DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is suggested that the applicant consider amendments that recite specific structural features that may distinguish the claimed invention from the references of record. Thus far, claims have been presented defining the claimed subject matter broadly, and it has not been clear where patentable novelty lies.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 29 April 2026 is acknowledged and the information referred to therein has been considered.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,579,380 to Zaremsky et al. (hereinafter referred to as Zaremsky).
With regards to claim 1, Zaremsky discloses a robot hand (see fig. 1, 5, etc.) comprising:
a holding member that comprises a claw part (finger 13) for holding an object and a force sensor module (sensor block 5, bracket 6, disk 8, screw 30, load cell 37);
a support member (body 1); and
a drive section (DC motor 19) that is supported by the support member (see fig. 1, 2, etc.), and configured to drive the claw part by translating in a direction orthogonal to a central axis of the robot hand (see fig. 5 and col. 3, ll. 38-59),
the force sensor module being disposed between the claw part and the drive section (see fig. 5), and comprising:
a force sensor that comprises a fixing part (disk 8, screw 30) and a force receiver (load cell 37);
a first connection part (block 5) that is connected with the fixing part (see fig. 5-6), and configured to directly or indirectly connect the force sensor with the drive section (see fig. 5 and col. 3, ll. 38-59); and
a second connection part (bracket 6) that is connected with the force receiver (directly when transmitting force, and indirectly through pin 9 and block 5), and configured to directly or indirectly connect the force sensor with the claw part (col. 4, ll. 2-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, Zaremsky discloses the robot hand according to claim 1. Zaremsky further discloses the drive section causing the force sensor and the claw part to integrally turn or translate (see fig. 5 and col. 3, ll. 38-59).
With regards to claim 3, Zaremsky discloses the robot hand according to claim 1. Zaremsky further discloses the first connection part, the force sensor, and the second connection part being positioned in this order in a linear manner (e.g., from left to right in fig. 5).
With regards to claim 4, Zaremsky discloses the robot hand according to claim 1. Zaremsky further discloses an engagement section (the hole in block 5 and bracket 6 into which pin 9 fits) engaging the first connection part and the second connection part (see fig. 5-6).
With regards to claim 6, Zaremsky discloses the robot hand according to claim 1. Zaremsky further discloses the first connection part having a groove provided on a side surface thereof (the threaded portion inside the shaft for screw 30 shown in fig. 5). As for "the language the groove and an opening which is provided in a chuck to be connected with the first connection part are fixed to each other by a lock bar," how the groove is interfaced with an element not part of the force sensor module is a recitation of intended use. The instant claim is an apparatus claim, and an apparatus claim is to cover what a device is, not how a device is to be used. It has been held that a 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987). The aforementioned limitations relating to the intended use of the claimed apparatus do not define positive limitations on the apparatus itself, and have accordingly not been given patentable weight.
With regards to claim 7, Zaremsky discloses the robot hand according to claim 1. Zaremsky further discloses, between the fixing part and the second connection part, a gap (see the gap between block 5 and bracket 6 in the non-deformed state of fig. 5). As for the language "for causing the fixing part and the second connection part to serve as a deformation reducing part for the force receiver," this is a recitation of intended use. It has been held that a 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987). This "for …" limitation relates to an intended function of the gap and does not define a positive structural limitation on the apparatus itself, and have accordingly has not been given patentable weight. As the applied reference teaches all of the structural limitations in this claim, including at least the presence of "a gap between the fixing part and the second connection part," the reference anticipates the claim).
With regards to claim 8, Zaremsky discloses the robot hand according to claim 1. Zaremsky further discloses an engagement section (pin 9, and the hole in block 5 and bracket 6 into which pin 9 fits) engaging the first connection part and the second connection part to restrict relative movement of the first connection part and the second connection part (the pin and hole arrangement restricts movement of the connection parts relative to one another).
With regards to claim 9, Zaremsky discloses the robot hand according to claim 4. Zaremsky further discloses the engagement section being a hole (the hole in block 5 and bracket 6 into which pin 9 fits) into which a knock pin is to be inserted, and is provided in each of the first connection part and the second connection part (see fig. 6).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaremsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10,948,357 to Cox.
With regards to claim 5, Zaremsky teaches the robot hand according to claim 1. However, Zaremsky does not expressly teach a standardized input/output terminal unit including a standardized input terminal to the force sensor and a standardized output terminal from the force sensor.
Cox teaches the feature of providing a standardized input/output terminal unit including a
standardized input terminal to the force sensor and a standardized output terminal from the force
sensor. Specifically, in col. 4, II. 1-12, Cox teaches providing a standard electrical connector for
connecting traces from a sensor to outside equipment to facilitate the measuring of force.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the force sensor module of Zaremsky so as to likewise comprise a standardized input/output terminal unit including a standardized input terminal to the force sensor and
a standardized output terminal from the force sensor. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of
enabling the load cell of the robot hand to be installed and replaced with ease (i.e., no hard connections/soldering). Moreover, the standardized input/output terminal unit of Cox would merely provide one known, specific configuration for connecting the load sensor to electrical equipment, and nothing about the operation of the base robot hand would change. The result of this combination would thus be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and this combination accordingly amounts to no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions, and would also be obvious for this reason.
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 James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights