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 .
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.
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 1-2,5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 4,132,318) in view of Kiyosawa (US 11,738,458).
Re claims 1,2, Wang teaches a transport apparatus (figure 1A) comprising: first (10, etc., see figures) and second hand portions (11, etc., see figures) that are arranged at a distance from each other in a first direction Y in a horizontal plane and configured to simultaneously hold a transport target object 28, the first and second hand portions respectively including first 10 and second holding portions 11 that hold the transport target object, and first 12 and second 13 force sensors that respectively detect external forces (F(sub R), F (sub L)) applied to the first and second holding portions; a moving portion (see figures) that moves the first and second hand portions independently (figures 10,11) of each other in the first direction, as well as in a second direction (Z, as written this need not each be independently moved depending on interpretation, though for sake of potential arguments and/or if argued needed, making things adjustable, duplicating and rearranging parts are obvious modifications (MPEP 2144, In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) ) providing greater control) that is perpendicular to the first direction in the horizontal plane and in a vertical direction; and a control portion 44 that controls the moving portion to move, toward a positioning point, the transport target object to which an upward force is applied within a range where the object does not float above a placement face (Wang teaches securely gripping the object even in presence of external forces such as gravity & F (sub R) & F (sub L)), using the external forces (F(sub R), F (sub L)) detected by the first and second force sensors 12,13. Kiyosawa (figure 1, column 14 line 66- column 15 line 2) teaches a mobile gripper with sensors and controls to adjust to offset the device to handle external forces and that these offsets/sensors may be various types to safely and securely operate as desired. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Wang as claimed to have greater control of gripping and movement promoting safe and secure handling.
Re claim 5, Wang does not mention a wheeled platform to which a base end of the moving portion is fixed. However, this is already known as shown by Kiyosawa (see figure 1, etc.) allowing greater freedom of movement of the device and handling the target object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Wang as claimed in order to allow greater freedom of movement of the device and handling the target object among greater spaced locations.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 4,132,318) in view of Kiyosawa (US 11,738,458) and Panasonic (JP2010228024A).
Re claim 3, Wang does not discuss play between the hand portions and the transport object when they hold the target object. However, this already a known type handling in the art as shown by Panasonic (figure 4(c), [0034], control unit 10, hand parts 2a, 2b, target object W). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Wang as claimed in order to have ability to use with a greater variety of handling types to handle a greater number of situations and avoid holding / gripping too hard and deforming the target object.
Re claim 4, Wang teaches faces of the first and second hand portions that come into contact with the transport target object when the first and second hand portions hold the transport target object are faces with a low coefficient of friction. Regarding the “low coefficient of friction this is merely a relative statement open to interpretation by the reader. The coefficient of friction by the references can thus be considered low.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parker teaches a robot hand with independent fingers (abstract, figures, etc.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights