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 .
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “said” in two instances. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is further objected to because of the following informalities: in [0012], there are two recitations of “gripping surface(s) 12” which should likely both be amended to recite –gripping surface(s) [[12]]14--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 13, line 2 should likely be amended to recite –the strips being separated--. Claim 15 should likely be amended to depend from claim 14 (and has been treated as such here below). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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 USC 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 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Youmans et al. (US 9,981,379 B1) (“Youmans”).
Referring to claims 1 and 12: Youmans teaches a robotic system comprising:
a robot 200,
a shelf (column 18, line 63 – column 19, line 10); and
a robot gripper 600 (column 10, lines 42-46), comprising:
a palm (at arrow 610; between 604A/B);
first and second fingers 602A, 602B connected to the palm, each of the first and second fingers having gripping surfaces facing each other for gripping an object 650 between them, the first and second fingers being displaceable with respect to each other along a first [lateral] axis that extends normal to the gripping surfaces (column 14, lines 20-38); and
at least a third finger 614 connected to the palm, the third finger having a support surface;
wherein, when the gripper is in a use pose in which the support surface is oriented horizontally and facing upward, the first axis is also horizontal and the gripping surfaces are located above the support surface (FIG. 6B)
wherein the shelf is adapted to store objects to be handled by the gripper (column 18, line 63 – column 19, line 10).
Referring to claims 2 and 3: Youmans teaches the third finger is displaceable in parallel to the first axis, wherein the third finger is displaceable between different sides of a plane defined by the gripping surface of the first finger (as the gripper 600 moves in such directions).
Referring to claim 6: Youmans teaches a force or torque sensor associated with at least one of the first finger and the second finger (column 7, lines 31-43; column 8, lines 19-30).
Referring to claim 7: Youmans teaches a sensor is arranged to monitor a space in front of the palm (column 7, lines 31-43; column 8, lines 19-30).
Referring to claim 10: Youmans teaches the first and second fingers are displaceable along the first axis in a same direction (albeit, not at the same time; column 14, lines 20-38).
Referring to claim 14: Youmans teaches a method of operating a robot gripper, comprising:
providing a gripper 600, the gripper including a palm (at arrow for “610”; between 604A/B), first and second fingers 602A, 602B connected to the palm, each of the first and second fingers having gripping surfaces facing each other for gripping an object 650 between them, the first and second fingers being displaceable with respect to each other along a first [lateral] axis that extends normal to the gripping surfaces (column 14, lines 20-38), and at least a third finger 614 connected to the palm, the third finger having a support surface; wherein, when the gripper is in a use pose in which the support surface is oriented horizontally and facing upward, the first axis is also horizontal and the gripping surfaces are located above the support surface (FIG. 6B);
identifying an object 650 to be seized, the object disposed on a support (column 18, line 63 – column 19, line 10);
placing the first and second fingers on opposite flanks of the object;
approaching the first and second fingers until the object is in contact with the gripping surfaces of both fingers;
placing at least the third finger underneath the object; and
removing the object from the support (column 15, line 59 – column 16, line 26).
Referring to claim 16: Youmans teaches placing the first and second fingers, and placing at least the third finger, are carried out by advancing the gripper in a longitudinal direction of the fingers (column 15, line 59 – column 16, line 26; column 18, line 63 – column 19, line 10).
Referring to claim 17: Youmans teaches identifying an obstacle adjacent to the object to be seized;
disposing the gripper in a position in which the gripper does not overlap with the obstacle when seen in an advancing direction; and
adjusting a position of one of the first and second fingers to overlap with a space between the object and the obstacle (column 7, lines 65-67; column 18, line 63 – column 19, line 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
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 USC 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Youmans, alone.
Referring to claim 4: While Youmans does not specifically teach a rail, Youmans does teach guiding displacement of the fingers in a sliding manner (column 4, lines 4-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the palm taught by Youmans to include a first rail defining the first axis for guiding displacement of the first and second fingers, and a second rail extending parallel to the first rail and defining a second axis for guiding displacement of the third finger with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate the sliding movement of the fingers.
Referring to claim 5: Youmans does not specifically teach a fourth finger having a corresponding support surface that is coplanar with the support surface of the third finger in the embodiment shown in FIG. 6A/B. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support taught by Youmans to include a fourth finger, the fourth finger having a corresponding support surface that is coplanar with the support surface of the third finger with a reasonable expectation of success since Youmans teaches it is known to use a plurality of support members (column 13, lines 51-65) and shows such a configuration in Figs 7B-C.
Referring to claim 9: Youmans does not specifically teach the sensor is disposed on the palm, below the third finger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor taught by Youmans to be disposed on the palm, below the third finger, with a reasonable expectation of success since Youmans already teaches it is well known to place a variety of sensors in a variety of known, useful locations (column 8, lines 19-30).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Youmans and in view of Morey (US 9,486,927 B1).
Referring to claim 8: Youmans does not specifically teach the sensor is a 2D scanner. Morey teaches a robot gripper comprising a sensor 104 wherein the sensor is a 2D scanner (column 6, lines 12-33; column 13, lines 23-34) having a detection plane that extends parallel to a support surface (unlabeled – FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor taught by Youmans to include a 2D scanner as taught by Morey with a reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would only require a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Referring to claim 11: Youmans does not specifically teach one of the first and second fingers is displaceable along the first axis while the other is standing still. Morey teaches one of the first and second fingers is displaceable along the first axis while the other is standing still (column 9, lines 14-23 and 50-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fingers taught by Youmans so one of the first and second fingers is displaceable along the first axis while the other is standing still as taught by Morey with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have more control over the fingers, which could aid in adjusting or centering the object before gripping.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Youmans and in view of Lambrecht et al. (US 2004/0148912 A1) (“Lambrecht”).
Referring to claims 13 and 15: Youmans does not specifically teach the shelf or the support comprises strips and gaps. Lambrecht teaches a robotic system (Fig. 1) comprising a gripper 34 comprising at least a finger 69 having a support surface for gripping an object 44 on a shelf 84, wherein an upper side of the shelf comprises support strips for supporting the objects, the objects being separated by gaps, the gaps sized to accommodate the finger, and wherein placing the finger underneath the object is carried out by the finger longitudinally engaging a gap of the support 84 ¶ [0073]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shelf/support taught by Youmans to include gaps for the support finger as taught by Lambrecht with a reasonable expectation of success in order to better ensure the support finger can properly grip the object without unintentionally pushing it farther away.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakagawa et al. (US 10,953,553 B2) also teaches a robotic gripping hand with at least three fingers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/Catherine Loikith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
21 August 2026
Prosecution Insights