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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
In page 4, line 21, actuator reference character “106”.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “104” has been used to designate both the rigid member and compliant gripping surface in Figure 1A. 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. 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 § 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.
Claim 2 and 9-20 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.
Claims 2 and 9, line 2 of claims 2 and 9, recites “an object” – however line 8 of claims 1 and 8 already set forth “an object” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional object. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “the object”.
Regarding claims 9-14, the phrase "The robot" in the first line is unclear whether the claims are claiming a portion of a newly introduced “robot” or if the claims are claiming the “method for robotic operation” of claim 8.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said gripper jaw" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16-20 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 9-14, the phrase "The robot" in the first line is improper for failing to include the limitations of claim 8 if the claims are claiming a portion of a newly introduced “robot”. Or are the claims reciting the “method for robotic operation” of claim 8.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1-4, 7-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN105027828A) in view of Sodeyama (WO2022004164A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Liu discloses a robot and method for robotic operation comprising: an actuator (3; Figures 1-2) for actuating a prehension operation of a robotic manipulator (1, 2), and wherein said robotic manipulator (1, 2) is an end-effector (Abstract; gripping fingers of a mechanical arm of a machine); a concave gripper (1) on a jaw of said end-effector; and wherein said concave gripper (1) enables a direction of movement including movement in vertical direction by way of said actuator (3; page 5, last two paragraphs, opening and closing of fingers 2); and a rigid member (2) on said concave gripper (1) to allow said concave gripper (1) to cage around an object (Abstract, fruit) while executing said prehension operation, but fails to teach wherein said concave gripper enables at least three directions of movement including movement in vertical and horizontal directions and a push and pull.
Sodeyama teaches a similar robot and further teaches wherein said gripper (H; Figure 1) enables at least three directions of movement including movement in vertical and horizontal directions and a push and pull direction (page 13, ¶6; page 14, ¶5-6; hand is configured with multiple degrees of freedom, including push and pull). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot and method of Liu to include the directions of movement as taught by Sodeyama in order to improve stability and grasping motion and positioning to mimic a human hand.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Liu discloses the above robot and method, but fails to teach a plurality of gripping nubs disposed along said concave gripper to maintain stability when said end-effector is gripping an object.
Sodeyama teaches a similar robot and further teaches a plurality of gripping nubs (U; Figure 22) disposed along said gripper (H) to maintain stability when said end-effector is gripping an object (T111; Figure 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot and method of Liu to include the gripping nubs as taught by Sodeyama in order to reduce slippage of an object and to ensure grip is more secured.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 10-11, Liu discloses wherein said concave gripper (1) has a curved and expanding proximal to distal shape (Figure 1, grippers 1 are curved and concave, and expands towards the left side of the gripper); wherein said curved and expanding proximal to distal shape of said concave gripper (1) enables passive alignment in lateral directions (Figure 1, concave shaped grippers 1 allow passive alignment in lateral direction).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Liu discloses the above robot and method, but fails to teach wherein said concave gripper comprises one or more of a non-slip, adhesive, frictional and tractional material for a compliant gripping surface.
Sodeyama teaches a similar robot and further teaches wherein said gripper (H) comprises one or more of a non-slip, adhesive, frictional and tractional material for a compliant gripping surface (page 15, lines 9-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot and method of Liu to include the gripper gripping surface material as taught by Sodeyama in order to reduce slippage of an object and to ensure grip is more secured.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, in view of Sodeyama, and in further view of Xu (CN111283714A).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, modified Liu discloses the above robot and method and further teaches wherein said jaw enables said concave gripper (1) to be closed and caged around a loop for pulling (Figure 1; page 5, last two paragraphs; fruit is picked/plucked and fitted in curved surface of gripper), but fails to teach a compliant shaping material allows said concave gripper to deform and conform to tangible objects as it is pushed into tangible objects.
Xu teaches a similar robot and further teaches a compliant shaping material (11-13; Figures 3-4) allows said concave gripper (9; Figure 1) to deform and conform to tangible objects as it is pushed into tangible objects (page 7, ¶7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot and method of Liu to include the compliant shaping material as taught by Xu in order to improve the clamping of an irregular shaped object to ensure grip is more secured.
Claim(s) 15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Schvalb (US20120186383A1).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses a robot comprising: an end-effector (Abstract; gripping fingers of a mechanical arm of a machine) comprising a first jaw member (upper jaw 1, 2; Figures 1-2) opposing a second jaw member (lower jaw 1, 2); the first jaw member (upper jaw 1, 2) comprising a first member (upper first member 2) extending in a longitudinal direction and being substantially arc-shaped in the longitudinal direction; the first jaw member (upper jaw 1, 2) further comprising a second member (upper second member 1) extending in the longitudinal direction of the first member (upper first member 2) and being substantially arc-shaped in the longitudinal direction and further extending laterally forming a substantially concave shape; the second jaw member (lower jaw 1, 2) having a concave shape opposing and substantially similar to the first jaw member (upper jaw 1, 2); a motor (page 5, last two paragraphs) mechanically coupled to and capable of moving at least one of the first jaw member (upper jaw 1, 2) and the second jaw member (lower jaw 1, 2), but fails to teach a material coating the first and second jaw members to provide stability when said gripper jaw executes a prehension operation.
Schvalb teaches a similar robot and further teaches a material coating (¶0117) the first (10a,10b; Figure 2B) and second (10c) jaw members to provide stability when said gripper jaw (40) executes a prehension operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot of Liu to include the material coating as taught by Schvalb in order to improve gripping and protect the gripping surfaces from damage.
Regarding claim 17, Liu discloses wherein the end-effector forms a caging mechanism during prehension operation (Figures 1-2; page 5, last two paragraphs).
Regarding claim 19, Liu discloses the above robot, but fails to teach wherein the gripper jaw is a three-point gripper.
Schvalb teaches a similar robot and further teaches wherein the gripper jaw (40) is a three-point gripper (fingers 10a-10c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot of Liu to include the three-point gripper as taught by Schvalb in order to improve stability, better adjust to irregular shaped objects, and improve handling and manipulation of objects.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, in view of Schvalb, and in further view of Sodeyama.
Regarding claim 16, modified Liu discloses the above robot and further teaches the first and second jaw members (upper and lower jaws 1, 2), but fails to teach wherein the first jaw member comprises a plurality of nubs made with non-slip material disposed on a portion of the first jaw member facing the second jaw member.
Sodeyama teaches a similar robot and further teaches wherein the first jaw member (3; Figure 1) comprises a plurality of nubs (U; Figure 22) made with non-slip material disposed on a portion of the first jaw member (3) facing the second jaw member (2; page 15, lines 9-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot of Liu to include the nubs as taught by Sodeyama in order to reduce slippage of an object and to ensure grip is more secured.
Regarding claim 20, modified Liu discloses the above robot, but fails to teach wherein the end-effector has a sensor.
Sodeyama teaches a similar robot and further teaches wherein the end-effector (gripper H) has a sensor (201-204; Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot of Liu to include the sensor as taught by Sodeyama in order to help detect the position, proximity, and contact of an object with the end effector.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Schvalb, and in further view of Dellon (US20220088797A1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Liu discloses the above robot, but fails to teach wherein the end-effector is mounted on a legged robot.
Dellon teaches a similar robot and further teaches wherein the end-effector (200; Figure 1A) is mounted on a legged robot (100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot of Liu to include the legged robot as taught by Dellon in order to allow the robot to navigate through any terrain in a quick and efficient manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Claims 6 and 13 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing wherein one of said at least three directions of movement include passive unidirectional alignment when pushing.
Sodeyama is the closest prior art and further teaches at least three directions of movement, including pushing, but fails to teach wherein one of said at least three directions of movement include passive unidirectional alignment when pushing, since there is no mention of passive unidirectional alignment in the disclosure of Sodeyama.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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.
/HENRIX SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights