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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 4, line 8, “The finger portion 13 pivot relative to the base” should read “The finger portion 13 pivots relative to the base”.
On page 4, line 9, “referred to as a C1” should read “referred to as C1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 5, “becomes a stationary state” should read “enters a stationary state”.
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (KR 20100112670).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al teaches a hand structure comprising:
a base (110) (Page 5, paragraphs 2, 3; Fig. 3, element 110);
a finger joint portion (210a) provided on the base (110) (Page 7, paragraph 2; Fig. 1, elements 110, 210a);
a finger portion (210) that is swingable about the finger joint portion (210a) (Page 7, paragraph 2; Fig. 3, elements 211, 210a);
and a shock absorber that is connected between the base (110) and the finger portion (210) to mitigate rotational torque generated in the finger portion (210) in response to a swing of the finger portion (210) due to collision of a dynamic object (Page 8, paragraph 7; Fig. 8, elements 212, 213).
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al teaches a wrist joint portion (31) connected to the base (110) (Page 5, paragraph 4; Fig. 1, elements 31, 110); and
a driving unit (410a) configured to drive the base (110) about the wrist joint portion (31) (Page 5, paragraph 2; Page 10, paragraph 1; Fig. 2, elements 31, 110, 410a), wherein
the driving unit (410a) applies acceleration to the base (110) in a state where the finger joint portion (210a) becomes rigid after the object in contact with the finger portion (210) becomes a stationary state, and serves the object (Page 5, paragraph 2; Page 7, paragraph 3; Page 10, paragraph 1; Fig. 2, elements 211, 410a).
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al teaches a plurality of the finger portions (210, 210’, 230) is provided for one base (110) (Page 3, paragraph 3; Fig. 1, elements 110, 210, 210’, 230); and
the shock absorber is connected between at least one of the finger portions (210) and the base (110) (Page 8, paragraph 7; Fig. 8, elements 110, 210, 212, 213).
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al teaches a driving unit (410a) configured to drive the finger portion (210) with respect to the base (110) (Page 5, paragraph 2; Page 7, paragraph 3; Page 10, paragraph 1; Fig. 2, elements 210, 410a), wherein:
the finger portions (210, 210’, 230) include a finger portion (210) to which the shock absorber is connected, and a finger portion (210’, 230) to which the shock absorber is not connected (Page 8, paragraph 7; Fig. 8, elements 212, 213); and
the driving unit (410a, 410b) drives the finger portion (210’, 230) to which the shock absorber is not connected, and grips the object (Page 5, paragraph 2; Page 7, paragraph 3; Page 10, paragraph 1; Fig. 2, elements 410a, 410b, 210’, 230).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al in view of Matsuda (WO 02058896).
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al fails to teach a cushioning material. Matsuda teaches a hand structure with a cushioning material (17) provided on a cushion side of the finger portion (6) (Page 2, paragraph 9; Page 5, paragraph 4; Fig. 2, elements 6, 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Matsuda in Lee et al to facilitate the creation of a cushioning member that can assist the finger portion with bending and stretching as taught by Matsuda (Page 2, paragraph 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm.
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, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at 571-272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-6911.
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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/GENE O CRAWFORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights