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 § 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 1-6 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 claim 1, it is unclear whether the “diaphragm” or “film” is “capable of adjusting resistance to displacement and that is attachable to a gripping part of a robot hand”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner interprets the diaphragm to be the subject of the following limitation.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear whether the “robot hand” is a new “robot hand”, an additional “robot hand” or the existing robot hand of the parent claim 1. Additionally, it is unclear whether the parts comprising the robot hand are new, additional, or the existing parts of the parent claims. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner interprets the robot hand to be the same as described in parent claim.
Claims 2-5 are rejected for their dependence upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colechia (US Patent 3,449,008 A) in view of Bae (KR 20190138447 A).
Regarding claim 1, the gripping sensor device of Colechia teaches a sensor unit comprising:
a diaphragm (26, 28) that has a film (11, 13);
which is capable of adjusting resistance to displacement and that is attachable to a gripping part (12, 14) of a robot hand (10, Fig 1; Col. 2 ln 53-56; Col. 3 ln 5-12). As the gripping parts (12, 14) of Colechia are moved, the diaphragm resistance to displacement is adjusted.
Colechia does not teach a sensor directly attached to the film. However, the gripper of Bae teaches a sensor (230) that is attached to the film (240, Fig 3; Pg 5, body 7) and that detects an external force on a detection surface thereof (Pg 6, body 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the gripping sensor device of Colechia with a sensor directly attached to the film to measure the contact force, bending or the like when the gripper comes into contact with an object (Abstract, last 3 lines)
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Colechia further teaches the film (11, 13) is displaced in a direction perpendicular to the detection surface (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Colechia further teaches a robot hand (mechanical hand 10, Fig 1; Col. 2 ln 44-51) comprising:
a gripping part (12, 16) that grips a gripping target object (22, Fig 1); and
a sensor unit recited in claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above).
Claims 3 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colechia & Bae in view of Kellogg (US Patent 4,584,625 A).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Colechia further teaches the diaphragm with a wall part that supports the film in a peripheral edge part of the film (Annotated Fig 1 below). The combination is silent on the details of a circumferential support part with a bellows structure. However, the sensor unit of Kellogg teaches a circumferential wall part (13b) has a bellows structure (Fig 3; Col. 5 ln 20-22) that is expandable and contractible in the direction perpendicular to the detection surface (30) of the sensor (Fig 1; Col 4 ln 5-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the gripping sensor device of modified Colechia with a circumferential support part with a bellows structure to further enhance the tensile strength of the compression cell (Col. 5 ln 20-22).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 3 as described above, Colechia further teaches a space surrounded by the circumferential wall part and the film is filled with oil, and a pressure of the oil is adjusted (Col. 2 ln 61-63; Col. 4 ln 1-16).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colechia, Bae, & Kellogg in view of Nagai (WO 2013018213 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 4 as described above, Colechia further teaches a hydraulic sensor (24) that detects the pressure of the oil (Col. 2 ln 64 to Col. 3 ln 5) and a control section that controls the robot hand (34). The combination does not teach that the gripping target object is gripped with a higher gripping force upon detection of a vibration. However, the robot hand of Nagai teaches a control section that controls the robot hand (microcomputer 54, Fig 1), upon detection of a vibration of the oil by the hydraulic sensor (26; Pg 5, Step S2-1), so that a gripping target object is gripped with a higher gripping force (Pg 6, body 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the gripping sensor device with a control section that increases force when the hydraulic sensor detects a vibration of the oil to regrip the object when after slipping so as not to be displaced again (Pg 6, body 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2012/0247217 A1 discloses a pressure sensor grasping apparatus that utilizes fluid and pressure sensors to detect gripping force.
JP S6179592 A discloses a gripping device with a bellows structure.
KR 20210057655 A discloses a sensor gripping device with force sensors and fluid filled gripping bags.
US 5,373,747 A discloses a robot hand with contact pressure detection using an incompressible fluid medium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4, M-Fr.
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.
/RALPH D WILKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights