.
(Refer to annotated Iwazaki Fig. 1 and 2 above)
Regarding Claim 8, Iwazaki teaches the mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first rack 31 is fastened to the first gripper finger mount, and the second rack 32 is fastened to the second gripper finger mount. (Refer to annotated Iwazaki Fig. 1 and 2 above)
Regarding Claim 9, Iwazaki teaches the mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first gripper finger comprises a first mounting base connected to the first mounting flange 71 of the first gripper finger mount, and the second gripper finger comprises a second mounting base connected to the second mounting flange 72 of the second gripper finger mount.
(Refer to annotated Iwazaki Fig. 1 and 2 above)
Regarding Claim 16, Iwazaki teaches the mechanism claim 1, wherein the rack of the first gripper finger mount 31 is positioned outwardly from the first side of the linear rail mount and above a top edge of the linear rail mount, and wherein the rack of the second gripper finger mount 32 is positioned outwardly from the second side of the linear rail mount and above a top edge of the linear rail mount. (Refer to annotated Iwazaki Fig. 1 and 2 above)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagai (US 20160221188 A1).
PNG
media_image3.png
600
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Iwazaki teaches the mechanism of claim 1, Iwazaki fails to teach wherein the first linear rail guide of the first gripper finger mount comprises a rail slot that receives the first linear rail , and the second linear rail guide of the second gripper finger mount comprises a rail slot that receives the second linear rail. However, Nagai teaches a robot hand with linear rail guides 13a and 13b and mounts where the first gripper finger mount comprises a rail slot 19a that receives the first linear rail 141a, and the second linear rail guide 13b of the second gripper finger mount comprises a rail slot 19b that receives the second linear rail 141b . 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 Iwazaki and Nagai to have linear rail guides with a slot that receives the linear rails so that the gripper fingers are confined to a predetermined movement direction.
(Refer to annotated Nagai Fig. 2 above)
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vranish (US 4707013 A).
PNG
media_image4.png
320
508
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
380
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Iwazaki teaches the mechanism of claim 1. Iwazaki fails to teach wherein the first and second linear rails are attached to, respectively, the first and second sides of the linear rail mount by mechanical fasteners. However, Vranish teaches a split rail parallel gripper with linear rails wherein the first and second linear rails 224 and 226 are attached to, respectively, the first and second sides of the linear rail mount by mechanical fasteners 310. 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 Iwazaki and Vranish to have linear rails attached to the rail mount with mechanical fasteners to achieve a tight fit to the mount and therefore less wobble when the fingers are being operated.
(Refer to annotated Vranish Fig. 1 and 7 above)
PNG
media_image6.png
513
703
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Iwazaki teaches the mechanism of claim 1 , Iwazaki fails to teach wherein the first gripper finger mount includes a vertical wall disposed adjacent the first side of the linear rail mount and wherein the first mounting flange of the first gripper finger mount extends laterally from a bottom end of the vertical wall of the first gripper finger mount beyond the second side of the linear rail mount, and the second gripper finger mount includes a vertical wall disposed adjacent the second side of the linear rail mount and wherein the second mounting flange of the second gripper finger mount extends laterally from a bottom end of the vertical wall of the second gripper finger mount beyond the first side of the linear rail mount. However, Vranish teaches a teaches a split rail parallel gripper with gripper finger mounts, linear rail mounts where first gripper finger mount includes a vertical wall disposed adjacent the first side of the linear rail mount and wherein the first mounting flange of the first gripper finger mount extends laterally from a bottom end of the vertical wall of the first gripper finger mount beyond the second side of the linear rail mount, and the second gripper finger mount includes a vertical wall disposed adjacent the second side of the linear rail mount and wherein the second mounting flange of the second gripper finger mount extends laterally from a bottom end of the vertical wall of the second gripper finger mount beyond the first side of the linear rail mount. 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 Iwazaki and Vranish to have a laterally extending mounting flange from the vertical wall adjacent to the linear mount where the gripper finger is mounted so that based on how far the mounting flange is extended, we can control how far from the linear mount the gripping fingers are. (Refer to Vranish Fig above)
Regarding Claim 6, Iwazaki teaches the mechanism of claim 1, Iwazaki fails to teach wherein the mounting flange of each of the first and second gripper finger mounts has a step formed in an edge of the mounting flange facing the mounting flange of the other of the first and second gripper finger mounts. However, Vranish teaches a split rail parallel gripper with first and second gripper finger mounts and step formed in an edge of the mounting flange facing the mounting flange of the other of the first and second gripper finger mounts. 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 Iwazaki and Vranish to have finger mounts with a step formed so that they can control how raised the gripping fingers are from the finger mount based on the height of the step. (Refer to annotated Vranish Fig. 1 and 7 above)
Regarding Claim 7, Iwazaki as modified by Vranish teaches the mechanism of claim 4, Iwazaki further teaches wherein the first rack 31 is fastened to a top edge of the vertical wall of the first gripper finger mount, and the second rack is fastened 32 to a top edge of the vertical wall of the second gripper finger mount. (Refer to annotated Iwazaki Fig. 2 above)
Regarding Claim 10, Iwazaki further teaches the mechanism of claim 9, Iwazaki fails to teach wherein the mounting base of each of the first and second gripper fingers has a step formed in an edge of the mounting base facing the mounting base of the other of the first and second gripper fingers. However, Vranish teaches a split rail parallel gripper with first and second gripper finger mounts and step formed in an edge of the mounting base facing the mounting base of the other of the first and second gripper fingers. 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 Iwazaki and Vranish to have finger mounts with a step formed so that they can control how raised the gripping fingers are from the mounting base based on the height of the step.
(Refer to annotated Vranish Fig. 1 and 7 above)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwazaki as modified by Vranish as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Nagai.
Regarding Claim 5, Iwazaki as modified by Vranish teaches the mechanism of claim 4, Iwazaki fails to teach wherein the first linear rail guide of the first gripper finger mount is secured within a slot formed in the vertical wall of the first gripper finger mount, and the second linear rail guide of the second gripper finger mount is secured within a slot formed in the vertical wall of the second gripper finger mount. However, Nagai teaches a robot hand with linear rail guides and mounts wherein the first linear rail guide of the first gripper finger mount is secured within a slot formed in the vertical wall of the first gripper finger mount, and the second linear rail guide of the second gripper finger mount is secured within a slot formed in the vertical wall of the second gripper finger mount. 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 Iwazaki, Vranish and Nagai to have linear rail guides with a slot formed in the vertical wall of the finger mount that receives the linear rails so that the gripper fingers are confined to a predetermined movement direction.
(Refer to annotated Nagai Fig. 2 above)
Claim(s) 11,19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Redmond, Jr (US 4968077 A)
PNG
media_image7.png
381
671
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Iwazaki teaches the mechanism of claim 1, Iwazaki fails to teach wherein the first gripper finger comprises: an upper vertical segment; a lower vertical segment; an angled segment between a lower end of the upper vertical segment and an upper end of the lower vertical segment so that the lower vertical segment is laterally offset to a position closer to the second gripper finger than the upper vertical segment; and a gripper segment that is laterally offset from the lower vertical segment so as to be disposed closer to the second gripper finger than the lower vertical segment of the first gripper finger, and wherein the second gripper finger comprises: an upper vertical segment; a lower vertical segment; an angled segment between a lower end of the upper vertical segment and an upper end of the lower vertical segment so that the lower vertical segment is laterally offset to a position closer to the first gripper finger than the upper vertical segment; and a gripper segment that is laterally offset from the lower vertical segment so as to be disposed closer to the first gripper finger than the lower vertical segment of the second gripper finger. However, Redmond Jr. teaches a portable handheld gripper with two gripper fingers where the first gripper finger 34 comprises: an upper vertical segment; a lower vertical segment; an angled segment between a lower end of the upper vertical segment and an upper end of the lower vertical segment so that the lower vertical segment is laterally offset to a position closer to the second gripper finger than the upper vertical segment; and a gripper segment that is laterally offset from the lower vertical segment so as to be disposed closer to the second gripper finger than the lower vertical segment of the first gripper finger, and wherein the second gripper finger 32 comprises: an upper vertical segment; a lower vertical segment; an angled segment between a lower end of the upper vertical segment and an upper end of the lower vertical segment so that the lower vertical segment is laterally offset to a position closer to the first gripper finger than the upper vertical segment; and a gripper segment that is laterally offset from the lower vertical segment so as to be disposed closer to the first gripper finger than the lower vertical segment of the second gripper finger. 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 Iwazaki and Redmond Jr. to have gripper with differently oriented segments and a lower segment with laterally offset segment portions to best facilitate gripping of objects.
(Refer to annotated Redmond Jr. Fig. 1 above)
Regarding Claim 19, Iwazaki teaches a mechanism for gripping a container; the mechanism comprising: a linear rail mount having first and second, laterally opposed sides; first and second linear rails 81 and 82 disposed on, respectively, the first and second sides of the linear rail mount 8 ; a first gripper finger assembly including first gripper finger 41 and a first gripper finger mount, wherein the first gripper finger mount includes a first linear rail guide coupled with the first linear rail on the first side of the linear rail mount and a first mounting flange 71 disposed below the linear rail mount to which the first gripper finger is attached; a second gripper finger assembly including a second gripper finger 42 and a second gripper finger mount, wherein the second finger gripper mount includes a second linear rail guide coupled with the second linear rail on the second side of the linear rail mount and second a mounting flange 72 disposed below the linear rail mount to which the second gripper finger is attached, wherein the first and second gripper finger assemblies are configured to be movable with respect to each other so as to move the first and second gripper fingers toward or away from each other; and a drive motor 6 coupled to the first and second gripper finger assemblies such that rotation of the drive motor in a first direction causes the first and second gripper fingers to move toward each other and rotation of the drive motor in a second direction causes the first and second gripper fingers to move away from each other. Iwazaki fails to teach wherein the first gripper finger comprises: an upper vertical segment; a lower vertical segment; an angled segment between a lower end of the upper vertical segment and an upper end of the lower vertical segment so that the lower vertical segment is laterally offset to a position closer to the second gripper finger than the upper vertical segment; and a gripper segment that is laterally offset from the lower vertical segment so as to be disposed closer to the second gripper finger than the lower vertical segment of the first gripper finger, and wherein the second gripper finger comprises: an upper vertical segment; a lower vertical segment; an angled segment between a lower end of the upper vertical segment and an upper end of the lower vertical segment so that the lower vertical segment is laterally offset to a position closer to the first gripper finger than the upper vertical segment; and a gripper segment that is laterally offset from the lower vertical segment so as to be disposed closer to the first gripper finger than the lower vertical segment of the second gripper finger. However, Redmond Jr. teaches a portable handheld gripper with two gripper fingers where the first gripper finger 34 comprises: an upper vertical segment; a lower vertical segment; an angled segment between a lower end of the upper vertical segment and an upper end of the lower vertical segment so that the lower vertical segment is laterally offset to a position closer to the second gripper finger than the upper vertical segment; and a gripper segment that is laterally offset from the lower vertical segment so as to be disposed closer to the second gripper finger than the lower vertical segment of the first gripper finger, and wherein the second gripper finger 32 comprises: an upper vertical segment; a lower vertical segment; an angled segment between a lower end of the upper vertical segment and an upper end of the lower vertical segment so that the lower vertical segment is laterally offset to a position closer to the first gripper finger than the upper vertical segment; and a gripper segment that is laterally offset from the lower vertical segment so as to be disposed closer to the first gripper finger than the lower vertical segment of the second gripper finger. 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 Iwazaki and Redmond Jr. to have a gripper with a movement mechanism and a design for the gripping fingers to best facilitate gripping of objects. (Refer to annotated Iwazaki Fig. 1 and 2 above)
Regarding Claim 20, Iwazaki as modified by Redmond Jr. teaches the mechanism of claim 19, Iwazaki further teaches wherein the first gripper finger assembly comprises a first rack 31 and the second gripper finger assembly comprise a second rack 32, and wherein the mechanism further comprises a pinion gear 51 coupled to the drive motor 6 and operatively engaged with the first and second racks 31 and 32. (Refer to annotated Iwazaki Fig. 1 and 2 above)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwazaki as modified by Redmond Jr. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Park (US 20110148132 A1).
PNG
media_image8.png
484
586
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Iwazaki as modified by Redmond Jr. teaches the mechanism of claim 11, Iwazaki fails to teach wherein the upper vertical segments, the lower vertical segments, and the angled segments comprise spaced-apart bars. However, Park teaches a gripping device with gripping finger segments wherein the upper vertical segments, the lower vertical segments, and the angled segments comprise spaced-apart bars. 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 and Park to have a gripping finger with segments comprising spaced apart bars so that less material is used in manufacturing the gripper. (Refer to annotated Fig. 2 above)
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwazaki as modified by Redmond Jr. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Nagai .
Regarding Claim 13, Iwazaki as modified by Redmond Jr. teaches the mechanism of claim 11, Iwazaki fails to teach wherein the gripper segment of each of the first and second gripping fingers comprises converging, angled gripping surfaces. However, Nagai teaches a robot hand with gripper fingers wherein the gripper segment of each of the first and second gripping fingers comprises converging, angled gripping surfaces 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 Iwazaki, Redmond Jr. and Nagai to have gripping fingers with converging and angles gripper segments so that the gripper can grip a higher variety of object shapes.
(Refer to annotated Nagai Fig. 2 above)
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwazaki as modified by Redmond Jr. and Nagai as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of, Leidenfrost (US 20190168396 A1) .
Regarding Claim 14, Iwazaki as modified by Redmond Jr. and Nagai teaches the mechanism of claim 13, further comprising an elastomeric gripping pad secured to the angled gripping surfaces of each of the first and second gripping fingers. However, Leidenfrost teaches an end effector with gripping members further comprising an elastomeric gripping pad secured to the angled gripping surfaces of each of the first and second gripping fingers. 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 Iwazaki, Redmond Jr., Nagai and Leidenfrost to have a gripper capable of gripping more fragile objects.
(Refer to Leidenfrost Paragraph [0075])
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwazaki as modified by Redmond Jr., Nagai and Leidenfrost as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Fattal (US 20180002215 A1) .
Regarding Claim 15, Iwazaki as modified by Redmond Jr., Nagai and Leidenfrost teaches the mechanism of claim 14, Iwazaki fails to teach wherein the elastomeric gripping pad comprises a fluoropolymer elastomer and synthetic rubber compound. However, Fattal teaches a gripper device where the gripping pad comprises a fluoropolymer elastomer and synthetic rubber compound. 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 Iwazaki, Redmond Jr., Nagai, Leidenfrost and Fattal to have a gripper capable of gripping more fragile objects.
(Refer to Paragraph [0051])
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bieler (US 20130020820 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Iwazaki teaches the mechanism of claim 1, Iwazaki fails to teach wherein the first and second gripping fingers are configured to grasp a container in an upright orientation from a position above the container. However, Bieler teaches a gripper claw having gripper fingers for vertically grasping test tubes, liquid containers etc. where the gripping pad comprises a fluoropolymer elastomer and synthetic rubber compound. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Iwazaki and Bieler to have the first and second gripping fingers are configured to grasp a container in an upright orientation from a position above the container so that the mechanism can be used in manufacturing or laboratories where gripping from the sides would not be possible.
(Refer to Paragraph [0067] and Paragraph [0111])
Regarding Claim 18, Iwazaki teaches the mechanism of claim 1, Iwazaki fails to teach wherein the container comprises a test tube. However, Bieler teaches a gripper claw having gripper fingers for vertically grasping test tubes, liquid containers etc. where the gripping pad comprises a fluoropolymer elastomer and synthetic rubber compound. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Iwazaki and Bieler to have the first and second gripping fingers are configured to grasp a container in an upright orientation from a position above the container so that the mechanism can be used in manufacturing or laboratories where gripping from the sides would not be possible.
(Refer to Paragraph [0067] and Paragraph [0111])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN BRAHJA whose telephone number is (571)272-9777. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights