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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show M1 & M2 as described in the specification (¶0043 first sentence. 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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is greater than 150 words and it has language that is legalistic, “thereof”, “means” & “wherein”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretations
Regarding the claimed term “fusion system”, the examiner interprets this term as follows. The examiner interprets this term by a combination of the applicant’s specification and a dictionary definition of the term.
¶0006 “mechanical arm and a dexterous hand wrist, which is a series-parallel fusion system”
¶0042 “A fusion system of a mechanical arm and a dexterous hand is shown in FIG. 3”
GOOGLE define “A fusion system of a mechanical arm and dexterous hand is an integrated robotic platform—often called a hand-arm system or anthropomorphic manipulator”
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.
Claims 5-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
No where is it disclosed how the mathematical equations and matrices are calculated for use in the device “control method”. Calculations performed by a computer or processor or some other kind of system. The claims have terminology that indicates some kind of computer/processor is required.
Claim 5; “D-H1 method” & “D-H parameters”, “positive kinematics method”, “obtaining joint angles…through an inverse kinematic numerical solution method”, and “obtaining a control instruction according to the joint angles”.
Claim 6 on line 3 the position and attitude equation.
Claim 7 the various T matrices.
Claim 9 “numerically solved in an iterative mode”.
Claim 10 the multi variable iteration formula with an “inverse kinematics formula”.
Utilizing the Wands factors to further evaluate claims 5-10 under 112(a), see MPEP 2164.01(a).
(A) The breadth of the claims;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claims span mathematical formulas and iterations not able to be performed without a computer.
(B) The nature of the invention;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Robotic arm, wrist and hand manipulation.
(C) The state of the prior art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
High level mathematical control needed.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At least a Bachelor’s degree in engineering.
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Not a lot of predictability.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Inventor does not mention any type of computer, processor for making the disclosed and claimed calculations.
(G) The existence of working examples; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner saw no working examples.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Making of the claimed calculations without a computer or processor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kemp et al (US2018/0267690).
A fusion system (figures 2, 5 & 9) of a mechanical arm and a dexterous hand, comprising: a four-degree-of-freedom mechanical arm (¶0039 “four degree of freedom control of the end of arm”, fig. 2 at 216, various other embodiments), a dexterous hand wrist mounted (¶0041 “various embodiments, the end effectors include one or more of the following:…a dexterous hand, a robotic wrist”, ¶0047 last sentence “a dexterous hand”) at an end of the four-degree-of-freedom mechanical arm (figures 2, 5 & 6), and a dexterous hand mounted on the dexterous hand wrist (fig. 9 at “wrist camera 908”, ¶0093/94 discuss a “wrist hinge”), wherein the dexterous hand wrist and the four-degree-of-freedom mechanical arm are connected by an electronic circuit (fig. 3 components).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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 Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
1 GOOGLE Define; Denavit-Hartenberg (D-H) method is a standardized convention in robotics for systematically assigning coordinate frames to robot links