DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments in general appear to be in the same spirit as those presented in the Office Action dated 11/05/2025. In short, Applicant variously argues features which are not recited in the rejected claims and/or which are indicated as having an interpretation much narrower than the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. For Applicant’s arguments to hold merit, they should hold clear support within the language of the claims themselves. While the specification may indicate support for limitations or inform the meaning of terms and phrases, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If Applicant believes the argued limitations to be of patentable novelty with respect to the established prior art, the limitations of the claims should clearly reflect the language used in the arguments.
With respect to 1.:
As already noted with respect to the previous claims in 7. of the Office Action dated 11/05/2025, Applicant does not use the word “only” or similar in the language of the claims, which are comprising claims. This is illustrated even in Applicant’s recitation of the claim language which immediately refutes the assertion, being wholly absent of the word “only”, “consisting”, or similar exclusive phrasing.
Various other features are discussed with respect to the prior art which similarly are not found within the limitations of the claims. For example, a feature of waiting for stability.
With respect to 2.:
Applicant does not appear to provide any argument for the meaning of “stable reference position” that is rooted in the language of the claim itself. All of Applicant’s arguments appear rooted in the specification rather than the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The newly amended limitations of “stable” before “reference position”, “thereby indicating a stable grasp”, and “for the purpose of establishing a fixed baseline” do not appear to meaningfully alter the scope of the claims. The term “stable” is interpreted first under its plain meaning. MPEP 2111.01 relates. Second, the term stable even appears indicated within the claim as simply when the condition is met; see “thereby indicating a stable grasp”. Third, as indicated the phrase itself, “thereby indicating a stable grasp” appears to merely be descriptive and does not impose any particular nature to “stable” to the limitations. It appears to at most be merely describing the intended interpretation of the condition and is not necessarily a positively recited limitation. MPEP 2111.04(I) relates. Fourth, and related to the above “for the purpose of establishing a fixed baseline” as explicitly provided in the claim merely recites an “intended purpose”. There is no clear required change in scope to the claim by providing as such. The intent of computing, gathering, etc. data does not inherently change the nature of the data itself.
Applicant should explicitly claim any of these associated features in a manner which actually changes the scope of the limitations for these arguments to hold merit. What specifically is different about a “reference position” that makes it “stable”? What specifically is different about the computation of the measurements such that they are considered “for the purpose of establishing a fixed baseline”? As an example, the purpose of filling a container with water does not inherently change the act thereof. A glass filled halfway to drink or a glass filled halfway to pour out are not understood to require different means of filling.
With respect to 3.:
The arguments of 3. appear reliant on those made in 1. and 2. In particular, they appear to require non-existent limitations. For example a limitation of “wait[ing] for the grasp to become verifiably stable .. and then …”. The claims do not recite any step or action of waiting, verifying stability, etc. As another example, the Applicant recites a feature of “the gripper then monitors for any displacement relative to that fixed baseline”. Again, the claims do not recite any step or action of monitoring for displacement relative to a fixed baseline. The claims recite “with respect to the stable reference position”. As already discussed, the claims do not appear to establish any particular meaning of “stable”, except perhaps it being inherent already to the limitation preceding the introduction of the term, and the claims do not provide that the stable reference position is a “fixed baseline”. Instead, the claims merely indicate “the purpose” which does not inherently change what it is. Alternatively, and furthermore, even the nature of “fixed” does not appear established even as narrowly argued. A cursory search of the specification indicates there may be no support for a “fixed” limitation, wherein “fixed” means it never changes (the implied meaning from the argument)
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 10, 12 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuboi et al. (US 20090076657 A1) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20090285664 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 – 2 and 6 – 8, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 9 – 10, 12 and 15 – 16 with respect to the application of prior art, this position being supported by at least Applicant’s Remarks filed 10/06/2025 which argues the claims collectively rather than separately. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 9 – 10, 12 and 15 – 16 below.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Tsuboi and Kim teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Tsuboi further teaches:
wherein the displacement of the grasped object with respect to the stable reference position is detected if (Examiner notes that the claim is a comprising claim and does not recite “only if” and is therefore not exclusive of broader overlapping conditions) a difference between a position datum obtained by the at least one position sensor and the stable reference position is above a predetermined threshold value and/or if a difference between a position datum obtained by the at least one center of pressure sensor and the stable reference position is above a predetermined threshold value (See at least [0105] “The slip detecting unit 124 compares a calculation result of the pressure center movement detection calculation with a predetermined threshold (hereinafter referred to as judgment threshold) and detects a slip. Alternatively, the slip detecting unit 124 directly compares the pressure center movement calculated value from the pressure-center-movement calculating unit 123 and the judgment threshold and detects a slip”).
Regarding Claim 9, Tsuboi teaches:
A gripper, comprising:
a gripper body (See at least hand section 16);
at least two grasping jaws movable with respect to the gripper body between an idle open position and a closed position for grasping an object (See at least fingers in Figures 1A and 1B);
…
a grasping force sensor, suitable to measure a grasping force exerted by the grasping jaws on the object (See at least [0189] “The pressure sensor 457 and the force sensor 458 as detecting means for detecting a slip of the object and outputting a slip detection value detect pressure and force acting on the object, respectively”);
at least one center of pressure sensor, suitable to detect coordinates of a center of pressure between the grasping jaws of the gripper when the grasping jaws exert the grasping force on the object (See at least [0103] “The pressure-center calculating unit 122 as pressure-center calculating means for calculating a pressure center position using a pressure value calculates a pressure center position using the distributed pressure values from the sensor elements 52”); and
a processing unit (See at least processing unit 53) programmed to carry out a method for controlling the gripper (See at least [0161] “FIG. 10 is a diagram showing a state in which fingers 401 and 402 of the robot hand 1 grip an object 403 as a gripping target from an upper side without causing the object 403 to slip”), the method comprising steps of:
a) commanding the gripper to grasp the object with a predetermined grasping force (See at least [0170] “As shown in FIGS. 12A and 12B, when control for bringing fingers 421, 422, and 423 into contact with an object 424 and causing the object 424 to slip is performed by using force control, the control is performed by using a value represented by the following formulas as a force command value”);
b) measuring an effective grasping force by the grasping force sensor (See at least again [0189]);
c) when a difference between the predetermined grasping force and the effective grasping force is below a predetermined threshold value, thereby indicating a stable grasp, computing, using measurements received from at least one position sensor and/or the at least one center of pressure sensor, a stable reference position of the grasped object with respect to a reference system integral with the gripper (See at least [0105] “The slip detecting unit 124 as slip-detection-value calculating means for calculating a slip detection value on the basis of the movement value of the pressure center position performs a pressure center movement detection calculation using a calculation result from the pressure-center-movement calculating unit 123. The slip detecting unit 124 compares a calculation result of the pressure center movement detection calculation with a predetermined threshold (hereinafter referred to as judgment threshold) and detects a slip. Alternatively, the slip detecting unit 124 directly compares the pressure center movement calculated value from the pressure-center-movement calculating unit 123 and the judgment threshold and detects a slip” and [0109] “When a sum of pressure values P(x, y) of the respective sensor elements 52 exceeds a certain threshold th, i.e., satisfies the following formula (2), the contact detecting unit 121 may judge that the sensor elements 52 have detected contact of an object with the input section 31”.
Alternatively, Examiner notes that the claim is a comprising claim and does not recite “only when”, or claim any calculation or determination of the “predetermined threshold value”, the “difference between the predetermined grasping force and the effective grasping force”, or one being larger or smaller than the other (“below”));
d) monitoring a position of the grasped object (See at least again [0105]); and
e) if a displacement of the grasped object with respect to the stable reference position is detected, commanding the gripper to increase the grasping force (See at least again [0105], [0169] “In other words, in order to grip the object with minimum force, it is necessary to reduce gripping force while keeping a state in which the object does not slip. In order to grip the object with minimum force after the object slips, it is necessary to first increase gripping force not to cause the object to slip and, after stopping a slip, reduce the gripping force while keeping a state in which the object does not slip”, [0177] “When the object 424 is controlled not to be caused to slip (controlled to rest), the target slip detection values ref.sub.Sdxi and ref.sub.Sdyi are set to 0 in formula (32). In this case, when the slip detection values Sdx.sub.i(t) and Sdy.sub.i(t) are other than 0, the change value chg.sub.Fy(t) is positive and the command value ref.sub.Fy(t) of the gripping force Fy increases to be larger than the previous command value ref.sub.Fy(t-1)”, and Figures 9 and 15)
wherein the processing unit is programmed to compute the stable reference position as an average of a set of measurements obtained, in a predetermined time interval for the purpose of establishing a fixed baseline, by the at least one position sensor and/or by the at least one center of pressure sensor (See at least [0104] “The pressure-center-movement calculating unit 123 as pressure-center-movement calculating means for calculating a movement value of a pressure center position using a temporal change of the pressure center position accumulates pressure center positions from the pressure-center calculating unit 122 in time series. The pressure-center-movement calculating unit 123 calculates, for example, a difference in a moving average of the accumulated pressure center positions or a difference among the pressure center positions and outputs the calculated difference to the slip detecting unit 124 as a pressure center movement calculated value” or alternatively [0113] “When all the unit areas S(x, y) of the respective sensor elements 52 are the same as in the example shown in FIG. 5, the pressure center position COPx, COPy is briefly calculated by the following formula (5):” and formula 5 wherein COPx and COPy are each a form of an average under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. For example, Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (accessed 10/27/2025) provides one definition of an average as “a single value (such as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values”).
Tsuboi does not explicitly teach, but Kim teaches:
…
at least one proximity sensor suitable to detect a presence of the object to be grasped within a field of vision of the at least one proximity sensor (See at least [0050] “The distance sensors 106 and 108 serve to detect a distance between the robot hand 100 and an object 110 when an operation using the robot hand 100 is carried out” and Figure 1 or alternatively or additionally [0075] “The robot 1002 further includes a vision system 1004, which is an image device to obtain an image around the robot 1002. Particularly, the vision system 1004 is used to obtain a relative position of the object 100 to the robot hand 100 and then to allow the robot hand 100 to secure a route to approach the object 110” and Figure 10);
…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize proximity sensors as taught by Kim in the hand of Tsuboi with a reasonable expectation of success. While Tsuboi does not explicitly teach the use of a sensor system for locating objects generally or close-range proximity, it is well understood and routine in the art of robotic grasping to include such sensors so that the robot might intelligently operate within its environment.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Tsuboi and Kim teaches:
The gripper according to of claim 9,
Tsuboi further teaches:
wherein the processing unit is programmed to repeat the method for controlling the gripper from step d) after having carried out step e) (See at least control loop illustrated in Figure 13. Additionally, Tsuboi does not disclose slip response ending after a single slip event being detected. See again [0177]).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Tsuboi and Kim teaches:
The gripper according to claim 9,
Tsuboi further teaches:
wherein the at least one center of pressure sensor coincides with the grasping force sensor, the grasping force sensor being suitable to carry out torque measurements (See at least “[0103] The pressure-center calculating unit 122 as pressure-center calculating means for calculating a pressure center position using a pressure value calculates a pressure center position using the distributed pressure values from the sensor elements 52”
Alternatively and furthermore, “being suitable to” does not mean that torque measurements are actually carried out, or that anything needs to be configured to do so. It merely indicates suitability for the function, rather than having the function), the processing unit being programmed to compute CoPX and CoPY coordinates of the center of pressure (CoP) as:
PNG
media_image1.png
78
90
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mx and MY being measured moments of the effective grasping force according to X and Y axes, respectively, and |Fz| being a modulus of the effective grasping force along a Z axis (See at least Formula 3, Formula 4, [0111] “When pressure values detected by the respective sensor elements 52 is represented as Pc (x, y) and unit areas of the respective sensor elements 52 are represented as S(x, y), a pressure center position COPx, COPy is calculated by the following formula (4). COPx and COPy represent an x coordinate and a y coordinate of the pressure center position, respectively”, and [0112] “A denominator on the right side of formula (4) represents a sum of forces applied in a normal direction. A numerator on the right side is a sum of torques. Therefore, according to formula (4), a pressure center position is calculated as a representative point of a position where torque is applied”. The threshold value in Formula 3 restricts denominator values to positive values similar to a modulus, particularly in light of Applicant using terms of “effective grasping force” and “grasping sensor” which indicates that non-negative forces in the first place).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Tsuboi and Kim teaches:
The gripper of claim 9,
Tsuboi does not teach, but Kim teaches:
wherein the at least one proximity sensor is an ultrasonic or infrared sensor (See at least [0050] “The distance sensors 106 and 108 employ any one of sensors, which can sense a distance, such as an ultrasonic sensor, a laser sensor, and an infrared sensor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize proximity sensors as already demonstrated above with respect to Claim 9, and Kim which was relied upon for teaching the proximity sensor already teaches the use of ultrasonic and infrared sensors for proximity sensors. Therefore, as Kim was relied upon to teach proximity sensors, it would have been obvious to utilize the same sensor types as disclosed for said sensors.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Tsuboi and Kim teaches:
The gripper of claim 9,
Tsuboi further teaches:
wherein the grasping force sensor and/or the center of pressure sensor are made with a sensor unit array (See at least [0088] “The pressure detecting section 42 includes, for example, plural pressure detection elements (hereinafter also referred to as sensor elements) 52 arranged in a matrix shape on a flexible substrate 51. In other words, a sensor configuring the pressure detecting section 42 is also called distributed pressure sensor”), so as to provide a tactile skin (This does not appear to be a positively recited limitation, but instead an intended effect or purpose of the preceding limitation. Regardless, as Tsuboi considers what is disclosed a tactile skin. See at least [0006] “It is proposed to control grip of an object to, in gripping the object with the robot hand, detect a slip with a tactile sensor” and [0067] “The sensor 21 has on the surface thereof a viscoelastic body having softness like the human skin”), and/or with a force/torque sensor (See again various preceding recitations which have illustrated that force and torque might be measured directly or indirectly using the sensors of Tsuboi).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Tsuboi and Kim teaches:
The gripper of claim 9,
Tsuboi does not teach, but Kim explicitly teaches:
wherein the processing unit is also programmed to:
monitor a grasping area, by the at least one proximity sensor, to detect the presence of the object to be grasped;
compare a position of the object to be grasped with a predetermined grasping position, the predetermined grasping position being a relative position or pose between the object and the gripper appropriate to initiate grasping; and
command the gripper to grasp the object with the predetermined grasping force when a distance between the position of the object to be grasped and the predetermined grasping position is below a predetermined threshold value (Examiner notes that the nature of the threshold value is not claimed. (See at least Figure 3 and [0061] “In the control system of the robot hand of FIG. 3, the robot hand 100 approaches the object 110 using coordinate value-type position data of the object 110, which are obtained in advance by a method, such as mapping. That is, relative position data of the object 110 in the type of coordinate values against a base (not shown), on which the arm 112 is mounted, are obtained in advance and stored. Then, when the robot hand 100 is controlled and conducts an operation to the object 100, the robot hand 100 approaches the object 110 by controlling the arm 112 based on the relative position data. Here, the used position data (coordinate values) of the object 110, which represent the approximate position of the object 110, are enough. After the robot hand 110 approaches the vicinity of the object 110, the robot hand 110 approaches the object 110 more closely by sensing the distance with the object 110 using the distance sensors 108” or Figure 4 and [0063] “When the robot hand 100 approaches the object 110, the arm 112 and the robot hand 100 are controlled such that the distances between all the distance sensors 108 of the robot hand 100 and the object 110 are equal (406). Although the robot hand 100 approaches the object 110 by the control of the arm 112, the robot hand 100 cannot reach a correct position to grip the object 110. That is, as shown in FIG. 5A, when the robot hand 100 slightly deviates from the position of the object 110, a measured distance 502 and another measured distance 504 differ from each other (i.e., the distance 502<the distance 504). Therethrough, the robot hand 100 recognizes that the object 110 to be gripped is not located at the center of the robot hand 100 but is closer to one side of the robot hand 100 (to the measured distance 502). In order to correctly grip the object 110, the object 110 to be gripped is located at the central portion of the robot hand 100, i.e., the center among the plurality of the fingers 104. Thus, the position of the robot hand 100 and the respective postures of the fingers 104 are controlled such that the object 110 can be located at the center among the plurality of fingers 104, as shown in FIG. 5B (408)”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the robot arm of Tsuboi such that an object to be grasped is monitored and grasped only once the grasping end effector and the object to be grasped are positioned appropriately relative to each other as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. It is well known in the art of robotic grasping that the success of a robotic grasp is dependent on the spatial relationship of the end effector and the object to be grasped, from extremes such as the object even existing in proximity to more minute control of individual components of an end effectors position among other factors.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Tsuboi and Kim teaches:
The gripper of claim 9,
Tsuboi further teaches:
further comprising proportional control means commandable by the processing unit to continuously control the grasping force (See at least control loop illustrated in Figure 13. Examiner notes that the nature of “continuously” is not claimed with any particularity).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Tsuboi and Kim teaches:
The gripper of claim 14,
Tsuboi further teaches:
wherein the sensor unit array is of the capacitive type (See at least [0079] “The pressure detecting section 42 includes a capacitance-type pressure sensor that detects pressure making use of a principle of detection of, for example, a resistance change and a capacitance change”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657