DETAILED ACTION This is the first office action for US Application 18/296,611 for a Robot Hand. 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(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. Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are 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. Regarding claim 2, the phrase "groove-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "groove-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0333858 to Asano et al . Regarding claim 1, Asano et al. discloses a robot hand comprising a plurality of claw members (3401, 3402, 3403) configured to grip a gripping target member. There is a support member (200) that holds one end portions of the respective claw members such that the claw members are swingable. There is an actuator (500) configured to drive the claw members and a plurality of sensors (341, 342, 343) attached to the respective claw members. Each of the sensors is configured to sense an amount of deformation of a corresponding one of the claw members to which the sensors are attached, when the claw members grip the gripping target member. 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. Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al . Sano et al. discloses the sensor as having a width narrower than a width of the clam members in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the claw members, but does not disclose each of the sensors as including a piezoelectric sensor. However, the specific type of sensor is a design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art found does not include sensors mounted to faces of the claw members, wherein each claw member has a grooved stress concentration point formed on the other of the faces, the stress concentration point extending across an entire width of each of the claw members, and located opposite a corresponding one of the sensors . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0009075 to Maeda US 2019/0176348 to Bingham US 2020/0077859 to Sakakibara US 12162139 to Gonzalez Diaz US 2019/0309928 to Vause US 2020/0262089 to Bingham US 2022/039803 to Bingham US 3888362 to Fletcher US 2021/0323143 to Zanella The above prior art discloses various robot gripping apparatus. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6819 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 pm . 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 Terrell McKinnon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4797 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT STEVEN M. MARSH Primary Examiner Art Unit 3632 /STEVEN M MARSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632