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 .
Priority
The application is a 371 national stage of PCT/JP2023/007686 filed 03/01/2023, which claims
priority to the application filed 03/01/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2024 was filed. The submission
is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is
being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show Claim 5 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 011, line 5, “an” should be removed.
In paragraph 027, line 4, a comma should be used after “activation”.
In paragraph 030, line 8, “a first absolute displacement” should be “the first absolute displacement”.
In paragraph 034, line 7, “of” should precede “the robot hand”.
In paragraph 038, line 6, “an” should precede “S pole”.
In paragraph 048, line 6, “the” should precede “execution”.
In paragraph 057, line 5, “the” should precede “displacement”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 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. While the claim and the specification say "step-wise", the drawings do not show "step-wise", so it is unclear what "step-wise" means in the context of the application. The drawings appear to show a slope or increase in V value around Vth, not steps. Additionally, its language appears to contradict the drawings, or the wording is not consistent with the meaning intended. For purposes of examination, claim 5 has been interpreted as if it means that there is a relationship such as in the Figures.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-10, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (JP2003300188A provided translation) in view of Chris (JP5777673B2 provided translation).
Re Claim 1, Kawasaki discloses a robot hand system (Fig. 1-2) comprising:
a robot hand including at least one holding unit configured to hold a holding target (Page 2, “According to a first aspect of the present invention, a plurality of haptic fingers capable of following the movement of a fingertip of an operator are arranged on a haptic finger base.”), a driving unit configured to move the holding unit (Page 4, “The first finger joint 27 and the second finger joint 28 are provided with drive motors (not shown) as drive sources in a number corresponding to the number of degrees of freedom. It rotates around the 1st axis 27a-the 3rd axis 28a, respectively.”), an encoder configured to detect a movement distance of the holding unit (Page 4-5, “In the first finger joint 27 and the second finger joint 28, the above-described drive motors for driving the first shaft 27a to the third shaft 28a include rotary encoders URE1 to URE3 as rotation angle detecting means for detecting a rotation angle. Each is provided. By these rotary encoders URE1 to URE3, rotation angles around the respective axes are detected.”), and a control device configured to control the driving unit based on outputs of the sensor and the encoder (Page 11, “The rotary encoders URE1 to URE3 correspond to tactile finger joint angle detecting means. (S140) In S140, based on the detection values (detection signals) of the rotary encoders ARE1 to ARE7 of the arm mechanism, the CPU 40a rotates the respective joints around the respective axes, that is, the arm joint angles qi (I = 1,...). , 7) are detected.”).
While Kawasaki mentions a magnet, Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose a sensor configured to detect a magnet disposed around the holding unit and a positional change with respect to the magnet and wherein either the magnet or the sensor is disposed to be capable of moving in accordance with movement of the holding unit. However, Chris teaches a Hall effect sensor and ring magnet that allows the angle between two segments of a robotic finger connected by a joint to be determined through the changes in the magnet’s field as determined by the sensor (Page 3, “The shape of the magnet 58D and the placement of the sensor 62D provide a linear relationship between the angular position of the finger bone 38D relative to the finger bone 38C and the change in magnetic field read by the sensor 62D”), and control system that is fed data from sensor and magnet (Page 1, “The shape of the magnet produces a linear output of the Hall effect sensor, which provides accurate position data to the control system for the robot hand.”).
Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to modify Kawasaki’s robot hand system by adding Chris’s sensor, magnet, and control system to enhance the hand’s sensitivity and improve its grip control.
Re Claim 2, Kawasaki teaches a robot hand system that moves its fingers in response to the angles detected by a rotary encoder (Page 11, “The rotary encoders URE1 to URE3 correspond to tactile finger joint angle detecting means. (S140) In S140, based on the detection values (detection signals) of the rotary encoders ARE1 to ARE7 of the arm mechanism, the CPU 40a rotates the respective joints around the respective axes, that is, the arm joint angles qi (I = 1,...). , 7) are detected.”), but does not explicitly disclose where output of the sensor is a prescribed value as a sensor reference position
However, Chris teaches a proportionality between the angular position of the fingers of a robotic hand and the reading detected by the finger’s magnetic sensor (Page 3, “The shape of the magnet 58D and the placement of the sensor 62D provide a linear relationship between the angular position of the finger bone 38D relative to the finger bone 38C and the change in magnetic field read by the sensor 62D”).
Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to modify Kawasaki’s robot hand system with Chris’s finger magnetic system because would enhance the hand’s sensitivity and improve its grip control, and provide the system with more position data.
Re Claim 4, Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the prescribed value is a value representing a boundary between an N pole and an S pole of the magnet. However, Chris does teach a diametrically magnetized ring magnet positioned at the joints of a robotic finger and that the center of the magnet is intersected by axis of which the finger’s joints move about (Fig. 8-9, Page 3, “The magnet 58D is characterized by two parts 66,70. Portion 66 is a segment of a circle having a center point 74 on axis A4. Portion 70 is a segment of a circle having a center point at 78. The north pole N of the magnet 58D is disposed at the intersection of one of the portions 66, 70, and the south pole S of the magnet 58D is disposed at the other intersection of the portions 66, 70. In the illustrated embodiment, the portion 66 has the same radius as the portion 70, and the recessed sides of the portions 66, 70 face each other. The magnet 54D surrounds both center points 74, 78. [0035] The sensor 62D is disposed on the finger bone 38D such that the sensor 62D maintains a constant distance from the portion 66 of the magnet 58D when the finger bone 38D is rotated about the axis A4 with respect to the finger bone 38C. The shape of the magnet 58D and the placement of the sensor 62D provide a linear relationship between the angular position of the finger bone 38D relative to the finger bone 38C and the change in magnetic field read by the sensor 62D.”).
Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to combine Kawasaki’s robot hand system with Chris’s ring magnet because the center of the ring magnet would serve as both the boundary between the N and S poles as well as the position monitored by the sensor to determine the angle of the fingers.
Re Claim 6, Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein an N pole and an S pole of the magnet are arranged side by side in a movement direction of the holding unit. However, Chris teaches a diametrically magnetized ring magnet positioned at the joints of a robotic finger and that the center of the magnet is intersected by axis of which the finger’s joints move about (Fig. 8-9, Page 3, “The joint 42D rotatably mounts the finger bone 38D on the finger bone 38C such that the finger bone 38D is selectively rotatable about the axis A4 with respect to the finger bone 38C… The magnet 58D is rigidly mounted relative to the phalange 38C, and the sensor 62D is rigidly mounted relative to the phalangeal 38D. The magnet 58D is characterized by two parts 66,70. Portion 66 is a segment of a circle having a center point 74 on axis A4. Portion 70 is a segment of a circle having a center point at 78. The north pole N of the magnet 58D is disposed at the intersection of one of the portions 66, 70, and the south pole S of the magnet 58D is disposed at the other intersection of the portions 66, 70.”). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to combine Kawasaki’s robot control system with Chris’s ring magnet because as the finger’s joints move, so do the poles of the ring magnet in the same direction.
Re Claim 9, Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the control device is configured to acquire a first absolute displacement representing a displacement of the holding unit from a hand reference position to a sensor reference position, the hand reference position being a movement limit point of the holding unit, and control the driving unit based on the first absolute displacement. However, Chris teaches sensors on the thumb of a robot hand that measure the absolute angular position of each joint (Page 3, “In addition, the thumb 21 includes a plurality of joint position sensor assemblies 54A-54D, each of which is configured to measure the absolute angular position of each of the joints 42A-42D and the phalange angular position relative to the connecting phalanges”), as well as the working range of each joint in the finger (Page 5, “In the illustrated embodiment, the working range of the joint 42A (base roll) is from 0 ° to 80 °, and the working range of the joint 42B (proximal pitch) is from 0 ° to 100 °. The working range of the joint 42C (middle pitch) is from 0 ° to 80 °, and the working range of the joint 42D (distal pitch) is from -30 ° to 90 °.”). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to modify Kawasaki’s robot hand system with Chris’s sensors because the absolute angular position would serve as the first absolute displacement for this system’s holding unit with the joint’s axis being the sensor reference position.
Re Claim 10, Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the control device is configured to acquire a first relative displacement representing a displacement from a position of the holding unit at a time of power on to the sensor reference position, and control the driving unit based on the first absolute displacement and the first relative displacement. However, Chris teaches sensors on the robot hand’s thumb also measures the relative angular position of the finger’s connected segments (Page 3, “In addition, the thumb 21 includes a plurality of joint position sensor assemblies 54A-54D, each of which is configured to measure the absolute angular position of each of the joints 42A-42D and the phalange angular position relative to the connecting phalanges”), as well as the working range of each joint in the finger (Page 5, “In the illustrated embodiment, the working range of the joint 42A (base roll) is from 0 ° to 80 °, and the working range of the joint 42B (proximal pitch) is from 0 ° to 100 °. The working range of the joint 42C (middle pitch) is from 0 ° to 80 °, and the working range of the joint 42D (distal pitch) is from -30 ° to 90 °.”). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to modify Kawasaki’s robot hand system with Chris’s sensors because the relative angular position would serve as the first relative displacement for this system’s holding unit with the joint’s axis being the sensor reference position.
Re Claim 13, Kawasaki discloses a recording unit configured to record various data needed for control of a robot hand, wherein the recording unit includes a non-volatile memory (Kawasaki Page 6, “The control device 40 includes a CPU 40a (central processing unit), a ROM 40b, and a RAM 40c. Various control programs including a control program for controlling the multi-finger tactile interface 10 are stored in the ROM 40b.”) but does not explicitly disclose the first absolute displacement is recorded in the non-volatile memory. However, Kawasaki teaches that the programs for controlling the robot hand system’s fingers are stored on ROM, a form of non-volatile memory. Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application that Kawasaki’s robot hand system would store the first absolute displacement in non-volatile memory since this data would be essential for the hand’s control systems.
Re Claim 16, Modified Kawasaki discloses wherein the at least one holding unit includes multiple holding units and the movement limit point corresponds to a state in which the multiple holding units are positioned closest to each other (Chris Page 3, “The fingers 19 and the thumb 21 are movably mounted to the palm structure 34 and selectively curl in the direction of the palm 36 to grip an object such as that shown at 20 in FIG.”).
Re Claim 17, Kawasaki discloses a control method comprising: controlling the robot hand system according to claim 1 (Page 3, “In addition, in a control method of a haptic interface including a plurality of haptic fingers having an active joint for a finger, based on a detection result of the position and posture of the hand of the operator, a virtual plane formed by the fingertip of the operator is determined. Controlling the arm active joint so that the haptic finger base is positioned at a position symmetrical with the position of the operator's hand, thereby causing the haptic finger base to face the operator's hand.”).
Re Claim 18, Kawasaki discloses a robot hand (Fig. 1-2) comprising:
at least one holding unit configured to hold a holding target (Page 2, “According to a first aspect of the present invention, a plurality of haptic fingers capable of following the movement of a fingertip of an operator are arranged on a haptic finger base.”);
a driving unit configured to move the holding unit (Page 4, “The first finger joint 27 and the second finger joint 28 are provided with drive motors (not shown) as drive sources in a number corresponding to the number of degrees of freedom. It rotates around the 1st axis 27a-the 3rd axis 28a, respectively.”);
an encoder configured to detect a movement distance of the holding unit (Page 4-5, “In the first finger joint 27 and the second finger joint 28, the above-described drive motors for driving the first shaft 27a to the third shaft 28a include rotary encoders URE1 to URE3 as rotation angle detecting means for detecting a rotation angle. Each is provided. By these rotary encoders URE1 to URE3, rotation angles around the respective axes are detected.”);
Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose a magnet; and a sensor configured to detect a positional relationship with the magnet, wherein either the magnet or the sensor is disposed to be capable of moving in accordance with movement of the holding unit.
However, Chris teaches a Hall effect sensor and ring magnet that allows the angle between two segments of a robotic finger connected by a joint to be determined through the changes in the magnet’s field as determined by the sensor (Page 3, “The shape of the magnet 58D and the placement of the sensor 62D provide a linear relationship between the angular position of the finger bone 38D relative to the finger bone 38C and the change in magnetic field read by the sensor 62D”).
Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to modify Kawasaki’s robot by adding Chris’s sensor and magnet because it would enhance the hand’s sensitivity and improve its grip control.
Re Claim 19, Kawasaki discloses a control device that moves the fingers of a robot hand through the data of an encoder (Page 11, “The rotary encoders URE1 to URE3 correspond to tactile finger joint angle detecting means. (S140) In S140, based on the detection values (detection signals) of the rotary encoders ARE1 to ARE7 of the arm mechanism, the CPU 40a rotates the respective joints around the respective axes, that is, the arm joint angles qi (i = 1,...). , 7) are detected.”) but does not explicitly disclose a control device wherein either the magnet or the sensor is disposed to be capable of moving in accordance with movement of the holding unit. However, Chris teaches a control system that is fed data from the previously mentioned Hall effect sensor and magnet (Page 3, “The shape of the magnet 58D and the placement of the sensor 62D provide a linear relationship between the angular position of the finger bone 38D relative to the finger bone 38C and the change in magnetic field read by the sensor 62D”). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to modify Kawasaki’s control device with Chris’s control device because it would provide cross verification for the data sent to the system and compensate for the cumulative errors potentially suffered by the encoder.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (JP2003300188A provided translation) in view of Chris (JP5777673B2 provided translation) and Takeuchi (JP2010136550A provided translation).
Re Claim 3, Modified Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the prescribed value is ½ a maximum value of an output of the sensor. However, Takeuchi teaches a Hall effect sensor that can produce a voltage value as half of its maximum sensor output value (Page 3-4, “The second voltage comparison unit 420 compares the sensor output (Hall IC output) with the voltage value VH / 2, and outputs a second comparison result signal SP indicating the comparison result. Here, the voltage value VH / 2 is ½ of the maximum value of the sensor output value.”). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to modify Modified Kawasaki’s robot hand system with Takeuchi’s sensor to allow the system to sense both the N and S poles of the magnet, as well as provide a reference point for a lack of a magnetic field or zero current flow.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (JP2003300188A provided translation) in view of Chris (JP5777673B2 provided translation) and Tanabe (JP2019174436A provided translation).
Re Claim 5, Modified Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein an output of the sensor varies in a step-like manner before and after the prescribed value. However, Tanabe teaches a magnetic sensor that changes step-like in regards to the detected magnetic field (Page 5, “On the other hand, the actual characteristic shown in FIG. 9 is an output characteristic of a magnetic sensor having an arbitrary magnetic resolution, and the sensor output has a step-like characteristic with respect to the detection target magnetic field.”). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to modify Modified Kawasaki’s robot hand system with Tanabe’s magnetic sensor because it provides the system with a clear and predictable signal for precision, as well as ensure the output is consistent and reliable.
Claim 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (JP2003300188A provided translation) in view of Chris (JP5777673B2 provided translation) and Sebastien (US 20210262776A1).
Re Claim 7, Modified Kawasaki teaches a robot hand system with two sensors that both send data from the same finger magnet to the control system (Chris Page 3, “Referring to FIGS. 6-8, the thumb 21 comprises compact electronics 46 comprising at least two types of sensors and reading these sensors and transmitting sensor data upstream.”), but it does not explicitly disclose a difference between an output of the first sensor and an output of the second sensor is an output of the sensor.
However, Sebastien teaches two sensors that monitor the same magnet and each send their own electrical signal based on the detected magnetic field, and that a method for analyzing the two outputs to determine changes in regards to a system’s members (Paragraph 0013-0014, “a second member disposed adjacent to the second side of the sheet of material, the second member having a first magnetic sensor that detects the magnetic field and generates a first electrical signal and a second magnetic sensor that detects the magnetic field and generates a second electrical signal; and means for analyzing the first electrical signal and second electrical signal to determine changes in a distance between the first and second members.”). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to modify Modified Kawasaki’s robot hand system with Sebastien’s dual sensor analyzation because it is one of the predictable ways to determine position with magnet sensors.
Re Claim 8, Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein an N pole and an S pole of the magnet are arranged side by side in a direction intersecting a movement direction of the holding unit. However, Chris teaches a robot hand’s thumb that has multiple magnet and sensor joints and depicts that axis A3 and A4 can intersect A1 (Fig. 4-5, 7-9, Page 1, “Referring to FIGS. 4 and 5, thumb 21 includes a plurality of rigid links or phalanges 38A-D and a plurality of joints 42A-D. The joint 42A rotatably mounts the phalanges 38A on the base structure 34 such that the phalanges 38A can be selectively rotated with respect to the structure 34 about the axis A1. The joint 42B rotatably mounts the finger bone 38B on the finger bone 38A such that the finger bone 38B is selectively rotatable relative to the finger bone 38A about the axis A2. The joint 42C rotatably mounts the finger bone 38C relative to the finger bone 38B such that the finger bone 38C is selectively rotatable relative to the finger bone 38B about the axis A3. The joint 42D rotatably mounts the finger bone 38D on the finger bone 38C such that the finger bone 38D is selectively rotatable about the axis A4 with respect to the finger bone 38C.”).
Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to modify Kawasaki’s robot hand system with Chris’s joints, sensors, and magnets because the magnets at joints 42C and 42D would be moving in a direction that is both identical to their corresponding axis they were located at as well as intersecting the movement of joint 42A.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (JP2003300188A provided translation) in view of Chris (JP5777673B2 provided translation), and Hatherley (WO2004067233A1 provided translation).
Re 12, Modified Kawasaki discloses wherein the control device moves the holding unit from one end of a movable range to another end of the moveable range after calculating the first relative displacement (Chris Page 3, “In addition, the thumb 21 includes a plurality of joint position sensor assemblies 54A-54D, each of which is configured to measure the absolute angular position of each of the joints 42A-42D and the phalange angular position relative to the connecting phalanges”; Page 5, “In the illustrated embodiment, the working range of the joint 42A (base roll) is from 0 ° to 80 °, and the working range of the joint 42B (proximal pitch) is from 0 ° to 100 °. The working range of the joint 42C (middle pitch) is from 0 ° to 80 °, and the working range of the joint 42D (distal pitch) is from -30 ° to 90 °.”) but does not explicitly disclose and outputs an error if movement of the holding unit is not completed within a prescribed time. However, Hatherley discloses a gripping device featuring a robotic arm that outputs an error when the griping device fails to grab the target object (Page 2, “In one aspect, the present invention provides an apparatus for signalling an error condition, the apparatus being provided on a robotic arm having a gripping device attached thereto, the gripping device having two or more gripping members adapted to engage an object, the error condition arising from the gripping device failing to engage the object,”). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to modify Modified Kawasaki’s robot hand system with Hatherley’s error outputting because with provide the control system with a definitive yes or no answer on whether or not the hand grabbed its target object.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (JP2003300188A provided translation) in view of Chris (JP5777673B2 provided translation), and Matsui (WO2021095353A1 provided translation).
Re Claim 14, Modified Kawasaki does not disclose wherein the control device is configured to acquire the first absolute displacement every prescribed timing. However, Matsui teaches a control device that uses an absolute position detection timing repeatedly when detecting a system’s magnets (Page 6, “Next, the control device 101 sets the timing at which the first hole IC 38a detects the switching of the magnetic poles between the magnets 16 adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction after the detection preparation start timing PD0 is detected as the absolute position detection timing PD. .. In the absolute position detection timing PD, for example, the signal group S (P, U, V, W) is the second signal group S2 (P, U, V, W) = (0,0,0,1) to the third. It is the timing to switch to the signal group S3 (P, U, V, W) = (1,1,0,1). Then, the control device 101 sets the ignition timing and the fuel injection timing of the internal combustion engine according to the absolute position detection timing PD when the internal combustion engine is started.”). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to modify Modified Kawasaki’s robot hand system with Matsui’s control device because to allow the absolute angular position to be available whenever it is needed by the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 and 15 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 ANDREW KILLIAN PEPPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6815. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657