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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/05/2023 is in compliance with the
provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the
following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figs. 1 and 2. Element 54, the Current Supplying Section, is discussed in the Specification in relation to different elements of the robot hand depicted in Fig. 1, however Element 54 is only shown in Fig. 2. Also in Fig. 2, . Two of the element groupings are named (Groups 10 and 20), however Groups 30 and 50 are unnamed, making it slightly unclear as to why these groups are distinctly illustrated.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add
the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The use of the terms Ethernet and Wi-Fi, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic
terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks,
certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning
of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under
35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are
nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
"the control section" in Claim 8;
There is no clarification within the Specifications as to how this weight is to be calculated, or what value the generic sensors are reading to calculate this weight. The term “control section” is a generic placeholder in this case, as it gives no definition in this art.
“a type inference section” in Claim 10.
There is no clarification within the Specifications as to how this type inference section is to be configured, how data for said section is to be gathered, or what type of data the generic training model is to be trained on, The term “type inference section” is also a generic placeholder, as it is found to not have any patentable meaning or distinction in this art.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 10 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.
Claim limitation “the control section calculated a weight of the object on the basis of a detection result
from the sensor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. the Specifications do not provide clarification as to what the control section is, how the weight of the object is to be calculated, and what data the sensor is to collect. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a type inference section configured to infer a type of the object on the basis of a type
inference trained model and a detection result from the sensor, the type inference trained model being obtained through machine learning using, as training data, a relationship between a detection result from the sensor and the type of object” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. the Specifications do not provide clarification as to what the control section is, how the weight of the object is to be calculated, and what data the sensor is to collect. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or
inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakano (US
2014/0156066 A1) in combination with Allenspach (US 2012/0189467 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Sakano (US 2014/0156066) teaches a robot hand comprising:
A plurality of fingers (Fig. 2, [0031])
The plurality of fingers including:
respective gripping parts located at the tips of the fingers and configured to grip an object (Fig. 2 elements 26a and 26b); and
respective rotating parts ([0037-0038], Fig. 2 elements 27a, 27b) configured to rotate around rotating shafts ([0038], Fig. 2 elements 21a, 21b) in accordance with movement of the moveable part ([0037], Fig. 2 elements 26a, 26b)
The respective gripping parts of the plurality of fingers being configured to perform:
A closing operation in which the rotating parts rotate in a first direction in accordance with movement of the moveable part so that the gripping parts move closer to each other ([0032]);
An opening operation in which the rotating parts rotate in a second direction opposite to the first direction in accordance with movement of the moveable part so that the gripping parts move away from each other ([0032]).
Sakano does not teach:
A first electromagnet;
A second electromagnet facing the first electromagnet;
A moveable part made of a magnetic material and configured to be moveable between the first electromagnet and the second electromagnet.
Allenspach (US 2012/0189467 A1) teaches:
A first electromagnet (Fig. 1 element 2a)
A moveable part made of magnetic material and configured to be moveable between the first electromagnet and the second electromagnet (Fig. 1 element 6, [0033])
The duplication of the electromagnets in Allenspach would have been obvious at the time of filing
to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The duplication of the electromagnets serves as an obvious way to increase control over magnetic materials.
The substitution of the electromagnet driven system of Allenspach as duplicated above for the
motor driven system of Sakano would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of filing as electromagnets are commonly used to drive systems when precision of movement is important (Allenspach [0019]).
Regarding Claim 2,
Sakano and Allenspach teach the robot hand of Claim 1 as above,
Allenspach further teaches:
A first fixing part where the electromagnet is disposed (Fig. 1 element 2b, [0033]);
A first elastic member provided at the first fixing part and configured to press the moveable part in a direction in which the moveable part moves away from the first electromagnet (Fig. 1 element 7); and
The duplication of the elastic members in Allenspach would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. A secondary member creates additional mobility and control, and following the duplication of the electromagnets as discussed in Claim 1 above, the corresponding elastic members would also have been obvious to duplicate.
Regarding Claim 3,
Sakano and Allenspach teach the robot hand of Claim 1 as above,
Allenspach further teaches:
A moveable part [that] has a concavity where the rotating parts are held (Fig. 1 element 2f, [0033])
Regarding Claim 4,
Sakano and Allenspach teach the robot hand of Claim 1 as above,
Sakano teaches: a robot hand [with]
A control section configured to control a magnitude of current ([0009])
The control section controlling a degree of opening between the gripping parts by
Controlling the magnitude of current flowing to cause the moveable part to move toward the first direction, thereby causing the gripping parts to perform the closing operation ([0006])
Controlling the magnitude of current flowing to cause the moveable part to move toward the second direction, thereby causing the gripping parts to perform the opening operation ([0006]).
Allenspach further teaches:
A control section configured to control a magnitude of current flowing through the first electromagnet (Fig. 6, [0049])
The substitution of the motor driven system of Sakano for the electromagnet driven system of
Allenspach would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of filing as electromagnets are commonly used to drive systems when precision of movement is important (Allenspach [0019]).
Regarding Claim 5,
Sakano and Allenspach teach the robot hand of Claims 1 and 4 as above,
Sakano teaches: a robot device further comprising
A sensor configured to be capable of detecting at least one selected from the group consisting of a gripping force with which the gripping parts grip the object, forces acting on the robot hand, and moments acting on the robot hand (Fig. 3),
The control section controlling the magnitude of current on the basis of a detection result from the sensor (Fig. 5)
Allenspach further teaches:
The control section controlling the magnitude of current flowing through the first electromagnet on the basis of a detection result from the sensor ([0033]).
The substitution of the motor driven system of Sakano for the electromagnet driven system of
Allenspach would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of filing as electromagnets are commonly used to drive systems when precision of movement is important (Allenspach [0019]).
Regarding Claim 6,
Sakano and Allenspach teach the robot hand of Claims 1 and 5 as above,
Sakano teaches: a robot device wherein
The sensor is a tactile sensor disposed in each of the gripping parts and configured to detect the gripping force (Fig. 4); and
The control section controls the magnitude of current on the basis of a magnitude of the gripping force detected by the tactile sensor (Fig. 5)
Allenspach further teaches:
The control section controls the magnitude of current flowing through the first electromagnet or the second electromagnet on the basis of a sensor reading ([0033]).
The substitution of the motor driven system of Sakano for the electromagnet driven system of
Allenspach would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of filing as electromagnets are commonly used to drive systems when precision of movement is important (Allenspach [0019]).
Regarding Claim 7,
Sakano and Allenspach teach the robot hand of Claims 1 and 6 as above,
Sakano teaches: [a] robot is device wherein
The control section controls the magnitude of current so that a magnitude of the gripping force detected by the tactile sensor falls within a predetermined range (Fig. 5)
Allenspach further teaches:
The control section controls the magnitude of current flowing through the first electromagnet ([0033]).
The substitution of the motor driven system of Sakano for the electromagnet driven system of
Allenspach would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of filing as electromagnets are commonly used to drive systems when precision of movement is important (Allenspach [0019]).
Regarding Claim 9,
Sakano and Allenspach teach the robot hand of Claims 1 and 5 as above,
Sakano teaches: [a] robot device further comprising
A gripped state inference section configured to infer a gripped state of the object on the basis of a gripped state inference trained model and a detection result from the sensor (Fig. 5),
The control section adjusting
a gripping position where the gripping parts grip the object (Fig. 5), and
the degree of opening between the gripping parts by controlling the magnitude of current on the basis of the gripped state of the object inferred by the gripped state inference section (Fig. 5)
Allenspach further teaches:
the control section controlling the magnitude of current flowing through the first electromagnet ([0033]).
The substitution of the motor driven system of Sakano for the electromagnet driven system of
Allenspach would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of filing as electromagnets are commonly used to drive systems when precision of movement is important (Allenspach [0019]).
Regarding Claim 11,
Sakano and Allenspach teach the robot hand of Claims 1 and 5 as above,
Sakano teaches: [a] robot device wherein
the control section adjusts
a gripping position where the gripping parts grip the object (Fig. 5), and
the degree of opening between the gripping parts, on the basis of an output obtained by inputting a detection result from the sensor into a control model (Fig. 5)
Claims 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakano (US 2014/0156066 A1)
in combination with Allenspach (US 2012/0189467 A1) in further view of Zhan (US 2021/0361110 A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
As best understood by Examiner, Claims 8 and 10 relate to processing of sensor data to yield
useful values. In this case, a scale can read the mass of an object from pressure or force sensors, and then that mass can be converted to a weight or volume based on the chosen output unit.
Sakano and Allenspach teach the robot hand of Claims 1 and 5 as above,
Zhan (US 2021/0361110 A1) additionally teaches:
the control section calculates a weight of the object on the basis of a detection result from the sensor ([0019]).
The combination of Sakano and Allenspach to accomplish the measurement of weight as
discussed in Zhan would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application. From Zhan, it is known that pressure sensors are commonly used to calculate weights, hence the force sensor disclosed in Sakano could serve the same function, as pressure is a type of force.
Regarding Claim 10:
Sakano and Allenspach teach the robot hand of Claims 1 and 5 as above
Sakano teaches:
the control section adjusting
the degree of opening between the gripping parts, by controlling the magnitude of current flowing on the basis of the object inferred by the inference section ([0009], [0006])
Zhan additionally teaches:
the robot device further comprising a type inference section configured to infer a type of the object on the basis of a type inference trained model and a detection result from the sensor ([0019])
the type inference trained model being obtained through machine learning using, as training data, a relationship between a detection result from the sensor and the type of the object ([0019])
The combination of the control section of Sakano with the sensor feedback processing of Zhan would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Taking processed sensor feedback and using it to inform a control system is common within the art, as such would be obvious (Sakano [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DELAINEY MACK whose telephone number is (571)270-0758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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.
/D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights