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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 2021-0099757), hereinafter “Lee”.
With respect to Claim 1, Lee, Figures 1-8, teaches a sample sorting system comprising:
a gripping device including a gripping hand (See Figure 6 on Page 3 of this Office Action); and
a control device 20 configured to control the gripping device, wherein
the gripping hand (See Figure 6 on Page 3 of this Office Action) has a plurality of fingers 120 including a first finger and a second finger, and grips a plurality of objects with the plurality of fingers,
the first finger has a plurality of recess sections (See Figure 6 on Page 3 of this Office Action) along a longitudinal direction of the first finger at positions facing the second finger, and
the second finger has an oblique surface 131 (See Figure 6 on Page 3 of this Office Action) along a longitudinal direction of the second finger at a position facing the first finger.
Lee teaches all the elements of the system but does not show a plurality of objects.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the gripper of Lee would be capable of gripping a plurality of objects.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Plurality of recess sections)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
375
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 2, Lee further teaches wherein when the gripping hand grips the plurality of objects, a part of the objects enters the recess sections, and the plurality of objects are gripped side by side in the longitudinal directions of the first finger and the second finger.
With respect to Claim 9, Lee further teaches wherein the recess section has an arc shape or a shape formed of a plurality of flat surfaces.
With respect to Claim 10, Lee further teaches wherein the oblique surface is a flat surface or a curved surface.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 2021-0099757), hereinafter “Lee”, as applied to Claims 1-2 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Sakamoto et al (WO 2021/095743), hereinafter “Sakamoto”.
With respect to Claim 3, Lee is advanced above.
Lee teaches all the elements of the system except for
wherein the plurality of objects are a plurality of samples disposed on a sample rack, and an interval between the recess sections of the first finger is equal to an interval between the samples disposed adjacent to each other on the sample rack.
However, Sakamoto, Figures 7-16, teaches wherein the plurality of objects are a plurality of samples 30 disposed on a sample rack 330, and an interval between the recess sections of the first finger 100 is equal to an interval between the samples disposed adjacent to each other on the sample rack.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an interval between the recess sections of the first finger is equal to an interval between the samples disposed adjacent to each other on the sample rack, as taught by Sakamoto, for the purpose of facilitating the gripping of the samples.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 11 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 4-5 are allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the entire combination of elements of the sample sorting system set forth including the first finger has one of the recess sections on a tip end side of the first finger, and includes a rotation portion at a position facing the second finger on a base portion side of the first finger relative to the one of the recess sections, the rotation portion has a plurality of the recess sections along the longitudinal direction of the first finger at positions facing the second finger, and the rotation portion has one end on the tip end side, is connected to the first finger at the one end, and is rotatable about the one end.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest a rotation portion at a position facing the second finger on a base portion side of the first finger relative to the one of the recess sections, the rotation portion has a plurality of the recess sections along the longitudinal direction of the first finger at positions facing the second finger, and the rotation portion has one end on the tip end side, is connected to the first finger at the one end, and is rotatable about the one end as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the sample sorting system in the manner required by the claims.
Claims 6-8 are allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the entire combination of elements of the sample sorting system set forth including the gripping hand has the first finger, the second finger, and a third finger as the plurality of fingers, the second finger is located between the first finger and the third finger, the second finger has the oblique surface along the longitudinal direction of the second finger at each of a position facing the first finger and a position facing the third finger, and the third finger has a plurality of the recess sections along a longitudinal direction of the third finger at positions facing the second finger.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the gripping hand has the first finger, the second finger, and a third finger as the plurality of fingers, the second finger is located between the first finger and the third finger, the second finger has the oblique surface along the longitudinal direction of the second finger at each of a position facing the first finger and a position facing the third finger, and the third finger has a plurality of the recess sections along a longitudinal direction of the third finger at positions facing the second finger as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the sample sorting system in the manner required by the claims.
Claim 11 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the entire combination of elements of the sample sorting system set forth including wherein the gripping hand has the first finger, the second finger, a third finger, and a fourth finger as the plurality of fingers, the third finger has a plurality of the recess sections along a longitudinal direction of the third finger at positions facing the fourth finger, and the fourth finger has the oblique surface along a longitudinal direction of the fourth finger at a position facing the third finger.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest wherein the gripping hand has the first finger, the second finger, a third finger, and a fourth finger as the plurality of fingers, the third finger has a plurality of the recess sections along a longitudinal direction of the third finger at positions facing the fourth finger, and the fourth finger has the oblique surface along a longitudinal direction of the fourth finger at a position facing the third finger as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the sample sorting system in the manner required by the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ARAUZ RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM MDT.
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, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached at 313-446-4858. 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.
/WILLIAM A. RIVERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights