DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on December 5, 2025. Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 11 are amended. Claims 5-6 and 10 are filed as previously presented. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claim 14 is newly added. Claims 12-13 are withdrawn from consideration.
Drawing objections and prior art rejections have been addressed below in “Response to Arguments”. Amendments to independent claim 1 and dependent claim 3 obviate the claim objections set forth in the previous action, and as such objections have been withdrawn.
Amendments to claim 2 obviate the 112b rejection of claim 2 set forth in the previous action, but such amendments introduce new issues which are addressed below. Amendments to claims 6 and 7 obviate the 112b rejection of claim 7 set forth in the previous rejection thereby withdrawing the 112b rejection of claim 7, but a specification objection has newly been included pertaining to such amendments in order to further clarify the record. Amendments to claims 9 and 11 obviate the 112b rejections of claims 9 and 11 set forth in the previous rejection, and thus the 112b rejection of claims 9 and 11 are withdrawn.
Examiner has reevaluated 112(f) claim interpretations and has withdrawn the interpretation regarding “a resilient member” of amended claim 1 (previously claim 4). As a result, the prior art rejection has been clarified to explain Examiner’s interpretation of the term in the context of the claim limitation, rather than focusing on the functional equivalence. Such rejection was not altered in scope and thus rejection of the claims are made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant ascertains that element 14A is the predisposed hand section shown in Fig. 2 (Page 5 of Remarks). However, the element 14A is directed to “a robot hand” and it is unclear how this “robot hand” is different from a “hand section” which supposedly includes the “predisposed hand section”. As such, the predisposed hand section should be clearly indicated on the drawing such that it is clear which part of the hand section is considered to be “predisposed”. Thus, the drawing objection is UPHELD.
Applicant argues that Nakagawa does not teach the deformation of a resilient member, and rather only suggests mere elasticity (Page 6 of Remarks). Respectfully, Examiner disagrees with this assertion. Elasticity is one part of resiliency when determining structure. As evidenced by PennState Department of Materials Science and Engineering (see “Resiliency and Toughness” attached to the file), the resilience of a material may be “the amount of energy a material can absorb and return to its original state”. Thus, any such material/member of an apparatus which may be strained and return to its original state may be a resilient member. The fluid contained in the apparatus of Nakagawa is an example of such a resilient member because, per the definition above and the cited reference, such a fluid may be deformed while maintaining the original structure of the system. The deformation measured by the gripping system of Nakagawa is a result of such fluid comprised within the chamber and fluid flow channels (see Fig. 4, [0066], and [0090]). As can be seen in Fig. 4, the fluid is located in a channel connecting the flexible finger part (claw part) and finger base member (finger part), and is thus also included in the mounting/demounting parts of the gripping apparatus. As is evidenced in the rejection of the claim, said fluid additionally provides spring-like properties to the apparatus (see [0088]), wherein a spring is an example of a resilient member in Applicant’s specification (see [0066] of Applicant’s specification). As such, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is NOT PERSUASIVE.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the predisposed hand section must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Amended claims 6 and 7 now recite “joining guide” and “positioning guide” in place of generic “first guide” and “second guide” descriptors respectively. Examiner acknowledges that joining and positioning are adjectives that adequately describe the function of each of the first and second guides. Examiner also notes that no such description of joining and positioning guide are included in the specification. It is thus recommended that applicant include a statement to the specification similar to “…wherein the first guide 42 is considered to be a joining guide…” and “…wherein the second guide 44 is considered to be a positioning guide…” such that there is a direct link between the claim language and the written description. Such an amendment would make the record clear which guide is being referred to when claiming a joining and positioning guide.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 limitations are:
“a first mounting/demounting part” in claim 1;
“a second mounting/demounting part” in claim 1;
“a measurement section” in claim 4; and
Regarding the first and second mounting/demounting parts the disclosure describes structures with engaging portions which mount the claw to the hand section ([0029-0030]). Such recited structure may be any of an electromagnetic mechanism, a suction mechanism, or a mechanism which uses an external force to engage the components of the claw part and hand section ([0029]). As such, the first and second mounting/demounting parts will be considered as any such mechanism which engages/disengages the claw part with the hand section or other such functional equivalents when reviewing the prior art.
Regarding the measurement section, the disclosure describes a proximity sensor such as that which measures the strain of a suction pad ([0065]) or a photo-reflector which measures the distance at a plurality of locations between the robot hand and the claw part ([0066]). As such, the measurement section will be any such proximity sensor or any such functional equivalent thereof which measures a deformation of the above stated resilient member.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Examiner could not ascertain where there is sufficient support for the construction of the hand section in the specification. It is best understood that Paragraph [0027] is meant to support such features, along with Fig. 2, but the description becomes muddled as no such construction of the hand section is determined. Additionally, Fig. 2 is shown to include the first mounting/demounting part, and thus it is determined the hand section is in fact constructed to include the first mounting/demounting part. As such, Examiner will reject the claim with evidence that best aligns with Paragraph [0027] of the specification and requires correction to the limitation such that sufficient support is evidenced to reflect intended meaning of the claim.
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 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites “…the hand section is constructed without including the first mounting/demounting part…” in lines 2-3 while requiring “the first mounting/demounting part is configured for mounting at and demounting from the predisposed hand section” in lines 3-4. It is unclear how such a hand section is to be constructed without including the mounting/demounting part, if such a part is required for mounting/demounting actions at the predisposed hand section. Examiner cannot ascertain the scope of the limitation, as such claim language is contradictory in nature. Examiner has addressed current language as best interpreted below in view of Paragraph [0027] of Applicant’s specification and prior art of record.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below, in view of the prior art record, as best understood by the Examiner in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections provided herein.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2019/0202070 A1; hereinafter Nakagawa).
Regarding claim 1, Strauss teaches a robot (“robotic arm 200”; [0079] and Fig. 4), comprising:
a claw part (“gripper digit 302”; [0073] and Fig. 3A / “digit set 700”; [0103] and Fig. 7); and
a hand section provided at a distal end of a robot arm (“digit mounting apparatus 400”; [0079] and Fig. 4) and including a first mounting/demounting part configured for mounting and demounting the claw part (“The connection mechanism may include one or more connector pieces coupled to the digit mounting apparatus. The one or more connector pieces coupled to the digit mounting apparatus may be referred to as digit mounting apparatus connector pieces. Further, the number of the connector pieces that are coupled to a digit mounting apparatus may be the same number as the number of digits that can be connected to the digit mounting apparatus. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 4, two connector pieces may be coupled to the digit mounting apparatus 400. In such an example, one or two digits may be attached to the robotic arm 200” [0079]. Thus, there are connector pieces, i.e., a first mounting/demount part, configured to mount and demount the digits, i.e., claw part. Such connector pieces are functional equivalents to the first mounting/demounting part as described in the 112(f) claim interpretations.) such that the claw part has a movable range in a mounted state of the claw part (“In an embodiment, the digit mounting apparatus may include an actuator that may be used to control the motion of attached digits. The motion of the digits may be a rotary motion, a linear motion, or a combination thereof (e.g., linkage)” [0034]. Thus, the claw part may be controlled in the attached, i.e., mounted, state such that it has a moveable range which is rotary and/or linear.),
the claw part being provided with a second mounting/demounting part corresponding to the first mounting/demounting part and configured for mounting at and demounting from the hand section (“A first connector piece (i.e., link) 506 is coupled to the digit 502A, and a second connector piece (i.e., link) 508 is coupled to the digit 502B. The digit mounting apparatus 400 may include a third connector piece 510 and a fourth connector piece 512. In an embodiment, the connector pieces coupled to the digits 502A, 502B may be complementary in shape to the connector pieces coupled to the digit mounting apparatus 400. That is, the first connector piece 506 and the second connector piece 508 may complementary in shape to the third connector piece 510 and the fourth connector piece 512 respectively” [0082]. Thus there are first and second connector pieces attached to the digits, i.e., second mounting/demounting parts, which are complementary in shape, i.e., correspond, to the third and fourth connector pieces, i.e., first mounting/demounting parts, for mounting at and demounting from the digit mounting apparatus, i.e., hand section.),
the claw part being further configured to grip a workpiece by an opening/closing action of the hand section in a mounted state at the hand section (“In another example, the actuator may cause two opposable digits attached to the robotic device, which function as a gripper, to move towards each other in a pinching motion” [0034]. “For instance, a single actuator may cause two hyper-underactuated opposable digits that close in a pinching manner to move toward each other to pinch an object” [0078]. Thus, the claw part is configured to pinch, i.e., grip, an object, i.e., workpiece, by moving the digits towards one another in a pinching motion, i.e., opening/closing action, as a result of the actuator in the digit mounting apparatus, i.e., hand section, when digits are attached, i.e., in a mounted state.)…
However, Strauss does not teach …wherein at least one of the first mounting/demounting part or the second mounting/demounting part includes a resilient member configured to deform under an external force and
a measurement section configured to measure a deformation amount of the resilient member.
Nakagawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …wherein at least one of the first mounting/demounting part or the second mounting/demounting part includes a resilient member configured to deform under an external force (“The amount of deformation L of a flexible finger part 22 in response to the fluid pressure P and the fluid flow volume Q (the amount of deformation of the flexible finger part 22) as well as the spring constant K of the flexible finger part 22, vary depending on the shape and characteristics of the flexible finger part 22” [0090]. Thus, the uppermost portion of the flexible finger part comprises a fluid, i.e., resilient member, which deforms by an amount L depending on the pressure, volume, and spring constant. The fluid which provides the measured deformation is considered to be a resilient member because such fluid adapts and recovers, much like the springs of the instant application (see [0088]).) and
a measurement section configured to measure a deformation amount of the resilient member (“The compressor 100 can detect the pressure and the flow volume of a pressure control fluid supplied to and discharged from each of the flexible finger parts 22, and the detected pressure and the detected flow volume are transmitted to the control device 200 via the controller 110” [0068]. Thus, the compressor measures the pressure and flow volume used to determine the deformation amount L. Thus, the compressor will be a functional equivalent for the measurement section as described by the 112(f) claim interpretations.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the robot arm of Strauss to include mounting/demounting parts including a resilient member and a measurement section for estimating the deformation of the resilient member as taught by Nakagawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because fluid pressure and flow volume of the fluid allows the fingers to function as springs, thereby allowing for flexible grip configurations (Nakagawa, [0088]).
Regarding claim 2, Strauss as modified by Nakagawa (references made to Strauss) the robot of claim 1,
wherein the hand section includes a predisposed hand section configured such that the hand section is constructed without including the first mounting/demounting part (“For example, the digit mounting apparatus 400 may include an actuator and two pivot joints 520A, 520B coupled to the actuator” [0085]. In light of the 112(a) and 112(b) objections, examiner ascertains that the coupling of pivot joints to an actuator included as part of the digit mounting apparatus, i.e., hand section, best embodies the spirit of the disclosure regarding the above limitation. In addition to this interpretation, with regard to the method step recitation in the claim, “…the hand section is constructed without including the first mounting/demounting part”, it is noted that the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not given patentable weight.),
the first mounting/demounting part is configured for mounting at and demounting from a [[the ]]predisposed hand section (“The actuator may cause the digit mounting apparatus to move in a rotary and/or a linear motion. For example, a digit may be connected to a first connector piece and a pivot joint of the digit mounting apparatus may be connected to a second connector piece. In this example, the first and second connector pieces may be designed such that the pieces may mate together when the actuator causes the second connector piece to move towards the first connector piece using the same rotary motion of the pivot joint that is used to control the motion of an attached digit” [0035]. Thus, the second connector connected to the digit mounting apparatus, i.e., first mounting/demounting part, is configured for mounting at and demounting from the digit mounting apparatus, i.e., hand section, predisposed for mating with the first connector piece attached to the digits.).
Regarding claim 3, Strauss as modified by Nakagawa (references made to Strauss) teaches the robot of claim 1,
wherein at least one of the first mounting/demounting part or the second mounting/demounting part includes an electromagnetic mounting/demounting mechanism, a mounting/demounting mechanism using suction, or a mounting/demounting mechanism in which an engaged state is achieved between the first mounting/demounting part and the second mounting/demounting part by an external force being imparted in a specific direction (The connector pieces, i.e., first and second mounting/demounting parts, engage with one another through lead-in features with ejection and engagement features, ball nose spring plungers, other such springs, magnets, magnets, or screws (see [0095-0102]). Such engagement features are examples of engaging states achieved between the first and second mounting/demounting parts by external forces being imparted in a specific direction.).
Regarding claim 5, Strauss as modified by Nakagawa (references made to Strauss) teaches the robot of claim 1,
wherein at least one of the hand section or the claw part includes a stopper that suppresses movement of the claw part with respect to the hand section in a direction of a shear force or a direction of a pressing reaction force generated between the hand section and the claw part (“More specifically, the lead-in features 602A, 602B may slide into the lead-in features 622A, 622B respectively, until the hardstop faces 604A, 604B meet the hardstop faces 624A, 624B respectively” [0097]. The hardstop faces act as stoppers such that the hand section is not able to continue rotation once the digits are fully attached. Such stopper counteracts the pressing reaction force generated between the hand section and the claw part when the digits are in a closed position, as seen in Fig. 5A/5C when the digit mounting apparatus, i.e., hand section, engages with the digits for attaching/detaching actions.).
Although Strauss does not explicitly describe the hardstop features as suppressing movement of the digits (claw part) when performing a gripping task to grip a workpiece/object when the digits (claw part) are mounted to the digit mounting apparatus (hand section), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the attaching motion which rotates the connector pieces with respect to arrows 514B and 514A is the same such motion used for gripping an object. Therefore, the hardstop features which prevent the connector pieces from over-rotating during attachment, would further keep the connector pieces from over-rotating when pinching the digits around an object, thus implicitly acting as the described “stopper” of the claim when pinching an object, i.e., gripping a workpiece.
Regarding claim 6, Strauss as modified by Nakagawa (references made to Strauss) teaches the robot of claim 1,
wherein at least one of the hand section or the claw part includes a joining guide at a position that is in the vicinity of a mounting position of the claw part at the hand section and that does not obstruct movement of the claw part (“Further, the connector piece 600 may include two lead-in features 602A, 602B” [0095]. “The connector piece 620 may include two lead-in features 622A, 622B” [0096]. “The connector piece 600 may be mated to the connector piece 620 by inserting the lead-in features 602A, 602B into the track of the connector piece 620. More specifically, the lead-in features 602A, 602B may slide into the lead-in features 622A, 622B respectively, until the hardstop faces 604A, 604B meet the hardstop faces 624A, 624B respectively” [0097]. Thus, the lead-in features 602A/B which slide into lead-in features 622A/B may be the first guide at a position that is in the vicinity of a mounting position of the claw part at the hand section. Such lead-in features do not obstruct the movement of the claw part, as gripping actions are performed while the lead-in features are engaged.).
Regarding claim 7, Strauss as modified by Nakagawa (references made to Strauss) teaches the robot of claim 1, wherein, in a state prior to being mounted at the hand section, the claw part is disposed along a positioning guide provided at a position enabling mounting at and demounting from the hand section at a specific position and orientation (Prior to being mounted, the detached digits, i.e., claw parts, are disposed in a holster 504, i.e., along a second guide, which is provided at a position which enables mounting at and demounting from the digit mounting apparatus, i.e., hand section, by fixing the connector pieces at a specific position and orientation necessary for attachment/detachment (see [0081-0082] and [0090]).).
Regarding claim 8, Strauss as modified by Nakagawa teaches the robot of claim 1.
Strauss further teaches …a control section configured to control driving of the robot arm and the hand section to mount the claw part at the hand section, and also so as to execute a task including gripping the workpiece with the claw part (“The control system is further configured to cause the actuator of the digit mounting apparatus to pivot the first pivot joint to cause the second connector piece of the digit mounting apparatus to mate with a respective first connector piece of the digit. After causing the second connector piece of the digit mounting apparatus to mate with the respective first connector piece of the digit, the control system is additionally configured to cause the actuator to pivot the first pivot joint to cause the digit to manipulate an identified object” [0008]. Thus, the control system controls the driving of the robot arm and digit mounting apparatus, i.e., hand section, to mount the digits, i.e., claw part, at the digit mounting apparatus via the connector pieces. The control system further controls the digits so as to cause the digit to manipulate, i.e., grip, identified objects, i.e., workpieces.)
However, Strauss does not further teach …gripping the workpiece with the claw part using the deformation amount measured by the measurement section.
Nakagawa, in the same field of endeavor, further teaches …gripping the workpiece with the claw part using the deformation amount measured by the measurement section (“The fluid pressure P, the fluid flow volume Q, and the neutral position xR are variables controlled by the control unit 201, and the gripping force F is calculated or estimated by the control unit 201” [0087]. Thus, the gripping force is calculated by controlling the amount of fluid pressure and the fluid flow volume via the control unit.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the control system of Strauss to include the gripping operations using deformation detections as taught by Nakagawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by estimating a grip force using the specified pressure and flow volume as supplied by the control unit, additional sensors are not necessary in determining the gripping force, thereby reducing manufacturing costs (Nakagawa, [0087]).
Regarding claim 9, Strauss as modified by Nakagawa teaches the robot of claim 8.
Strauss further teaches the hand section is configured with three finger parts for gripping the workpiece from three (two) directions in the same plane (“In another example, where three or more digits are included, the attached digits may be arranged in two groups opposing each other, such that when they are actuated they close toward each other. Two digits may be positioned opposite the third, such that when the digits close they interlock” [0103]. Thus, the hand section may be configured with three or more digits for gripping an object. As the digits interlock when closed, they grip the object, i.e., workpiece, from two directions in the same plane.)…
However, Strauss does not further teach …gripping the workpiece from three directions…,
[the three finger parts] disposed at 120° intervals about a center of a grip position of the workpiece and the claw part is mounted to each of the finger parts, and
the control section is configured to estimate a tilt of the workpiece gripped by the hand section based on the deformation amount measured by the measurement section for each of the three finger parts, and
to control driving of the robot arm and the hand section so as to execute the task while correcting the tilt of the workpiece to horizontal.
Nakagawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …gripping the workpiece from three directions …, [the three finger parts] disposed at 120° intervals about a center of a grip position of the workpiece (Fig. 7 shows three gripping fingers with base members 21 spaced equally (by 120° intervals) about a center of a grip position (CL) of a workpiece (W) (see [0074]). The workpiece (W) is gripped from three directions. See also Fig. 12A and Fig. 12B in which fingers are arranged to grip a triangular workpiece on all three sides.) and the claw part is mounted to each of the finger parts (“ The basal end of a flexible finger part 22 that is formed of a material having flexibility, such as a material having rubber-like elasticity, and that has therein a hollow portion to which a fluid (air) can be supplied is mounted on one surface of each of the finger base members 21” [0063]. Thus, the flexible finger part 22, i.e., claw part, is mounted to each of the finger base members 21, i.e., finger parts.); and
the control section is configured to estimate a tilt of the workpiece gripped by the hand section based on the deformation amount measured by the measurement section for each of the three finger parts (“For example, by moving the positions of at least some of the plurality of finger base members 21 in a direction intersecting the hand axial direction as shown in FIG. 19 while the grasp object W is supported as shown in FIG. 18, the position at which each of the flexible finger parts 22 is in contact with the grasp object W changes, causing the grasp object W to rotate” [0111]. Thus, a rotation amount, i.e., tilt, of a workpiece W is estimated based on the positions of the flexible fingers, i.e., deformation amount, measured.), and
to control driving of the robot arm and the hand section so as to execute the task while correcting the tilt of the workpiece to horizontal (Although the disclosed invention does not explicitly execute a task to correct the tilt of the workpiece to horizontal this action is implicitly taught as the flexible fingers are taught to be arranged in a manner to regrip, i.e., reorient, the workpiece (see [0113]). Thus, it is taught that the fingers may be controlled to manipulate the workpiece to a desired orientation based on the control operation, which may be implied to be a horizontal orientation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the hand section of Strauss to include three finger parts disposed at 120° intervals about a center of a grip position of the workpiece as taught by Nakagawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a modification allows easy regripping for any workpiece which is gripped by the robot (Nakagawa, [0112]).
Regarding claim 11, Strauss as modified by Nakagawa (references made to Nakagawa) teaches the robot of claim 8, wherein the control section is configured to perform control to:
in a state in which the workpiece is not being gripped by the claw part, move the claw part toward a work surface on which the workpiece has been placed until a change in the deformation amount is detected (“For example, while moving each of the flexible finger parts 22 to a predetermined position in the hand axial direction towards a grasp object W to grip the grasp object W, if the distal end of each of the flexible finger parts 22 comes into contact with a grasp object W in the hand axial direction as shown in FIG. 14(a), that contact is detected by the control unit 201 as a reaction force in the axial direction” [0097]. Thus, there is a state in which the finger parts are not gripping the object W where the finger parts move towards the grasp objects W placed on a surface (see Fig. 14(a)) until contact is made, thus detecting a change in the force acting on the flexible fingers, i.e., deformation amount.);
in cases in which a change has been detected in the deformation amount, execute a gripping action on the workpiece by the claw part at a position to which the claw part has been moved in a direction away from the work surface until a change in the deformation amount is no longer detected (“At this time, the distal ends of the flexible finger parts 22 move so as to slide on the upper surfaces of the grasp objects W. Then, when the distal ends of the flexible finger parts 22 reach the gaps G between the grasp objects W, the distal ends of the flexible finger parts 22 enter the gaps G as shown in FIG. 14(b), and at this time, the control unit 201 detects that the reaction force of each of the flexible finger parts 22 in the axial direction has become small (change in the reaction force in the axial direction)” [0098]. Thus, there is a state in which the axial direction executes a force causing a deformation of the flexible fingers, i.e., change in deformation amount is detected. At the point which the fingers move across the tops of the objects, i.e., a direction away from the surface, and enter gaps between objects, a gripping action is executed as the force on the fingers in said axial direction, i.e., deformation amount, becomes small indicating that the change is no longer detected.); and
move the workpiece to a next work point in a case in which the deformation amount has changed by a specific value or greater (To effectively grip the workpiece, the flexible fingers change the deformation amount by a target value in order to apply the desired force necessary for moving the object to the next work point (see [0078]). The actual moving of the workpiece to the next work point is silent in the disclosure, but given that the gripper holds and displaces/manipulates the object W throughout the specification, this step is implied given that the work point may be any such point which the work is moved to.).
Therefore, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the control system of Strauss to include the gripping operations and deformation detections as taught by Nakagawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by performing designated gripping adjustments such that forces approach their respective target values, gripping quality of the workpiece may be enhanced (Nakagawa, [0078]).
Regarding claim 14, Strauss as modified by Nakagawa (references made to Nakagawa) teaches the robot of claim 1, wherein the resilient member is mounted between the claw part and the at least one of the first mounting/demounting part or the second mounting/demounting part (“In each of the finger base members 21, a pathway 21c for connecting the interior of the coupler 21a and the hollow portion in the flexible finger part 22 is formed” [0066]. Thus, the fluid flow, i.e., resilient member, is mounted between the flexible finger part, i.e., claw part, and the mounting/demounting part (which attaches the flexible finger part to the finger base member 21) via a pathway as is shown in Fig. 4.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss in view of Nakagawa and further in view of Cygan et al. (US 2023/0364787 A1; hereinafter “Cygan”).
Regarding claim 10, Strauss as modified by Nakagawa teaches the robot of claim 8.
However, Strauss as modified does not teach …wherein the control section is configured to monitor the deformation amount measured by the measurement section, and to issue a warning that displacement has occurred in the mounting position of the claw part with respect to the hand section, in a case in which a difference between the deformation amount when the claw part grips the workpiece and the deformation amount after a sudden change has occurred in the deformation amount is a specific value or greater.
Cygan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …wherein the control section is configured to monitor the deformation amount measured by the measurement section, and to issue a warning that displacement has occurred in the mounting position of the claw part with respect to the hand section, in a case in which a difference between the deformation amount when the claw part grips the workpiece and the deformation amount after a sudden change has occurred in the deformation amount is a specific value or greater (“…a computing device comprising a processor operatively coupled to said robotic arm, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium with a computer program including instructions executable by said processor causing said processor to analyze a force differential between a measured force received from said force sensor and an expected force of said object being handled, and instruct said robotic arm to place said object being handled at said target position if said force differential is less than a first predetermined threshold, or generate an alert if said force differential exceeds a second predetermined threshold” [0002]. Thus, a processor is programmed to analyze force differentials between a measured force and an expected force, i.e., a change of deformation amount, when handling an object. In the case where this differential, i.e., change, exceeds a threshold, i.e., a sudden change has occurred in the force differential, an alert indicating anomaly of the grip position, i.e., mounting position of the claw part with respect to the hand section, is issued.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control section of Strauss to include monitoring and warning functions for sudden deformation changes of the gripping position of the claw part as taught by Cygan with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by efficiently detecting anomalies in the gripping operation of a workpiece, damage to the robot and/or the workpiece may be minimized and the operator can efficiently address the detected issues in the system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 8 A.M. to 3 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights