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 Interpretation
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.
The limitation “locking means” in claim 1 is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The “locking means” is a generic place holder modified by functional language and does not recite sufficient structure for performing the recited locking function. Accordingly, the limitation is construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification for performing the recited function, and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Locking means” in claim(s) 9, 15, 17 and 19.
“Transfer means” in claims 1, 9, 10, 15, 18 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR 102222633 B1) in view of Oh (KR 200466917 Y1).
Regarding claim 1, Cha discloses a gripper comprising: a variable loop (10; see Fig. 1) configured to surround and grip an object while being curved in response to an external signal (see Fig. 1-2c); and wherein one end of the variable loop is fixed to a transfer means (see Fig. 13a-13c).
Cha fails to disclose a locking means configured to lock the variable loop when the variable loop is curved in a closed shape to maintain the closed shape.
However, Oh teaches a fixing device comprising a locking means configured to lock the variable loop when the variable loop is curved in a closed shape to maintain the closed shape (see Fig. 9-12 for the magnet as the locking means).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce a locking means configured to lock the variable loop when the variable loop is curved in a closed shape to maintain the closed shape, on the gripper of Cha, as taught by Oh, to provide a fixing force to the object by sticking to each other by magnetic force (see Page 3, Para. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Cha, in view of Oh, discloses the gripper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the variable loop (10; see Fig. 1) has a band shape (see Fig. 1-2c), and a plurality of elastic members with a band shape is joined to one another along edges thereof to form an air chamber (17; see Fig. 2b; see Abstract for finger accommodating space for air) therein.
Regarding claim 3, Cha, in view of Oh, discloses the gripper as claimed in claim 2, wherein one or more folding portions (see Fig. 2b for folding portions), where the elastic members are joined, are formed in a longitudinal middle portion of the air chamber in a width direction of the air chamber (see Fig. 2b), and the folding portion is joined to have a length smaller than a width of the air chamber so that air flows (see Fig. 2b).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Cha, in view of Oh, discloses the gripper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the variable loop (10; see Fig. 1) is made by attaching two types of materials (see Page 4, Para. 9) that are differently stretched or contracted in response to the external signal (see Fig. 10a-10b for stretch/contract), and the variable loop is curved in the closed shape or deployed in an opened shape in response to the external signal (see Fig. 10a-10b).
Regarding claim 7, Cha, in view of Oh, discloses the gripper as claimed in claim 6, wherein the variable loop (10; see Fig. 1) is made by attaching polymers with different flexibility (see Page 4, Para. 9-12).
Regarding claim 9, Oh further teaches wherein the locking means includes a magnet and a magnetic element (see Abstract), one of the magnet and the magnetic element is fixed to one of two opposite ends of the variable loop or the transfer means (see Fig. 9 for magnets connected to both ends), and the other of the magnet and the magnetic element is fixed to a free end that is the other end of the variable loop (see Fig. 9 for magnets connected to both ends), wherein when the variable loop is curved in the closed shape (see Fig. 11-12 for curved in closed shape), the magnet and the magnetic element are attached by an attractive force to maintain the closed shape (see Fig. 11-12), and wherein the free end of the variable loop is positioned between the magnet and the magnetic element that are attached to each other (see Fig. 9 for free end attached to object magnetically). See motivation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Cha discloses the gripper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first enlarged portion formed at one end of the variable loop is fixed to the transfer means (see Fig. 13a-13c).
Cha fails to disclose wherein enlarged portions are respectively formed at two opposite ends of the variable loop, and the locking means is fixed to the first enlarged portion and the second enlarged portion formed at the free end of the variable loop.
However, Oh teaches wherein enlarged portions are respectively formed at two opposite ends of the variable loop (see Fig. 1), and the locking means is fixed to the first enlarged portion and the second enlarged portion formed at the free end of the variable loop (see Fig. 1-2). See motivation of claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
405
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Cha, in view of Oh, discloses the gripper as claimed in claim 2, wherein a second enlarged portion is formed at a free end of the variable loop (see Fig. 2b), and folding portions are formed forward and rearward of the second enlarged portion (see Fig. 2b) in a direction in which air is introduced into the air chamber (see Page 3, Para. 14).
PNG
media_image3.png
312
439
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR 102222633 B1) in view of Oh (KR 200466917 Y1), further in view of Kim (US 20220257091 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Cha, in view of Oh, discloses the gripper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the variable loop (10; see Fig. 1) is made of a flexible material and has a band shape (see Page 3, Para. 5, “silicon”), folding portions are formed on a curved inner surface of the variable loop (see Fig. 2b for loop folding inward) and disposed at intervals, and rings (15; see Fig. 2b) are formed on an outer surface of the variable loop and disposed at intervals in a longitudinal direction of the variable loop (see Fig. 2b).
Cha, as modified by Oh, fails to disclose wherein the gripper comprises: a wire having an end fixed to an end of the variable loop and configured to penetrate the ring and extend in the longitudinal direction of the variable loop; and a motor configured to move the wire.
However, Kim teaches an operation apparatus for performing an operation, comprising: a wire having an end fixed to an end of the variable loop and configured to penetrate the ring and extend in the longitudinal direction of the variable loop (see Abstract); and a motor configured to move the wire (see Para. 0008).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce a wire having an end fixed to an end of the variable loop and configured to penetrate the ring and extend in the longitudinal direction of the variable loop; and a motor configured to move the wire, on the gripper of Cha, as modified by Oh, as taught by Kim, to include a wire which is connected to the end effector to steer the end effector, and a tension compensator which is connected with the wire, wherein in an operating state, the tension compensator changes a shape or position in response to tension of the wire to keep the wire tight (see Para. 0023).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR 102222633 B1) in view of Oh (KR 200466917 Y1), further in view of Licht (US 10959797 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Cha, in view of Oh, discloses the gripper as claimed in claim 1.
Cha, as modified by Oh, fails to disclose wherein the wire is a bent elastic wire, the variable loop has a closed shape curved along a shape of the elastic wire, and the variable loop changes to an opened shape as the wire is moved to the outside of variable loop by the motor.
However, Licht teaches a medical device having articulated joints wherein the wire is a bent elastic wire (see Col. 25, lines 45-65), the variable loop has a closed shape curved along a shape of the elastic wire (see Fig. 2A-2B), and the variable loop changes to an opened shape as the wire is moved to the outside of variable loop by the motor (see Col. 9, lines 40-50).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the wire is a bent elastic wire, the variable loop has a closed shape curved along a shape of the elastic wire, and the variable loop changes to an opened shape as the wire is moved to the outside of variable loop by the motor, on the gripper of Cha, as modified by Oh, as taught by Licht, in order to predicably articulate/manipulate the overall articulating end effector joint (see Col. 9, lines 40-50).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR 102222633 B1) in view of Oh (KR 200466917 Y1), further in view of Guo (JP 2023531644 A).
Regarding claim 8, Cha, in view of Oh, discloses the gripper as claimed in claim 6.
Cha, as modified by Oh, fails to disclose wherein the variable loop is made by attaching metallic materials with different flexibility.
However, Guo teaches a gripper wherein the variable loop is made by attaching metallic materials with different flexibility (see Page 13, Para. 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the variable loop is made by attaching metallic materials with different flexibility, on the gripper of Cha, as modified by Oh, as taught by Guo, in order to stiffen the finger actuator and cover plate (see Page 13, Para. 9).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR 102222633 B1) in view of Oh (KR 200466917 Y1), further in view of Lessing (JP 2019503278 A).
Regarding claim 12, Cha, in view of Oh, discloses the gripper as claimed in claim 2.
Cha, as modified by Oh, fails to disclose wherein a hose is connected to the air chamber of the variable loop, and the gripper further comprises a pneumatic system configured to inject or discharge air through the hose.
However, Lessing teaches a gripper wherein a hose (118; see Page 5, Para. 3) is connected to the air chamber of the variable loop, and the gripper further comprises a pneumatic system configured to inject or discharge air through the hose (see Page 5, Para. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein a hose is connected to the air chamber of the variable loop, and the gripper further comprises a pneumatic system configured to inject or discharge air through the hose, on the gripper of Cha, as modified by Oh, as taught by Lessing, in order to supply expansion fluid (see Page 5, Para. 2).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR 102222633 B1) in view of Oh (KR 200466917 Y1) and Lessing (JP 2019503278 A), further in view of Kwok (US 20180326578 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Cha, in view of Oh and Lessing, discloses the gripper as claimed in claim 12, wherein a second enlarged portion is formed at a free end of the variable loop (see Fig. 2b).
Cha, as modified by Oh and Lessing, fails to disclose an air chamber provided separately from the air chamber of the variable loop is formed in the second enlarged portion.
However, Kwok teaches a robotic actuator wherein an air chamber provided separately from the air chamber of the variable loop is formed in the second enlarged portion (see Para. 0052).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein an air chamber provided separately from the air chamber of the variable loop is formed in the second enlarged portion, on the gripper of Cha, as modified by Oh and Lessing, as taught by Kwok, in order to push away and disconnect the magnet (see Para. 0052).
Regarding claim 14, Cha, in view of Oh and Lessing, discloses the gripper as claimed in claim 13, wherein a pneumatic system having a hose respectively connected to the air chamber of the variable loop (see Page 5, Para. 3 of Lessing).
Cha, as modified by Oh and Lessing, fails to disclose a pneumatic system having hoses respectively connected to the air chamber of the second enlarged portion, the pneumatic system being configured to inject or discharge air selectively into or from any one air chamber or both of the air chambers.
However, Kwok teaches a pneumatic system having hoses (270; see Fig. 2B-2J) respectively connected to the air chamber of the second enlarged portion (see Fig. 2B-2J), the pneumatic system being configured to inject or discharge air selectively into or from any one air chamber or both of the air chambers (see Para. 0052). See motivation of claim 13.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR 102222633 B1) in view of Oh (KR 200466917 Y1), further in view of Song (KR 102555319 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Cha, in view of Oh, disclose the gripper as claimed in claim 1.
Cha, as modified by Oh, fail to disclose wherein the locking means is a gripper having a plurality of spiral loops configured to converge or diverge, and one end of the variable loop is fixed inside the spiral loops, wherein when the variable loop is curved in the closed shape, the spiral loops converge to lock and bind a free end of the variable loop, and wherein the variable loop is unlocked as the spiral loops diverge.
However, Song teaches a gripper wherein the locking means is a gripper having a plurality of spiral loops configured to converge or diverge (see Abstract), and one end of the variable loop is fixed inside the spiral loops (see Abstract and Fig. 3), wherein when the variable loop is curved in the closed shape, the spiral loops converge to lock and bind a free end of the variable loop (see Abstract and Fig. 8-9), and wherein the variable loop is unlocked as the spiral loops diverge (see Abstract and Fig.3 for when variable look is unlocked).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the locking means is a gripper having a plurality of spiral loops configured to converge or diverge, and one end of the variable loop is fixed inside the spiral loops, wherein when the variable loop is curved in the closed shape, the spiral loops converge to lock and bind a free end of the variable loop, and wherein the variable loop is unlocked as the spiral loops diverge, on the gripper of Cha, as modified by Oh, as taught by Song, so that an object can be gripped and transported (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Song further teaches herein the gripper having the plurality of spiral loops configured to converge or diverge comprises: an upper plate mounted on the transfer means (see Abstract), a lower plate configured to rotate relative to the upper plate (see Abstract); and the plurality of spiral loops having two opposite ends respectively connected to the upper plate and the lower plate or extending from the upper plate and the lower plate (see Abstract), the plurality of spiral loops having twisted longitudinal middle portions (see Abstract), wherein the longitudinal middle portions of the spiral loops converge or diverge as the upper plate and the lower plate rotate relative to each other (see Abstract), and wherein an enlarged portion is formed at a free end of the variable loop (see Fig. 6 for enlarged portion at free end of variable loop), and the spiral loops surround and bind the enlarged portion (see Fig. 3). See motivation of claim 17.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR 102222633 B1) in view of Oh (KR 200466917 Y1), further in view of Kwok (US 20180326578 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Cha, in view of Oh, discloses the gripper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the locking means comprises a locking part (200; see Fig. 1), the locking part comprises a magnet (200) and a magnetic element (see Fig. 1), any one of the magnet and the magnetic element is fixed to one of two opposite ends of the variable loop or the transfer means (see Fig. 1), the other of the magnet and the magnetic element is fixed to a free end that is the other end of the variable loop (see Fig. 1), and when the variable loop is curved in the closed shape, the magnet and the magnetic element are attached by an attractive force to maintain the closed shape (see Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
405
358
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Cha, as modified by Oh, fails to disclose wherein the locking means comprises an unlocked part.
However, Kwok teaches a robotic actuator comprising an unlocked part (280; see Fig. 2A-2J; expansion unlocks magnetic attraction).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce an unlocked part, on the gripper of Cha, as modified by Oh, as taught by Kwok, in order to push away and disconnect the magnet (see Para. 0052).
Regarding claim 20, Kwok further teaches wherein the unlocking part (280; see Fig. 2A-2J) is an elastic member formed in an air chamber in the variable loop (see Para. 0052), the elastic member is fixed to a bottom surface of the magnetic element (see Fig. 2F-2J), the elastic member is expanded by air injected into the air chamber or contracted as the air is discharged (see Para. 0052), and a free end of the variable loop is attached to a bottom surface of the unlocking part (see Fig. 2A-2J).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHMAN A QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-6262. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/REHMAN A QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights