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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The rejection provided in the previous Office Action (dated 10/22/2025) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment of Claim 5 removing the unsupported subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Those rejections addressed by Applicant provided in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment. However, Applicant does not appear to have correctly addressed Claim 5 or Claim 10, and may have amended Claim 11 in a manner which is broader than intended (see updated Claim Interpretation section below). Applicant continues to provide claim constructions not in alignment with the statutory category claimed. For example, claiming steps/actions (what something does) in machine/apparatus claims and statements of what a structure does not clearly as a particular step of a method (e.g. “a method of spinning a top comprising:” “the top spins counterclockwise” rather than “spinning the top counterclockwise”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Specifically, Claims 1 – 9 and 11 have been found to hold allowable subject matter due to the very clear and specific recitation of the sensor portion structure wherein the first and second pressure sensors as phrased in Applicant’s arguments have an ordered composition in combination which are “opposite in order” (Page 12 of Applicant’s Remarks).
With respect to Applicant’s arguments made with respect to Claim 10, while the rejection under 35 USC § 102 is withdrawn and what may be considered a new rejection is provided in light of Applicant’s removal of especially broad phrasing of “capable of”, the change to a method/process claim, and the 112(b) rejection below wherein all features are considered as being positively recited steps of the method/process, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the patentability of the claim are appear wholly conclusory. All limitations were addressed in the preceding Office Action and Applicant’s arguments appear wholly silent with respect to the rejections made.
On Page 11, Applicant states “the discussion of Kishida reference is silent with respect to a method according to which a signal generation section corrects a holding force based at least in part on a duration of an operation of holding a workpiece”. This feature was found in Claim 1. The rejection of Claim 11 that was representative of Claim 10 depended from Claim 1 and consequently included this feature. Therefore, the discussion of Kishida was not silent with respect to this feature/limitation as asserted. Furthermore, and alternatively, this argument even if true fails to demonstrate why Kishida would not teach the limitation. References are considered in their entirety, not only what is specifically cited to or discussed by the Examiner. MPEP 2141.02(VI) relates.
Furthermore, and alternatively, as noted above Claim 10 was rejected with respect to more than Kishida. Applicant does not argue Claim 10 with respect to any other reference, let alone to any combination thereof. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that at least Tsuboi additionally discloses duration related control elements. See various time-series and time averaging discussion throughout related to slip detection and reaction thereto (e.g. [0121]). Tsuboi is not presently relied upon as at the high level of generality claimed, there is no need for such a combination with Kishida. The claim does not specifically recite what correcting a holding force on the basis of a duration of an operation of holding the workpiece even entails.
Claim Interpretation
General Note:
Applicant frequently uses the phrase “capable of”. Examiner finds that this phrase, while similar to “configured to”, is not equivalent. While “configured to” recites a clear functional limitation or in other words suggests that there is some modification to the structure such that it is specifically designed or arranged to perform the claimed function, the phrase “capable of” based on the plain English meaning of the phrase at most only requires the inherent ability or potential capacity to perform the function.
For a limitation which recites “capable of” with respect to a generic computer component (or in other words a computer-implemented limitation), it is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that computers can be programmed or otherwise provided with software to provide any number of functions, and therefore are “capable of”, or have the capacity to, perform most any generally claimed function.
As an example of how Examiner views the distinction between “capable of” or similar language and “configured to” and similar language, the distinction is similar to that of a computer which is “capable of” running a particular operating system, and a computer which is actually “configured to” run a particular operating system. The former only indicates hardware having the capacity, while the latter indicates that the hardware has the operating system actually installed. A device might be considered as capable of running a particular software or performing a particular function without actually having the software installed or particular function programmed, or in other words being configured with a software or to perform a particular function. MPEP 2114 relates.
Applicant makes use of the phrase “to” outside of the typical “configured to” or similar construction. Unless clearly a structural or functional requirement, use of “to” is typically interpreted under its plain English meaning to simply mean an intended or desired result, outcome, purpose, or similar of the preceding linked item. For example, Claim 10 recites “to correct the holding force”. This is not a positively recited limitation and merely indicates the intent of the preceding feature/limitation.
Applicant makes use of the phrase “can be”. This phrase only carries the plain English meaning, which is that is has the capacity for, the capability for, the possibility for, or similar. In other words, it is similar to, but even broader than, “capable of” discussed above. Examiner notes that Claim 11 which uses this phrasing has not been interpreted as exhibiting an issue under 112(b), but instead as merely indicating a further limitation which borders on having not patentable distinction. The limitations appear to limit the structure of the pressure sensors such that certain data may be construed as being provided therefrom and further data calculated and applied from that data. They to not require anything more, such as a structure configured to actually make such calculations, applications, etc. If Applicant desires the limitations to be interpreted as such, they may follow the guidance provided in this and preceding Office Actions to clearly and explicitly claim these features as functional or structural limitations.
112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Hand portion first recited in Claim 1
Finger portion first recited in Claim 1
Elastically deformable sensor portion first recited in Claim 1
Control Device first recited in Claim 1
Signal Generation Section first recited in Claim 1
Computing Section first recited in Claim 4
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5 and 10 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 5 and 10, the claims recite limitations not in line with the claimed category of statutory subject matter (MPEP 2106.03 relates). The claims recite either a process/method or machine/apparatus while reciting limitations with are not steps of the process/method or functions or structures of the machine/apparatus. For example, per MPEP 2114, “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original), and “features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted such limitations as instead reading as positively recited limitations in alignment with the claimed category of statutory subject matter as demonstrated below.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites a machine/apparatus with the limitation “the control device supplies…”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation as instead reading “the control device is further capable of supplying…”, to be consistent with the language of Claim 1 which it appears intended to further limit (see General Note in Claim Interpretation section above related to “capable of”).
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites a method/process with the limitations:
“wherein the signal generation section corrects …”
as well as:
“wherein a vertical load amount, where vertical is a direction normal to a workpiece surface side of the sensor portion, is calculated from a sum of a load acquired by a first pressure sensor and a load acquired by a second pressure sensor, wherein a shear load amount is calculated from a displacement between a location of a first pressure center position within an area of the first pressure sensor and a location of a second pressure center position within an area of the second pressure sensor, and wherein the calculated load amounts are applied to correct the holding force”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitations as instead reading:
“;
correcting, by the signal generation section, …”
“calculating, by the signal generation section, a vertical load amount, where vertical is a direction normal to a workpiece surface side of the sensor portion, from a sum of a load acquired by a first pressure sensor and a load acquired by a second pressure sensor,
calculating, by the signal generation section, a shear load amount from a displacement between a location of a first pressure center position within an area of the first pressure sensor and a location of a second pressure center position within an area of the second pressure sensor, and
applying, by the signal generation section, the calculated load amounts to correct the holding force”.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishida et al. (US 20090031825 A1), further in view of Tsuboi et al. (US 20090076657 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kishida teaches:
The robot apparatus according to Claim 1,
Kishida further teaches:
A control method, comprising
providing a signal generation section (See at least Figure 6 and [0098] “The actuators 102 are incorporated in the predetermined joint sections 11 (i.e., the shoulder joint section 11-1, the elbow joint section 11-3, the wrist section 11-5, and the hand section 11-6) of the robot hand 1, respectively, and drive the predetermined joint sections 11 according to a driving signal from the main control unit 101”); and
operating the signal generation section to generate a hold command to cause a hand portion of a robot apparatus to hold a workpiece with a constant holding force (See at least [0071] “As described above, the robot hand manipulator can skillfully grip and manipulate arbitrary objects having various sizes, shapes, surface states, weights, and the like” and Figure 1),
wherein the signal generation section corrects the holding force on a basis on an output of an elastically deformable sensor portion that detects a pressure acting on a holding surface of the hand portion (See at least Figure 6, various equations, and various portions which disclose force control such as [0149] “Therefore, when gripping is performed by the robot hand 1, it can be said that this is more effective to detect a slip in a state of "shift" and perform gripping force control than performing gripping force control on the basis of a complete relative motion between the viscoelastic body of the input section 31 and the contact object”),
and a duration of an operation of holding the workpiece (See various discussion of stress relaxation of the viscoelastic bodies of the sensors throughout disclosure, which results in changes over time for which the control system accounts for. For example [0085], [0136], and Figures 9 and 12. See also at least [0024], [0141], and [0161] which discusses stress propagation speed throughout the viscoelastic medium) wherein a vertical load amount, where vertical is a direction normal to a workpiece surface side of the sensor portion, is calculated from a sum of a load acquired by a first pressure sensor (See at least pressure detecting unit 42-1 and Figure 3) [and] a load acquired by a second (See at least pressure detecting unit 42-2 and Figure 3) pressure sensor (See at least [0102] “When a sum of outputs P(x, y) of the respective sensor elements 52-1 exceeds a certain threshold th, i.e., when the following formula (2) is satisfied, the contact detecting section 121 may judge that the sensor elements 52 detect contact”), wherein a shear load amount is calculated from a displacement between a location of a first pressure center position within an area of the first pressure sensor and a location of a second pressure center position within an area of the second pressure sensor (See at least [0021] “The slip detecting means can calculate a pressure center position from a pressure distribution generated in the viscoelastic body by stress dispersion detected by a first one of the detecting units, calculate a pressure center position from a pressure distribution generated in the viscoelastic body by stress dispersion detected by a second one of the detecting units, and calculate a difference between the pressure center positions” and [0023] “The slip detecting means can detect, on the basis of the calculated difference, a shearing force applied to the pressure sensor”), and wherein the calculated load amounts are applied to correct the holding force (See at least [0097] “For example, the main control unit 101 receives the information on the slip between the gripped object and the fingertips detected by the sensors 21. The main control unit 101 controls necessary ones among the actuators 102 using softness of the sensors 21 themselves, grippability by friction of the surfaces, and the like on the basis of information on a slip between the gripped object and the fingertips from the sensors 21 to drive the predetermined joint sections 11, cause the robot hand 1 to grip the object and, for example, move or carry the object” and [0149] “In this way, an amount of deformation of the pressure distribution increases depending on a magnitude of the shearing force Fs. Therefore, even if a contact area between the viscoelastic body of the input section 31 (the deforming section 41) and the contact object (the pressure tip A) is generally unchanged, a "slip" in a broad sense can be grasped. Therefore, when gripping is performed by the robot hand 1, it can be said that this is more effective to detect a slip in a state of "shift" and perform gripping force control than performing gripping force control on the basis of a complete relative motion between the viscoelastic body of the input section 31 and the contact object” and [0177] “In a robot hand and a manipulator, to skillfully grip and manipulate arbitrary objects having various sizes, shapes, surface states, and weights and perform physical interaction with high affinity with humans, it is necessary that dynamic behaviors of an object such as slips represented by "translation", "rolling", and "shift" and "oscillation" observed at the time of an initial local slip can be detected in addition to "a magnitude, a direction, and a distribution of a force" ”).
Kishida does not teach but in combination with Tsuboi teaches:
…
[a sum of a load acquired by] the first pressure sensor [and] a load acquired by the second pressure sensor (See at least [0190] “The normal-force calculating unit 461 calculates a sum of products of pressure values Pc.sub.i(x, y) and areas S.sub.i(x, y) of the respective sensor elements 52 of the pressure sensor 457 according to formula (33) to calculate the normal force f.sub.i(t) (equal to gripping force) and outputs the normal force f.sub.i(t) to the suppression-value calculating unit 460 and the change-value calculating unit 462”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the gripping force value by summing all sensor values as taught by Tsuboi, including between the two layers in Kishida, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both sensor layers detect a normal force in Kishida but may differ substantially (See for example Figure 9). By combining the data of all sensor elements involved as disclosed in Tsuboi, a more comprehensive load amount would be achieved.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 9, and 11 are allowed.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Independent Claims 1 and 9 recite a very narrow and specific sensor structure which has not been found alone or in reasonable combination in the Examiner’s search of the prior art. Specifically, the structure is such that it appears bounded to that illustrated in Figure 2, wherein the first and second pressure sensors as phrased in Applicant’s arguments have an ordered composition in combination which are “opposite in order” (Page 12 of Applicant’s Remarks). See wherein the reference electrode layer, deformation layer, and sensor electrode layer are ordered in an opposite manner about the separation layer 23.
The closest prior art of record are those references already cited in this and preceding office actions such as Hotta (WO 2018061416 A1). However, there is no clear and obvious reason to modify any of these references such that the specific ordering to the layers is presented.
Conclusion
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