DETAILED ACTION
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 Remarks
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims provided in the Office Action dated 10/17/2025 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The rejections of the claims provided in the Office Action dated 10/17/2025 are partially withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments of the claims. Applicant’s amendments have not fully resolved the issues and/or introduce new related issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejections of the claims provided in the Office Action dated 10/17/2025 are partially withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments of the claims. Applicant’s amendments have not fully resolved the issues and/or introduce new related issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments do not specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references or otherwise show how the amendments avoid such references. Applicant merely presents the limitations believed to be distinguishing from the prior art, and provides a conclusory statement declaring that “the combined prior art fails to teach or suggest all elements of the claim”. Furthermore, these limitations appear to be equivalent or broader versions of previously rejected limitations, and consequently have been addressed in some capacity already.
Finally, these limitations continue to exhibit 35 USC § 112 issues, wherein Applicant is similarly silent with respect to 35 USC § 112 of the amendments made which might at least clarify the intended interpretation of the limitations.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the phrase “to” on its own or “such that” typically indicates an intended result, purpose, outcome, or similar, and is often not a positive recitation of a structure, function of a structure, or other limitation as constructed. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner has attempted to address all such recitations as if they were positively recited limitations. However, Applicant is encouraged to amend such limitations to clear positive recitations, if such interpretation is desired, and that arguments reliant upon such intended use and similar features will likely not be found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3 – 5, and 7 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim appears to recite limitations which are not supported by Applicant’s disclosure, particularly that disclosure recited as support in Applicant’s Remarks filed 09/16/2025 ([0056]) which appears to still be the considered support based on Applicant’s silence in the Remarks filed 01/06/2026 with respect to the limitations. The cited support in said Remarks appearing to only relate to the “pressure-sensitive element”. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“adjust the initial value of the second speed to an updated value in response to a change in a magnitude of the detection signal” (emphasis added).
First, Examiner provides the potential interpretations of the limitation.
Applicant provides no statements in the Remarks filed 01/06/2026 and filed 09/16/2025 with respect to these limitations that might indicate the intended meaning beyond the believed cited support, which does not actually provide support and is thus of limited help in such a determination. Thus, the claim appears to either recite a limitation having an unsupported meaning, or a meaning which renders terms effectively inconsequential or trivial and causing at least one contradictory later limitation.
Specifically, the particular portion of “a change in a magnitude of the detection signal” appears to potentially mean (1) that the initial value is updated in response to a difference in a magnitude of the signal that does not simply involve a contact situation (i.e. going from a non-contact state to a contact state measurement), and instead one wherein the updating is indeed based on the change itself and not simply triggered by it. In other words, the “change” is of significance beyond a mere contingent trigger. The other meaning appears to be that of (2) a contact situation, as any contact situation should always have this “change”. However, this trivializes the limitation to simply “in response to when the detection signal is output” and causes issues with other limitations.
For example, Claim 1 later recites:
“cause the motor to operate at one of the initial value and the updated value of the second speed in a second drive mode”
wherein it is further explicitly stated:
“while the gripper is further controlled to grip the object”.
Thus, the motor should always operate at the updated value rather than “one of” two options as the updated value has always replaced the initial value.
Thus, as treating the limitation as simply meaning “in response to a contact” appears to trivialize several limitations and cause contradictions, particularly inasmuch as Applicant believed the amendments overcame the prior art, the other meaning (1) appears to be the appropriate interpretation to take.
However, as already indicated in the Office Action dated 10/17/2025 with respect to the previous limitations this interpretation and feature is not supported.
The only apparent previously cited support of [0056] recites:
“Alternatively, the second speed setting unit 286 may have a function of setting the second speed based on the magnitude of the contact force. According to the function, the second speed determined in advance may be optimized according to the magnitude of the contact force. Thereby, even when the properties or the like of the objects W are individually different, the gripping forces may be optimized and the success rate of work and the work efficiency may be further increased”
Wherein the “the second speed determined in advance” of [0056] appears to refer to:
“The second speed is not particularly limited as long as it is lower than the first speed, but may be set to a predetermined value in advance. When the material and the property of the object W are known, the predetermined value may be selected according thereto” of [0055]
Therefore, [0056] does not appear to disclose the above limitations.
Specifically, [0056] merely discloses “the second speed determined in advance may be optimized according to the magnitude of the contact force”. There is no discussion of a particular “change” in magnitude or contingency of the optimization based thereon, but instead appears to indicate that an initial default value calculated and used in advance of the present gripping, might be updated based on a present detected contact force magnitude. This does not support adjusting/updating/changing the “initial value of the second speed … in response to a change”. Furthermore, particularly inasmuch as [0056] begins with “alternatively”, [0056] is not explicit or clear as to if this happens prior to actual gripping of a particular object, particularly as [0056] still describes it as optimizing “the second speed determined in advance”(emphasis added) rather than of updating a second speed from a predetermined one to another. In other words, it is entirely unclear if it is part of a same gripping sequence and suggests due to the continued phrasing of “determined in advance” that it is some sort of separate sequence that optimizes for an upcoming grip.
Furthermore, the only other potential additional or alternate support found by the Examiner was [0107]. However, the exact nature of [0107] is unclear due to the grammar and language used, and what does appear disclosed still does not support the present forms of the limitations.
See the final two sentences which are unclear. In the first of the two sentences, the sentence begins with “note that, a …”, except that what is to be noted is unclear and never provided. The second sentence then begins with “then, …” however, what it is indicating as following is not entirely clear.
Regardless, [0107] appears to disclose “updating of the initial target value according to the estimated hardness of the object W” and “updates the second speed in the second drive mode according to the updated target value”, however 1) these do not recite that the “change” of “the target force” is “in response to a change in a magnitude of the detection signal”, but rather that it is merely “set according to the hardness of the object W” wherein the “target value” is “a value set through a past performance, an experiment, a simulation, or the like”. Therefore, there is no clear disclosure that it is due to a “change” in/on magnitude and 2) that it should not be due to a “change” as it is related to something prior or previous and unrelated to an instant gripping scenario.
Furthermore, [0107] is part of the process illustrated in Figure 10. “a change on magnitude of the contact force” as claimed appears to indicate that the original “target force value” and “second speed” are related to a pre-existing grip which is undergoing some status change. While Applicant may appear to disclose determining starting values, these appear to be based on entirely separate run-throughs than where the update occurs where there is no “change” to be detected.
There is no disclosure of gripping a same object and then updating for the same object. As indicated in [0056] the optimization is for “when the properties or the like of the objects W are individually different”, or in other words, a default value is fine-tuned for a particular object, rather than a value already generated by gripping a particular object is optimized by again gripping the particular object.
Relatedly, the limitation of “cause the motor to operate at one of the initial value and the updated value of the second speed in a second drive mode” appears to be equivalent to “cause the motor to operate at the value of the second speed” as there is only ever one value to operate from, updating involving replacing, and said replacing being based on the change. Any further meaning would likewise appear to have issues of support as evidenced above.
Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites effectively the same limitations as Claim 1, except directed to a method wherein the limitations use the verb ending “ing” and are rejected under the same logic as Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claims 3 – 5, 7, and 8, the claims depend from Claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1 as described above. Therefore, Claims 3 – 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under the same logic as Claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1, 3 – 5, and 7 – 9 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, the claims recite the limitation “the updated target force value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the limitation related thereto which gave antecedent basis in the previous claim set has been removed. Additionally, the disclosure appears to only indicate a single target value to operate from at any time, consequently any “target value” that has been updated would presumably still be the “target value”. Finally, the limitation is part of an optional statement of “one of” and therefore this value is not required.
Therefore, in the interest of compact prosecution and in light of the above, the overall limitation has been interpreted as reading: “pressing the object with the target force value”.
Regarding Claims 3 – 5, 7, and 8, the claims depend from Claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1 as described above. Therefore, Claims 3 – 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under the same logic as Claim 1 above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima et al. (US 20240001540 A1) in view of Koike et al. (US 20190263001 A1) further in view of Nagakari et al. (US 20240009857 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakashima teaches:
A gripping device comprising:
a gripper (See at least gripper GR and Figure 1) gripping an object (See at least workpiece W and Figure 1), the object having an elastic property (Examiner notes that all objects technically have an elastic property. See also Figure 8 and “compression of the workpiece W” of [103] See also as necessary [0044] of Koike which states “the gripping target object 100 exhibits elastic properties”);
a pressure sensor provided in the gripper (See at least tactile sensors S1, S2 and Figure 1), the pressure sensor having:
a pressure-sensitive element configured to detect a magnitude of a contact force (See at least [0047] “These tactile sensors S1, S2 detect pressing force received by the tactile sensors S1, S2 from the workpiece W when the fingers F1, F2 have gripped the workpiece W” and at least [0012] “a magnitude of a difference between a reaction force corresponding to the computed pressing force”, [0014] - [0017] which recite “until a magnitude of the drive force or the pressing force being employed to control the gripping force has become the set gripping force value” or “until a magnitude of the drive force or the pressing force being employed to control the gripping force becomes the set gripping force value”, and the various graphs in the Figures showing force without a negative portion of the axes) to output a detection signal (See at least Figure 2), the contact force being applied from the object by being pressed when contacting between the gripper and the object (See again [0047]), the detection signal corresponding to (Examiner notes the nature of the correspondence is not claimed) the magnitude of the contact force (See at least [0056] “In cases in which the tactile sensor S1 is configured by plural pressure sensors, a value resulting from taking a total value of the detection values detected by each of the pressure sensors and multiplying this by the conversion factor is taken as the pressing force P1”); and
…
a motor configured to drive the gripper (See at least motor M and Figure 1); and
a first controller configured to:
receive the detection signal (See at least gripping force control device 30 and signal flow of Figure 2)
…
cause the motor to operate in a first drive mode in which a distance between the gripper and the object is decreased at a first speed when the detection signal is not output;
…
select an initial value of a second speed, which is lower than the first speed, the initial value being determined in advance (The particular timing of “in advance” in not claimed with any particularity) based on the target force value;
…
cause the motor to operate at one of the initial value and the updated value of second speed in a second drive mode based on the magnitude of the detection signal while the gripper is further controlled to grip the object by pressing the object with a corresponding one of the target force value and the updated target force value (Examiner first notes that this limitation, while extensive in words, based on the preceding limitations does not appear to amount to more than:
cause the motor to operate at the second speed in a second drive mode while the gripper is further controlled to grip the object by pressing the object with the target force value.
This is because, under the contingent condition where an “updated target force value” and an “updated second speed” exist, they replace (see “adjust”) the original “second speed” and the “updated target force value” does not exist and would similarly appear to merely replace if it did (See 112(b) rejection above).
Examiner second notes that as presently constructed “while the gripper is further controlled to …” is not positively recited as being a particular operation, step, etc. configured to be performed by the system or a component thereof. It is subsidiary to the limitation of “cause the motor to operate …”, and does not recite “only while” such that the “cause the motor to operate …” limitation occurs only under said condition. This is noted to clarify claim interpretation and expedite future prosecution, and is not necessarily relied upon for the present rejection.
See at least [0096] “At step S300, the CPU 30A operates as the control section 36 and controls the motor drive section 42 such that the gripper GR performs a preparatory action. More specifically, as illustrated by “position control” of FIG. 8, the fingers F1, F2 are moved to a preparatory action target position that is a position just ahead of where the fingers F1, F2 would grip the workpiece W by controlling the position of the fingers F1, F2”, [0103] “At step S312, the CPU 30A operates as the control section 36 and controls the motor drive section 42 such that the fingers F1, F2 of the gripper GR are moved and the gripping action to grip the workpiece W is continued. More specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 8, a switch is made from position control to speed control at the point in time t1 when the preparatory action of step S300 has ended, and an instructed speed value is output to the motor drive section 42. The motor M accordingly rotates in the forward direction so as to close the fingers F1, F2. Then as illustrated in FIG. 8, from the point in time t1 when the fingers F1, F2 are moved so as to close and contact the workpiece W, the pressing force Ps computed at step S306 or the drive force Pi computed at step S308, gradually rises. … Then when the pressing force Ps computed at step S306 or the drive force Pi computed at step S308 has reached the set gripping force value at a point in time t2, the determination at step S310 of FIG. 7 becomes affirmative determination, and processing transitions to step S314”, [0104] “At step S314, the CPU 30A operates as the control section 36, and controls the motor drive section 42 such that the gripped state of the workpiece W by the fingers F1, F2 is maintained. Namely, zero is output as the instructed speed value to the motor drive section 42 so as to lock the position of the fingers F1, F2. The speed control is thereby halted, and the position of the fingers F1, F2 is fixed”, and Figure 8, in particular the “speed” graph in correspondence to the illustrated gripper states at the top).
Nakashima does not teach, but in combination with Koike (cited below) teaches:
…
determine a hardness of the object based on the detection signal to generate a determination result (See at least [0038] “The camera 3 and the image processing apparatus 4 detect the deformation amount of the gripping target object 100 when the gripper 2 grips the gripping target object 100 with the test grip force. The controller 5 sets the operation grip force of the gripper 2 with respect to the gripping target object 100 based on the later-described specific deformation characteristic value calculated based on a ratio of the deformation amount to the test grip force” and [0044] “As described above, the linear proportional region as described above partially exists in the gripping characteristics of a general gripping target object 100 including a flexible object, and within the linear proportional region, the gripping target object 100 exhibits elastic properties (reversible deformation properties) with a spring coefficient”, and Figures 5 and 6);
…
set a target force value to press the object by the gripper based on the determination result (See again at least [0038] and Figures 5 and 6);
Examiner notes that while the claim recites “a pressure sensor provided in the gripper”, the claim is constructed as a comprising, not a consisting claim. Therefore, wherein “the detection signal” is not particularly claimed as being limited to a particular form, it is open to other items being included. Furthermore, and alternatively, the complementary combination of Nakashima and Koike would not be to replace the pressure sensor of Nakashima with the optical sensor of Koike, or similarly the optical sensor of Koike with the pressure sensor of Nakashima, but instead to provide both sensors and utilize the pressure sensor of Nakashima for the grip force determination of the process of Koikie while still using the optical sensor of Nakashima to provide the deformation amount information, both pieces of information being used for “hardness” and consequently appropriate grip force determination. Therefore, even if deformation information were considered separate from “the detection signal”, “the detection signal” is still used and therefore meets the limitation of “based on”.
In summary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optical sensor of Koike, and the “hardness” determination (deformation amount) and following appropriate grip force determination methods based on the deformation amount and corresponding gripping force disclosed by Koike in the system and methods of Nakashima with a reasonable expectation of success. Even as disclosed by Koike, the optical sensor is only necessary for setting a suitable gripping force (see last sentence of [0031] of Koike), and therefore the methodology and hardware seem particularly appropriate for inclusion in other systems and methods, such as Nakashima where the tables of Nakashima (See at least [0074]) could be developed using these methods, or these methods applied for unknown or highly variable objects and/or materials such that an appropriate grip can always be used for the instant grip/task.
Nakashima does not teach, nor does Nakashima in combination with Koike teach, but Nagakari teaches:
…
an elastic member covering the pressure-sensitive element (See at least [0048] “The contact portion 23 includes an elastic material such as rubber, and includes a hemispherical soft deformable layer” and Figures 1 and 2 illustrating contact portion 23);
…
Alternatively, Nagakari also teaches the related limitations of “a pressure-sensitive element …” preceding this limitation. See at least [0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a tactile sensor having an elastic dome shaped portion over the sensing element such as that taught by Nagakari in the system of Nakashima or Nakashima in combination with Koike with a reasonable expectation of success. It would be obvious to utilize such a sensor package as such a combination imitates a finger, allowing for precise grip information including slip related calculation and for better grip of an object due to physical characteristics beyond data related items.
Nagakari furthermore teaches:
…
adjust the initial value of the second speed to an updated value in response to a change in a magnitude of the detection signal (See at least [0088] “The slip detected on the basis of the output of the tactile sensor 24 is an initial slip in which a fixed portion (a portion where static friction occurs) and a portion where slip occurs (a portion where dynamic friction occurs) are mixed on the contact surface between the contact portion 23 of the fingertip portion 31 and the gripped object”, [0098] “The initial slip detecting unit 231 detects an initial slip on the basis of a detection result of a pressure distribution by the tactile sensor 24 functioning as a slip sense sensor. For example, the initial slip detecting unit 231 detects the movement of the center of pressure as the initial slip. A center of pressure X.sub.cop which is a position of the center of pressure in the X direction is expressed by Equation (9)”, [0107] “The tip position/posture calculating unit 234 functions as an estimation unit that estimates the magnitude and direction of the external force N and the magnitude and direction of the external moment Nl.sub.2”, and [0125] “In step S12, the gripping force calculating unit 235 applies the fingertip rotational displacement amount Δu.sub.theta calculated by the initial slip amount calculating unit 233 to Equation (8) to calculate the magnitude of the external moment Nl.sub.2. In step S13, the gripping force calculating unit 235 calculates the gripping force f.sub.nR of the hand portion 1 by which the balance between the external force N and the force generated by the robot 41 is maintained and the balance between the external moment Nl.sub.2 and the moment generated by the robot 41 is maintained”);
…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate slip detection and response wherein the system adjusts its grip according the detected slip in system and method of Nakashima or Nakashima in combination with Koike with a reasonable expectation of success. Nakashima or the combination of Nakashima and Koike already operate in a speed control scheme as demonstrated, and therefore the control scheme modified is the same. The inclusion of slip and/or incipient slip detection would help to prevent and recover from slip increasing the success rate of a given grasping/gripping operation.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner furthermore and alternatively notes that Koike additionally teaches the limitations of:
select an initial value of a second speed … the initial value being determined in advance; and
cause the motor to operate at … the second speed in a second drive mode (See at least “[0092] Further, for example, depending on the specifications of the controller 5 and the servo amplifier 6, torque control (thrust control, current control) cannot be performed, and only position control and speed control are possible in some cases. On the other hand, in the present modified example, the controller 5 estimates the grip force applied to the gripping target object 100 at that point based on the deformation amount detected by the camera 3 and the image processing apparatus 4, and can perform position control or speed control so as to feed back the grip force estimation value to match the grip force with the operation grip force”)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Nakashima, Koike, and Nagakari teaches:
A robot comprising:
the gripping device according to claim 1;
Nakashima further teaches:
a robot arm to which the gripper is attached (See at least robot arm AR); and
a second controller configured to control an operation of the robot arm (See at least [0105] “At step S316, the CPU 30A operates as the control section 36 to control the robot arm AR and the motor drive section 42 so as to place the workpiece W at a predetermined position, and so as to then return the gripper GR to a predetermined initial position”. Examiner notes that even per Applicant’s disclosure, the units of “first” and “second” controller appear to be mere arbitrary labelling of software functions that might performed on a single hardware unit. See for example [0017] “FIG. 7 shows a hardware configuration example of a first controller and a second controller in FIG. 1”, [0077] “That is, the first controller 28 and the second controller 5 may be integrated in one controller” and Figure 7 of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding Claim 9, in light of Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 06/19/2025, 09/16/2025, and 01/06/2026 which appears to treat Claim 9 and Claim 1 as being directed to effectively the same subject matter by nature of arguments directed towards Claim 1 being sufficient to be equally applicable to Claim 9, Claim 9 is rejected under the same logic as Claim 1 above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima et al., further in view of Koike et al., Nagakari, and Correll et al. (US 20210293643 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Nakashima, Koike, and Nagakari teaches:
The gripping device according to claim 1,
The combination of Nakashima, Nagakari, and Koike does not explicitly teach, but Correll teaches:
wherein the first controller is further configured to control an operation of the motor by changing a waveform of a drive signal output to the motor (See at least [0093] “Inputs to the controller were normalized proximity values from the PCF sensor and output of the controller is the Pulse Width Modulated (PWM) control signal for the finger motors”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a changing waveform such as through the use of PWM as taught by Correll in the system of Nakashima or Nakashima in combination with Koike and Nagakari with a reasonable expectation of success. The use of PWM is well known, understood, and routine in the control of motors in general and robots in specific. The use of PWM would allow for variation in operation of components, rather than being limited to a single operational characteristic.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima et al., further in view of Koike et al., Nagakari, and Ikebe et al. (US 20190184578 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Nakashima, Koike, and Nagakari teaches:
The gripping device according to claim 1,
The combination of Nakashima, Koike, and Nagakari does not explicitly teach, but Ikebe teaches:
wherein the pressure sensor has:
the pressure-sensitive element has a stacking structure (See at least Figure 5), and the stacking structure is configured with:
a pressure-sensitive conductor (See at least [0057] “The pressure sensor 37 includes, as shown in FIG. 5, a sheet-like pressure sensitive member 371” and [0058] “The pressure sensitive member 371 is formed of a material (pressure sensitive conductive resin) including resin 371a and a conductive material 371b”);
a pair of metal electrodes sandwiching the pressure-sensitive conductor (See at least [0057] “The pressure sensor 37 includes, as shown in FIG. 5 … a pair of electrodes 372 and 373 disposed on both surfaces of the pressure sensitive member 371”); and
a pair of insulating sheets sandwiching the pair of metal electrodes (See at least [0057] “The pressure sensor 37 includes, as shown in FIG. 5 … a supporting board 374 supporting the electrode 372, and a supporting board 375 supporting the electrode 373” and [0069] “The pair of supporting boards 374 and 375 that supports the pair of electrodes 372 and 373 explained above is not respectively particularly limited. For example, various printed boards such as a flexible board and a rigid board can be used”),
and
…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the pressure sensor of Ikebe in Nakashima or the combination of Ikebe, Koike, and/or Nagakari with a reasonable expectation of success. Nakashima and Nagakari both do not limit themselves to any particular sensor structure as they appear to be designed to be generally sensor structure agnostic. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an understood structure such as that disclosed in Ikebe. In particular, Ikebe believes the disclosed structure to have advantages of weight and size/volume (see e.g. [0008] of Ikebe).
Nakashima or the combination of Nakashima and Koike does not teach, but Nagakari has already been shown to teach:
…
the elastic member is in a dome shape (See again at least [0048] “The contact portion 23 includes an elastic material such as rubber, and includes a hemispherical soft deformable layer” and Figures 1 and 2 illustrating contact portion 23).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima et al., further in view of Koike et al., Nagakari, Ikebe et al., and Correll et al..
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Nakashima, Koike, Nagakari, and Ikebe teaches:
The gripping device according to claim 4,
The combination of Nakashima, Koike, Nagakari, Ikebe does not explicitly teach, but Correll teaches:
wherein
the first controller is further configured to control an operation of the motor by changing a waveform of a drive signal output to the motor (See at least [0093] “Inputs to the controller were normalized proximity values from the PCF sensor and output of the controller is the Pulse Width Modulated (PWM) control signal for the finger motors”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a changing waveform such as through the use of PWM as taught by Correll in the system of Nakashima, or Nakashima in combination with Koike, Nagakari, and Ikebe with a reasonable expectation of success. The use of PWM is well known, understood, and routine in the control of motors in general and robots in specific. The use of PWM would allow for variation in operation of components, rather than being limited to a single operational characteristic.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima et al. in view of Koike et al., Nagakari, and Alt et al. (US 20210023719 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Nakashima, Koike, and Nagakari teaches:
The robot according to claim 7,
The combination of Nakashima, Koike, and Nagakari does not explicitly teach (At a minimum Nagakari discusses camera use with respect to position and posture of the object, see [0092] and [0093]), but Alt explicitly teaches:
further comprising a camera imaging the object,
wherein the second controller is further configured to:
calculate a position of the object from an image acquired by the camera, and
calculate a trajectory in which the gripper is moved based on the position of the object and a position of the gripper (See at least [0035] “The term “Visual servoing” is intended to mean a process of moving the kinematic chain towards a goal position by tracking features from an image of the imaging sensor, such as a 2D camera or 3D camera. Exemplarily, the camera may be mounted on an end-effector of the robot and thus moves with the robot. A motion command, typically a velocity signal in Cartesian space, is derived from the position offset between the observed features and their desired position. Visual servoing systems rely directly on the Jacobian or on inverse kinematics, and low-level control systems to execute these motion commands” and [0036] “The terms “trajectory planning” or “motion planning” are intended to mean a process which includes planning of the exact trajectory that an end-effector (of a kinematic chain, e.g., a robot arm) should follow. For many tasks carried out by employing embodiments described herein, such as picking or placing objects, only the final pose or the “endpoint” of the trajectory is relevant, while the trajectory only needs to fulfill certain constraints”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an imager such as a camera and control overall arm and gripper operations such as by visual servoing or a similar technique as taught by Alt in the system of Nakashima or Nakashima in combination with Koike and Nagakari with a reasonable expectation of success. The use of visual servoing and similar techniques are well known and routine, and serve to allow the robot to operate in its environment.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kondoh et al. (US 20210102851 A1) which discloses “sandwiched” pressure sensor structures which appear to match those disclosed.
Goto et al. (US 20240269829 A1) which discloses “sandwiched” pressure sensor structures which appear to closesly match those disclosed as well as related control schemes for a robot hand/manipulator/gripper. The main distinction appears to be that Goto is not specific as to if certain structures may or may not be “pressure-sensitive conductor” layers.
Suzuki (US 20140324218 A1) which discloses a form of speed control, how it is less than another speed, and the reasons for limiting the speed as such. See for example:
[0053] Some works W to be gripped by the robot hand 1 are fragile. In a case where the work W is fragile, to grip the work W by adjusting very small force while avoiding a destruction, a gripping speed, that is, a speed (closing speed) of the closing operation by the fingers 2 and 3 is set to be lower than the predetermined speed in some cases. By setting the gripping speed to be low, a movement distance with respect to the time is low, and it is possible to avoid a displacement of the fingers 2 and 3 due to a response delay. That is, it is possible to adjust the very small force. As a method of setting the gripping speed to be low, for example, a general motor control method may be adopted. In the case of a voltage control, a control voltage is set to be low, for example.
Sakano (US 20140156066 A1) which discloses speed control wherein the speed is determined based on a force such that is a force control via speed control, and why you might control speed based on force.
See for example:
[0048] “Generally, in the force feedback control, the actuator is driven with a speed instruction obtained by multiplying the force gain by the force deviation amount obtained by subtracting the force detection value from the force target value. When the motor is driven by the force control unit 39 when the fingers are not in contact with the target to be gripped, the movement speed is low as the force gain is small and the speed instruction is small”
[0056] “On the contrary, in the control system of FIG. 4, the force contact value is set to a value close to the force target value, so that an erroneous contact determination operation in the contact stop unit 59 can be prevented, and an appropriate speed can be designated by the position control unit 57. This method is particularly useful in a case where the target to be gripped is soft”
and
[0058] “Generally, in the position feedback control, a value obtained by multiplying a position gain by a positional deviation amount obtained by subtracting the detection position from the instruction position becomes a movement speed, and when the instruction position input is stopped, the positional deviation amount at this time becomes an amount of coasting”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657