DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112 rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
These rejections have been withdrawn.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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; or
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Komichi (JP 2020097073)(with text citations to English translation previously provided).
Komichi (fig. 1-7) teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
(re: claim 1) circuitry configured to
a detect a slip generated on an object grasped by a robot hand of a robot (fig. 2 and 6 showing robot including grasping part 41; p. 3-6 teaching robot 10 including arm 11 and gripper hand 41, wherein slip calculating unit 214 determines a slip direction of a workpiece 42 within gripper hand 41, wherein p. 4 last paragraph+ teaches that the control and calculating elements includes processor and circuity elements, such as RAM, hardware circuitry and micro-processing units); and
a control, according to the slip of the object, movement of a whole body of the robot in coordination by controlling a mobile body of the robot that causes the whole body of the robot to travel to a different position (fig. 6 showing movement of entire multi-jointed arm, i.e., whole body of robot, with gripper hand 41 at end of whole body to a different position/posture; p. 5-9 teaching control unit comprising a trajectory generation unit 213 that calculates trajectory of gripper unit of arm based on targets, such as position, velocity and acceleration, wherein control unit adjusts trajectory and positioning of the gripper unit based on slip sensors, slip calculating unit 214 and related control parameters for state of the robot and object picking operation; see also fig. 5a, 5b);
(re: claim 2) wherein the circuitry controls movement of each of configurations that constitute the whole body of the robot, the configurations including at least a manipulator part to which the robot hand is attached (Id. with fig. 6 showing various configurations);
(re: claim 3) wherein, on a basis of a control target value indicating an amount of controlling movement of each of configurations that constitute the whole body of the robot, the circuitry controls movement of each of the configurations so as to cancel the slip of the object (Id. teaching that target values for position, velocity and acceleration and controlling movement of arm and gripper accordingly, wherein configuration is adjusted to cancel slip, e.g., by rotating gripper opposite the force of gravity or adjusting gripping torque);
(re: claim 12) wherein the circuitry controls movement of one the manipulator part on a basis of a control target value of one the manipulator part (p. 4-6 teaching controlling individual parts, e.g., driving units 16 for each arm joint, based on target values/control parameters that include velocity and acceleration);
(re: claim 13) wherein the circuitry controls movement of a plurality of the manipulator parts on a basis of a control target value of each of a plurality of the manipulator parts (fig. 6 showing various configurations of manipulator parts near 13a, 13b, 13c, 13d; p. 5-9 teaching control unit adjusts trajectory and positioning of the gripper unit, i.e., of the respective manipulator parts, based on target values related to position, velocity and acceleration, in relation to slip control);
(re: claim 14) wherein the circuitry controls movement of each of a configurations that constitute the whole body of the robot so as to cancel the slip of the object on a basis of an amount and direction of the slip generated on the object (Id. teaching control of various configuration of manipulator part based on slip control calculations).
(re: claims 15 and 16) The related information processing method and program are taught in the normal operation of the apparatus cited above (see e.g., p. 4+ teaching control and storage elements for data and programs configured to conduct information processing related to controlling movement of a robot according to the slip of an object).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komichi (JP 2020097073) in view of Ryu (JP 2006297542).
Komichi as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 11) wherein the robot hand includes a flexible deformation layer that comes into contact with the object when grasping the object, and
a pressure distribution sensor that detects distribution of pressure applied to the flexible deformation layer, and circuitry detects a slip of the object on a basis of a result of detection by the pressure distribution sensor.
Ryu, however, teaches that it is well-known in the material handling arts to utilize a pressure distribution sensor as part of flexible layer of a grasping part to better detect a slip of an object (Abstract teaching use of pressure sensors integrated with a soft deformable structure to determine slip of a gripped object).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Komichi for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 1-3 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komichi (JP 2020097073) in view of Kouno et al. (“Kouno”)(US 9,186,791).
Komichi as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 17) wherein the mobile body includes a plurality of wheels, and the circuitry is configured to control rotation of the plurality of wheels to cause the whole body of the robot to travel;
(re: claim 18) wherein the circuitry is configured to change a traveling direction of the robot by controlling a direction of the plurality of wheels;
(re: claim 19) wherein the mobile body is provided at a lower end of a body of the robot, and supports the body.
Further, under an alternate interpretation, Komichi may be regarded as not teaching the movement of the mobile body to a different position.
Kouno, however, expressly teaches that it is well-known in the robot arts to include a plurality of wheels on a mobile body of a gripping unit to allow the robot more mobility and the capability of traveling in in multiple directions along a specific travel route, i.e., to a different position, while grasping an object (fig. 10 near 301, 303; col. 1, ln. 58-col. 2, ln. 30; col. 8, ln. 28-col. 11, ln. 55 teaching mobile robot with four drive wheels and related circuity that allows robot to change direction via drive wheels as well as stabilize the grasping operation; see also fig. 13 and 14 showing control elements for driving wheels in various directions and fig. 3 showing mobile robot in a work area with possible travel routs). It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (i.e., drive wheels and related circuitry) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Komichi for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in the reformulated prior art rejections as set forth above. Here, Applicant argues that the prior art (Komichi) fails to describe “movement of a whole body of the robot ...to a different position” as Komichi is fixed to a pedestal. Examiner disagrees and notes that it is not unreasonable to regard the movement as shown in figure 6 as movement of the “whole body” of a robot to a different position.
PNG
media_image1.png
546
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Indeed, the different elements that make-up the “body” of the robot are clearly in different positions during the slip control method. IN any case, this line of argument as well as the additional mobile features of the wheels and related circuitry have been rendered moot as well as obvious by the teachings of Kouno as set forth above. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art renders the claimed invention obvious, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
------
March 20, 2026