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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a(1) and a(2) as being anticipated by Matsuda(US 20010028174 A1)).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
1095
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
585
926
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
412
724
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Matsuda teaches a robot hand comprising: a palm module configured to provide a base surface; a first finger module provided on one side of the palm module such that a position thereof is changeable on the palm module; a second finger module provided on the other side of the palm module such that a position thereof is changeable on the palm module; a plurality of third finger modules provided on the palm module and fixed in one direction between the first finger module and the second finger module; and a first linkage part configured to connect the palm module and the first finger module to each other, wherein, when the position of the first finger module is changed on the palm module, the first linkage part guides the first finger module to a target position without interfering with the palm module. (Refer to annotated figs above and Paragraph [008])
Regarding Claim 2, Matsuda teaches the robot hand of claim 1, further comprising a first actuator module, wherein the first actuator module is mounted on each of the first to third finger modules to individually operate the first to third finger modules.
(Refer to annotated figs above and Paragraph[0022])
Regarding Claim 3, Matsuda teaches the robot hand of claim 2, Matsuda further teaches wherein each of the first to third finger modules has at least two joints in a longitudinal direction, and the first actuator module is provided in a one-to-one correspondence with the at least two joints to directly operate each knuckle of the first to third finger modules about the joint. (Refer to annotated figs above and Paragraph [0022])
Regarding Claim 4, Matsuda teaches the robot hand of claim 2, further comprising a second actuator module, wherein the second actuator module is provided on the palm module, and the second actuator module is connected to the first finger module through the first linkage part so as to provide a driving force to the first finger module such that the position of the first finger module is changed on the palm module. [Refer to annotated figs above Paragraph(0055 and 0080)]
Regarding Claim 6, Matsuda teaches the robot hand of claim 1, further comprising a second linkage part, wherein the second linkage part guides the second finger module to a target position without interfering with the palm module when the position of the second finger module is changed on the palm module. (Refer to annotated figs above Paragraph [008])
Regarding Claim 7, Matsuda teaches the robot hand of claim 6, further comprising a third actuator module, wherein the third actuator module is provided on the palm module, and the third actuator module is connected to the second finger module through the second linkage part to provide a driving force to the second finger module such that the position of the second finger module is changed on the palm module. (Refer to annotated figs above Paragraph [008])
Regarding Claim 10, Matsuda teaches the robot hand of claim 1, wherein the robot hand is switched to any one of a plurality of operation modes according to change in the positions of the first and second finger modules on the palm module. (Refer to annotated figs above)
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) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a(1) and a(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Matsuda.
Regarding Claim 9, Matsuda teaches the robot hand of claim 1, wherein each of the first to third finger modules includes: a knuckle part and a fingertip provided at an end of the knuckle part. Matsuda fails to teach wherein the knuckle part configured to provide an installation space of the first actuator module. However Matsuda teaches that all the finger mechanisms can be switched around or can replace each other. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the knuckle part configured to provide an installation space of the first actuator module in order to replace broken actuators. (Refer to annotated figs above and Paragraph [0021 and 0022])
Claim(s) 5,8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda , and further in view of Kim(US 20210197403 A1) .
PNG
media_image4.png
678
651
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5,Matsuda teaches the robot hand of claim 4, wherein the first actuator module, which is provided on one end of the first finger module in the longitudinal direction, is disposed to face the second actuator module in a horizontal direction, and the other end thereof in the longitudinal direction is hinge-coupled to a lower end of the first actuator module; Matsuda fails to teach the first linkage part includes: a first link in which one end thereof in the longitudinal direction is axially coupled to a lower driving shaft of the second actuator module, and a second link in which one end thereof in the longitudinal direction is hinge-coupled to an upper frame of the palm module having the second actuator module provided under the palm module, and the other end thereof in the longitudinal direction is hinge-coupled to an upper end of the first actuator module, and a hinge shaft, to which the second link and the upper frame are hinge-coupled, and the driving shaft are not coaxially aligned in a vertical direction. However Kim teaches a robot hand with a plurality of finger modules where the finger module is rotatably coupled to a driving shaft on the palm. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Matsuda and Kim to have a robot hand with finger modules and actuators linked in a certain way to achieve motion like a human hand, such that an operation corresponding to a shape of an object may be accurately performed. (Refer to annotated figs above)
Regarding Claim 8, Matsuda teaches the robot hand of claim 7, Matsuda fails to teach wherein the second linkage part includes: a third link in which one end thereof in the longitudinal direction is axially coupled to a lower driving shaft of the third actuator module, and the other end thereof in the longitudinal direction is hinge-coupled to a lower end of the first actuator module; and a fourth link in which one end thereof in the longitudinal direction is hinge-coupled to an upper frame of the palm module having the third actuator module provided under the palm module, and the other end thereof in the longitudinal direction is hinge-coupled to an upper end of the first actuator module, and a hinge shaft, to which the fourth link and the upper frame are hinge-coupled, and the driving shaft are not coaxially aligned in a vertical direction. However Kim teaches a robot hand with a plurality of finger modules where the finger module is rotatably coupled to a driving shaft on the palm. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Matsuda and Kim to have a robot hand with finger modules and actuators linked in a certain way to achieve motion like a human hand, such that an operation corresponding to a shape of an object may be accurately performed. (Refer to annotated figs above)
PNG
media_image5.png
610
925
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11,Matusda teaches the robot hand of claim 10, Matsuda fails to teach wherein the plurality of operation modes include a left hand mode in which the first finger module serves as a thumb, a right hand mode in which the second finger module serves as a thumb, and a gripper mode in which the first finger module and the second finger module are positioned to face the third finger module. However Kim teaches a robot hand with a plurality of finger modules where the finger module is rotatably coupled to a driving shaft on the palm where the first finger can act as a thumb. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Matsuda and Kim to have a robot hand with finger modules capable of achieving different gripping modes such that a grip corresponding to a shape of an object may be accurately performed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN BRAHJA whose telephone number is (571)272-9777. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am -5pm.
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 5712722097. 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.
/BRIAN BRAHJA/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights