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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer program per se. See MPEP 2106.03(I).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Deshpande et al. (US 2016/0296345 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Deshpande”).
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, Deshpande discloses an information processing device, comprising: an exoskeleton robot (Figs. 1, 7, 9 and 11, elements 100 and/or 900) worn on a hand of a user (paragraphs 0022-0023, 0048-0049, 0059); and a controller (Fig. 7, element 720) that controls the exoskeleton robot (paragraphs 0039-0046), wherein the exoskeleton robot comprises: a palm module (Figs. 1, 7, 9 and 11, element 110a, and/or 910a) fixed to the hand of the user (paragraphs 0023-0024, 0048-0049); a finger joint module (Figs. 1-2, 7, 9 and 11, element 120a or 120b and/or 920a) detachably attached (Fig. 2, elements 220 and/or 230; “framework 220” and “connecting members 230”) to the palm module (paragraphs 0023-0027, 0032, 0048-0059); and a fingertip module (Figs. 1-2, 7, 9 and 11, element 120c, 120d, 120e, 120f, 920c and/or 920d) detachably attached (Fig. 2, element 220, 230) to the finger joint module and fixed to a finger of the user (paragraphs 0023, 0027, 0029, 0032, 0048-0059), wherein the finger joint module is configured to have at least one of a function of driving (via Figs. 1-2, 4 and 7, elements 150a or 150b, 210, 710a, 710b) the fingertip module or a function of sensing (via Figs 1- 4, elements 140a or 140b, 240) the fingertip module (paragraphs 0023-0024, 0026, 0032-0034, 0044).
Regarding claim 2, Deshpande discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the palm module comprises: a first fixing unit (Figs. 1, 7, 9 and 11, coupling between elements 110a and 120a) to which the finger joint module is fixed (paragraph 0027); and a second fixing unit extending along a back of the hand of the user, the second fixing unit fixing the palm module to the hand of the user (see unlabeled slit holes in unlabeled pam module shown in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 3, Deshpande discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the palm module comprises a band (Figs. 1, 7, 9 and 11, element 112, 112a and/or 112b, 912, 912a, 912b) extending from the second fixing unit in such a manner as to cover a portion of a palm of the user, and the portion of the palm of the user does not include an interdigital region nor a thenar (see Fig. 9 where band 912b avoids interdigital region and avoids thenar by crossing over hypothenar).
Regarding claim 4, Deshpande discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the first fixing unit and the second fixing unit are fixed in such a manner that a relative position of the first fixing unit and the second fixing unit is adjustable (by way of an alternative interpretation: Fig. 1 element 120b can be seen as the a finger joint module and Fig. 1, element 120a can be seen as the first fixing unit; accordingly, first fixing unit 120a and second fixing unit [i.e., unlabeled slit holes in Fig. 11] are fixed such that the relative position is adjustable by way of framework 220 and connecting members 230 as shown in Fig. 2; paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 5, Deshpande discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the finger joint module having the function of driving the fingertip module comprises a motor (Fig. 7, element 710a, 710b) so as to have at least one degree of freedom (paragraph 0034-0037, 0039).
Regarding claim 7, Deshpande discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the finger joint module having the function of sensing the fingertip module comprises an angle sensor (140) that detects an angle of the fingertip module (paragraph 0031, 0033). Note that the function of sensing the fingertip module is require only as an alternative to the function of driving as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Deshpande discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the finger joint module (Figs. 9 and 11, element 920a) to which the fingertip module fixed to a thumb among fingers of the user is attached comprises a motor (“additional motor”) so as to have at least one degree of freedom (paragraph 0048-0054).
Regarding claim 9, Deshpande discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the finger joint module (via Fig. 9, elements 920a, 920b, 920b and/or 920e) to which a fingertip module (Fig. 9, element 920d) is attached has at least three degrees of freedom, the fingertip module fixed to a thumb among fingers of the user, and the three degrees of freedom give: an abduction motion and an adduction motion starting from a CM joint of the thumb; a bending motion and an extending motion of an MP joint of the thumb; and a bending motion and an extending motion of a CM joint of the thumb (Figs. 9-10 and paragraphs 0048-0059).
Regarding claim 13, Deshpande discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the fingertip module comprises: a body (Fig. 1, element 110b, 110c, 110d) extending along the finger of the user (paragraph 0023-0025); and a band (Fig. 1, element 112c, 112d, 112e) extending from the body in such a manner as to cover a part of the finger of the user (paragraphs 0023, 0025).
Regarding claim 17, Deshpande discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of the exoskeleton robots (Fig. 11; paragraph 0059); and the controller that controls the plurality of the exoskeleton robots (paragraph 0039-0046).
Regarding claim 18, Deshpande discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a terminal device (Fig. 7, element 720) that generates a control command for controlling the exoskeleton robot, wherein the controller transmits the control command generated by the terminal device to the exoskeleton robot (paragraph 0039-0040).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Nishioka et al. (EP 4119308 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Nishioka”).
Regarding claim 6, Deshpande teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the finger joint module having the function of driving the fingertip module comprises a mechanism having a rotation center at a joint of the finger of the user (paragraph 0027, 0056). However, Deshpande is silent regarding the mechanism being an “RCM” mechanism. Nishioka teaches a finger joint module (Figs. 9-12, element 120A) comprises an RCM mechanism (Figs. 9-12, “RCM Mechanism”) having a rotation center at a joint of the finger of a user (paragraph 0049). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply the well-known RCM mechanism technique taught by Nishioka to the prior art device taught by Deshpande. Application of the well-known technique taught by Nishioka to the prior art device taught by Deshpande would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in art and because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: finger joint module having the function of driving the fingertip module comprises an RCM mechanism having a rotation center at a joint of the finger of the user.
It is noted that the applied Nishioka reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 14-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE MOYER whose telephone number is (571)270-7821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PT.
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, Khoi H Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. 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.
/Dale Moyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656