DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications on 2025/10/17. Claims 1 – 5 are pending and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome Drawing objections. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zaremsky.
Applicant argues that Stagnitto does not teach “processing circuitry configured to control the current control value such that a value of the grip force detected by the force detector matches a force command value”. However, Stagnitto discloses “the microprocessor 18 commands the robotic gripper assembly 10 to close to a predetermined position or spacing A which is slightly less than the expected part dimension of work piece” (Stagnitto, Column 3 Lines 32 – 35). The “force command value” specified by the applicant is target position for the gripper converted to a force. Stagnitto discloses a method for moving a gripper to a predetermined position, however does not use force sensors to do so. However, it is stated by Stagnitto that methods for moving grippers to predetermined positions using sensors are commonly known and obvious, as stated here: “Typically, current robotic applications use a sensor mounted within the gripper assembly to detect part or work piece presence.” (Stagnitto, Column 1, Lines 15 – 17). One of the prior arts specified by Stagnitto is Zaremsky, et. al. (US 4579380 A), who teaches the following: “Force servoing is accomplished by providing a force transducer integral with one or more mounting blocks for monitoring the load exerted on the finger through a pivot and lever action of a mounting bracket positioned adjacent to the force transducer.” (Column 1, Lines 48 – 52). Just like in Stagnitto, Zaremsky is using a servo-controlled system within which a measured force is being used as the feedback value. Although Stagnitto uses a different method for measuring the force, both Stagnitto and Zaremsky are using force as the unit for the feedback system.
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.
Claims 1 – 5 rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stagnitto, Joseph E., et. al. (US 5945798 A), hereinafter referred to as Stagnitto, in view of Zaremsky, et. al. (US 4579380 A), hereinafter referred to as Zaremsky.
Regarding Claim 1:
A gripping device comprising:
a motor and a detector configured to detect a position and a speed of a rotary shaft of the motor;
Stagnitto discloses “the movement of which driven by servomotor 14. Connected to the shaft 17 of servomotor 14 is an encoder”, (Stagnitto, Column 3 Lines 15 – 17).
a motor drive circuit configured to
supply power by which the motor is driven based on a current control value, and
Stagnitto discloses “the magnitude of the grip force can be controlled by controlling the servomotor current with the controller software.” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 36 – 38).
detect a magnitude of a current that is provided to the motor;
Stagnitto discloses “the grippers will attempt to close beyond the expected part dimension and should stop on the part due to force limiting control by some method such as limiting the maximum current to the motor” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 24 – 28).
a grasper including a first finger and a second finger, the grasper being configured to grip an object with the first finger and the second finger, by changing a distance between the first finger and the second finger in accordance with rotation of the motor;
Stagnitto discloses “Robotic gripper assembly 10 includes at least 2 opposing fingers 12 the movement of which driven by servomotor” (Stagnitto, Column 3 Lines 14 – 16).
a force detector configured to detect a grip force that enables the object to be gripped by the first finger and the second finger, upon occurrence of a condition in which the object is gripped by the first finger and the second finger; and
Stagnitto discloses “There are a variety of known robotic gripping devices in the prior art. These robotic gripping devices includes systems which may be pneumatically, hydraulically, or motor controlled. Typically, current robotic applications use a sensor mounted within the gripper assembly to detect part or work piece presence. That sensor or an additional sensor may be used to measure the grip pressure being exerted by the robotic gripper assembly.” (Stagnitto, Column 1 Lines 13 – 20). Stagnitto additionally discloses “The prior art fails to teach a robotic gripping system and method wherein work piece detection and gripper force can be determined without the addition of detectors/sensors, or the interface components required to interface such detectors/sensors with the robotic controller.” (Stagnitto, Column 1 Lines 56 – 60). Stagnitto additionally discloses “if a part is actually grasped, a position error will result and this position error can be used to indicate part presence and grip force” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 28 – 30).
processing circuitry configured to
control the current control value such that a value of the grip force detected by the force detector matches a force command value, and
Stagnitto discloses “the microprocessor 18 commands the robotic gripper assembly 10 to close to a predetermined position or spacing A which is slightly less than the expected part dimension of work piece” (Stagnitto, Column 3 Lines 32 – 35). The “force command value” specified by the applicant is target position for the gripper converted to a force. Stagnitto discloses a method for moving a gripper to a predetermined position, however does not use force sensors to do so. However, it is stated by Stagnitto that methods for moving grippers to predetermined positions using sensors are commonly known and obvious, as stated here: “Typically, current robotic applications use a sensor mounted within the gripper assembly to detect part or work piece presence.” (Stagnitto, Column 1, Lines 15 – 17). One of the prior arts specified by Stagnitto is Zaremsky, et. al. (US 4579380 A), who teaches the following: “Force servoing is accomplished by providing a force transducer integral with one or more mounting blocks for monitoring the load exerted on the finger through a pivot and lever action of a mounting bracket positioned adjacent to the force transducer.” (Zaremsky Column 1 Lines 48 – 52). Therefore, utilizing a force sensor to get a gripper to a known position would be “Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” (MPEP 2143).
output the controlled current control value to the motor drive circuit,
Stagnitto discloses “force limiting control by some method such as limiting the maximum current to the motor” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 26 – 28).
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to
convert the force command value to a first position command value,
Stagnitto discloses “When a servomotor is commanded to a predetermined position by the servo controller, an offset proportional to the difference between the "commanded position" and the "actual position" is called position error.” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 18 – 21). The “force command value” specified by the applicant is target position for the gripper converted to a force. The applicant is merely storing the target position in a separate variable.
generate a second position command value,
Stagnitto discloses “When a servomotor is commanded to a predetermined position by the servo controller, an offset proportional to the difference between the "commanded position" and the "actual position" is called position error.” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 18 – 21). Applicant is merely stating the creation of a new variable.
detect that the first finger or the second finger contacts the object,
Stagnitto discloses “If interference occurs, that is if a part is actually grasped, a position error will result and this position error can be used to indicate part presence” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 28 – 30).
change, upon detecting that the first finger or the second finger contacts the object, the second position command value to the first position command value
Stagnitto discloses “If interference occurs, that is if a part is actually grasped, a position error will result and this position error can be used to indicate part presence” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 28 – 30). Stagnitto additionally discloses “When a servomotor is commanded to a predetermined position by the servo controller, an offset proportional to the difference between the "commanded position" and the "actual position" is called position error.” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 18 – 21).
Applicant is merely describing the changing of a currently empty variable “second position command value” to the value of a previously set variable “first position command value”. Both of these values are now equivalent to the target position, or the “force command value”.
convert one of the first position command value and the second position command value to a current command value,
Stagnitto discloses “It should be understood that if a recognizable position error is observed by the robotic control system 18, then a part is present between opposing fingers 12 and the magnitude of the gripping force applied to the work piece 24 is controllable by the software of the robotic control system controlling current supplied to the servomotor 14. Thus, the grip force applied to work piece 24 by opposing fingers 12 as a result of being driven by servomotor 14 can be adjusted by the robotic control system 18. (Stagnitto, Column 5 Lines 41 – 49).
Applicant is merely specifying that there is now a new target position, the “current command value”, generated by calculating a preferred position based on the force feedback given by the gripped object. Although Stagnitto does not use a force sensor in this case, gripping force can be determined by other means. This is an example of “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”, see MPEP 2143.
control the current control value such that the magnitude of the current matches the current command value, and
Stagnitto discloses “It should be understood that if a recognizable position error is observed by the robotic control system 18, then a part is present between opposing fingers 12 and the magnitude of the gripping force applied to the work piece 24 is controllable by the software of the robotic control system controlling current supplied to the servomotor 14. Thus, the grip force applied to work piece 24 by opposing fingers 12 as a result of being driven by servomotor 14 can be adjusted by the robotic control system 18. (Stagnitto, Column 5 Lines 41 – 49).
set the first position command value as a value of the position of the rotary shaft detected by the detector, in a case where the second position command value is changed to the first position command value.
Stagnitto discloses “When the clamping motion of the opposing fingers 12 has been completed, the robotic control system 18 then determines the actual position of the opposing fingers 12 which can be determined as a result of the number of encoder pulses transmitted to the robot control system” (Stagnitto, Column 4 Lines 42 – 46).
Applicant is merely stating that the final position of the gripper should be put into a variable “first position command”, which would be the equivalent to the “actual position of the gripper fingers” (Stagnitto, Column 4, Lines 23 – 24) taught by Stagnitto.
Regarding Claim 2:
The gripping device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate the second position command value that varies at a constant rate until the second position command becomes a constant value.
Stagnitto discloses “the robotic control system 18 waits for motion of opposing fingers 12 to be completed which is determined by a servomotor 14 stopping rotation, this, of course, stops the stream of encoder pulses transmitted to the robotic control system” (Stagnitto, Column 5 Lines 3 – 7).
Regarding Claim 3:
The gripping device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate the current command value such that the value of the position of the rotary shaft detected by the detector matches one of the first position command value and the second position command value.
Stagnitto discloses “if a recognizable position error is observed by the robotic control system 18, then a part is present between opposing fingers 12 and the magnitude of the gripping force applied to the work piece 24 is controllable by the software of the robotic control system controlling current supplied to the servomotor 14. Thus, the grip force applied to work piece 24 by opposing fingers 12 as a result of being driven by servomotor 14 can be adjusted by the robotic control system” (Stagnitto, Column 5 Lines 41 – 49).
Regarding Claim 4:
The gripping device according to claim 1 wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate the first position command value such that the value of the detected grip force matches the force command value.
Stagnitto discloses “The position of the servo is commanded to be such that the grippers will attempt to close beyond the expected part dimension and should stop on the part due to force limiting control by some method such as limiting the maximum current to the motor.” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 23 – 28).
Regarding Claim 5:
A control method by a gripping device that includes
a motor and a detector configured to detect a position and a speed of a rotary shaft of the motor;
Stagnitto discloses “the movement of which driven by servomotor 14. Connected to the shaft 17 of servomotor 14 is an encoder”, (Stagnitto, Column 3 Lines 15 – 17).
a motor drive circuit configured to supply power by which the motor is driven based on a current control value, and detect a magnitude of a current that is provided to the motor;
Stagnitto discloses “the magnitude of the grip force can be controlled by controlling the servomotor current with the controller software.” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 36 – 38). Stagnitto additionally discloses “the grippers will attempt to close beyond the expected part dimension and should stop on the part due to force limiting control by some method such as limiting the maximum current to the motor” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 24 – 28).
a grasper including a first finger and a second finger, the grasper being configured to grip an object with the first finger and the second finger, by changing a distance between the first finger and the second finger in accordance with rotation of the motor; and
Stagnitto discloses “Robotic gripper assembly 10 includes at least 2 opposing fingers 12 the movement of which driven by servomotor” (Stagnitto, Column 3 Lines 14 – 16).
a force detector configured to detect a grip force that enables the object to be gripped by the first finger and the second finger, upon occurrence of a condition in which the object is gripped by the first finger and the second finger, the gripping device controlling the current control value for the motor drive circuit such that a value of the grip force detected by the force detector matches a force command value, the control method comprising:
converting the force command value to a first position command value;
Stagnitto discloses “When a servomotor is commanded to a predetermined position by the servo controller, an offset proportional to the difference between the "commanded position" and the "actual position" is called position error.” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 18 – 21).
generating a second position command value;
Stagnitto discloses “the microprocessor 18 commands the robotic gripper assembly 10 to close to a predetermined position or spacing A which is slightly less than the expected part dimension of work piece” (Stagnitto, Column 3 Lines 32 – 35).
detecting that the first finger or the second finger contacts the object;
Stagnitto discloses “If interference occurs, that is if a part is actually grasped, a position error will result and this position error can be used to indicate part presence” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 28 – 30).
converting either the first position command value or the second position command value to a current command value, wherein the second position command value is converted to the current command value before detecting that the first finger portion or the second finger portion contacts the object, and the first position command value is converted to the current command value after detecting that the first finger portion or the second finger portion contacts the object;
Stagnitto discloses “After the grasp has been achieved by fingers 12, the microprocessor 18 determines a position error which is equal to the difference of the amount of encoder counts necessary to get to the predetermined position A versus the amount of encoder counts to get to the actual position B” (Stagnitto, Column 3 Lines 40 – 44). Stagnitto additionally discloses “In this example, of course, the dimension of work piece 24 is stored within the memory of microprocessor 18.” (Stagnitto, Column 3 Lines 44 – 46).
controlling the current control value such that the magnitude of the current matches the current command value and outputting the controlled current control value; and
Stagnitto discloses “In the operation of the method of the present invention, the microprocessor 18 commands the robotic gripper assembly 10 to close to a predetermined position or spacing A which is slightly less than the expected part dimension of work piece 24.” (Stagnitto, Column 3 Lines 31 – 35). Stagnitto additionally discloses “The position of the servo is commanded to be such that the grippers will attempt to close beyond the expected part dimension and should stop on the part due to force limiting control by some method such as limiting the maximum current to the motor.” (Stagnitto, Column 2 Lines 23 – 28).
setting the first position command value as a value of the position of the rotary shaft detected by the detector, upon detecting that the first finger or the second finger contacts the object.
Stagnitto discloses “When the clamping motion of the opposing fingers 12 has been completed, the robotic control system 18 then determines the actual position of the opposing fingers 12 which can be determined as a result of the number of encoder pulses transmitted to the robot control system” (Stagnitto, Column 4 Lines 42 – 46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES B CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/J.B.C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656