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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding Nakayama have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claim citations have been amended in accordance with the amended claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “elastic element is a coil spring”;
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-18, 20, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakayama, US 20170282379.
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama discloses: A gripping apparatus (Fig. 1, robot gripping device 60) for gripping a sample container (Fig. 3A, workpiece W), the gripping apparatus comprising:
a gripper body (Fig. 2, front end part 61, air cylinder 62, output shaft 63, coupling 64) comprising a gripper actuator (Fig. 2, air cylinder 62);
at least two gripper fingers (Figs. 1A-20, best seen in 9A-9C, reinforcing member 20 includes a first reinforcing part 21, second reinforcing part 22, and third reinforcing part 23) each comprising a gripping surface (Figs. 1A-20, first anti-slip part 2), wherein at least one of the at least two gripper fingers is movably coupled to the gripper body, and wherein the gripping apparatus is configured to grip a sample container with the gripping surfaces of the at least two gripper fingers by movement of the at least one movable gripper finger (see Figs. 1A-20); and
wherein the gripping apparatus (Fig. 1, robot gripping device 60) comprises at least one elastically mounted contacting surface (Figs. 1A-20, second anti-slip part 3) configured to elastically contact a sample container to be gripped by the gripping apparatus; and
wherein the at least one elastically mounted contacting surface (Figs. 1A-20, second anti-slip part 3) is elastically mounted to the gripper body via an elastic element (Figs. 1A-20, finger part bodies 1) that is distinct from the at least two gripper fingers (Figs. 1A-20, best seen in 9A-9C, reinforcing member 20 includes a first reinforcing part 21, second reinforcing part 22, and third reinforcing part 23).
Regarding claim 2, Nakayama further discloses: the gripping apparatus is configured to grip a sample container having a sample container axis (best seen in Figs. 3A-5B, axis “a”), the at least two gripper fingers define a gripping axis, and the at least one elastically mounted contacting surface is configured to align the sample container axis of the sample container with the gripping axis before the sample container is gripped by the gripping apparatus (see Figs. 3A-5B).
Regarding claim 3, Nakayama further discloses: to each of the at least two gripper fingers at least one elastically mounted contacting surface is attached (Figs. 1A-20, second anti-slip part 3).
Regarding claim 4, Nakayama further discloses: at least one elastically mounted contacting surface (Figs. 1A-20, second anti-slip part 3) is coupled to one of the at least two gripper fingers (Figs. 1A-20, best seen in 9A-9C, finger part bodies 1 attached to reinforcing member 20 includes a first reinforcing part 21, second reinforcing part 22, and third reinforcing part 23).
Regarding claim 6, Nakayama further discloses: the gripping surfaces (Figs. 1A-20, first anti-slip part 2) of the at least two gripper fingers (Figs. 1A-20, best seen in 9A-9C, finger part bodies 1 attached to reinforcing member 20 includes a first reinforcing part 21, second reinforcing part 22, and third reinforcing part 23) are un-elastically coupled to the gripper body.
Regarding claim 7, Nakayama discloses: A gripper finger (Figs. 1A-20, best seen in 9A-9C, finger part bodies 1 attached to reinforcing member 20 includes a first reinforcing part 21, second reinforcing part 22, and third reinforcing part 23) for a gripping apparatus (Fig. 1, robot gripping device 60) for gripping a sample container (Fig. 3A, workpiece W), the gripper finger comprising a gripper finger body (Figs. 1A-20, best seen in 9A-9C, finger part bodies 1 attached to reinforcing member 20 includes a first reinforcing part 21, second reinforcing part 22, and third reinforcing part 23) comprising a gripping surface (Figs. 1A-20, first anti-slip part 2 or second anti-slip part 3) for gripping a sample container,
at least one contacting surface (Figs. 1A-20, first anti-slip part 2 or second anti-slip part 3) elastically mounted to the gripper finger body,
wherein the at least one contacting surface (Figs. 1A-20, second anti-slip part 3) is elastically mounted to the gripper finger body via an elastic element (Figs. 1A-20, finger part bodies 1), and wherein the at least one contacting surface and the elastic element are comprised in a monolithic element ([0089], “Alternatively, the inside surface of each finger part body 1 may have relief shapes or grooves directly formed on it, so the finger part body 1 and the second anti-slip part 3 may be integrally formed.”).
Regarding claim 8, Nakayama further discloses: the at least one contacting surface (Figs. 1A-20, second anti-slip part 3) is rigid ([0128] “Thus, in the present invention, a rigid separation limiting part 154 extending between each second anti-slip part 3 and the finger part body 1 is attached to the second anti-slip part 3.”).
Regarding claim 11, Nakayama further discloses: the gripper finger is configured such that the at least one contacting surface (Figs. 1A-20, first anti-slip part 2 or second anti-slip part 3) is closer to a sample container about to be gripped by the gripper finger than the gripping surface (Figs. 1A-20, first anti-slip part 2 or second anti-slip part 3).
Regarding claim 12, Nakayama further discloses: the gripper finger is configured such that the at least one contacting surface (Figs. 1A-20, first anti-slip part 2 or second anti-slip part 3) has a play that allows the at least one contacting surface to be pushed at least to a level of the gripping surface (see Figs. 1-9C).
Regarding claim 13, Nakayama further discloses: the at least one contacting surface (Figs. 1A-20, second anti-slip part 3) comprises at least a first section and a second section, wherein the first section is configured to apply a first force to a sample container to be gripped by the gripper finger, the second section is configured to apply a second force to a sample container to be gripped by the gripper finger, and the direction of the first force is different from the direction of the second force (see Figs. 5A-5B and 8A for the best example of this limitation).
Regarding claim 14, Nakayama further discloses: A laboratory instrument for handling a sample container comprising one gripping apparatus according to claim 1 (this limitation represents an intended use of the device. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this instance, the Nakayama device is a robot gripping device. There is no claimed limitation that would alter its form and function related to it working in a laboratory).
Regarding claim 15, Nakayama further discloses: the elastic element (Figs. 1A-20, finger part bodies 1) is a coil spring or a leaf spring ([0068] “Each finger part body 1 is preferably made from a spring steel plate”).
Regarding claim 16, Nakayama further discloses: the gripping apparatus includes no more than two elastic elements (Figs. 1A-20, finger part bodies 1), and each one of the no more than two elastic elements is affixed to a gripper finger body (Figs. 1A-20, best seen in 9A-9C, finger part bodies 1 attached to reinforcing member 20 includes a first reinforcing part 21, second reinforcing part 22, and third reinforcing part 23) of a corresponding one of the at least two gripper fingers.
Regarding claim 17, Nakayama further discloses: the gripping apparatus includes two elastic elements (Figs. 1A-20, finger part bodies 1) each affixed to a portion of a gripper finger body of a corresponding one of the at least two gripper fingers (Figs. 1A-20, best seen in 9A-9C, finger part bodies 1 attached to reinforcing member 20 includes a first reinforcing part 21, second reinforcing part 22, and third reinforcing part 23), and each elastic element is affixed to the portion of the gripper finger body such that the elastic element extends perpendicular to a lengthwise direction of the gripper finger body (all 3d objects “extend” to some extent, in all dimensions (x,y,z)).
Regarding claim 18, Nakayama further discloses: the at least two gripper fingers (Figs. 1A-20, best seen in 9A-9C, finger part bodies 1 attached to reinforcing member 20 includes a first reinforcing part 21, second reinforcing part 22, and third reinforcing part 23) define a gripping axis (Fig. 1a, axis “a”), and the portion of each gripper finger body extends parallel to the gripping axis (see Figs. 1A-20).
Regarding claim 20, Nakayama further discloses: the elastic element (Figs. 1A-20, finger part bodies 1) is a leaf spring ([0068] “Each finger part body 1 is preferably made from a spring steel plate”).
Regarding claim 22, Nakayama further discloses: the elastic element (Figs. 1A-20, finger part bodies 1) is affixed to a portion of the gripper finger body (Figs. 1A-20, best seen in 9A-9C, finger part bodies 1 attached to reinforcing member 20 includes a first reinforcing part 21, second reinforcing part 22, and third reinforcing part 23) such that the elastic element extends perpendicular to a lengthwise direction of the gripper finger body (all 3d objects “extend” to some extent, in all dimensions (x,y,z)).
Regarding claim 23, Nakayama further discloses: the portion of the gripper finger body (Figs. 1A-20, best seen in 9A-9C, finger part bodies 1 attached to reinforcing member 20 includes a first reinforcing part 21, second reinforcing part 22, and third reinforcing part 23) extends parallel to a gripping axis at least partially defined by the gripper finger (see Figs. 1A-20).
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.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nakayama.
Regarding claims 19 and 21, Nakayama discloses the device of claims 1 and 7.
Nakayama does not explicitly disclose: the elastic element is a coil spring.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a coil spring in place of a leaf spring as a matter of design choice. The selection of a particular type of spring in order to perform a known function is within the skill of the art of the designer. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that no criticality is given for this feature in the specification, nor are any drawings provided for this feature.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights