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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second and third regions must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “length of the first protrusion” and “length of the first member or the second member”. These recitations are missing their articles. The recitations should read “a length of the first protrusion protruding from the arm part is shorter than a length of the first member or the second member protruding from the arm part.”
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.
Claims 3-5, 9 and 12-14 are 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.
Claim 3 (line 1) recites “one of regions” whereas claim 1 (line 3) recites “a first region”. It is unclear if the regions referenced on the dependent claim are the same or different from the one previously recited. Also, it is noted that while initially recited as a singular region specifically associated with the first member, claim 3 appears to recite more than one with association to both the first and second members. Since only regions 121 and 122 are disclosed, they can’t be properly identified for examination purposes. If the applicant intends to claim plural regions, “one of regions” associated with both members should be introduced on the independent claim and they should be identifiable on the specification.
Also, regarding claim 3, the meaning of “on a side where the first/second member is unconnected to the arm part” is not clear. All sides of the first/second members appear to be connected to the arm part as the members are disclose extending from the arm part.
Claim 4 recites “the second region and the third region are each a tapered region disposed at a tip end of the rectangular member, and the recess is formed in the tapered region”. It is unclear if the claim requires a single or dual recesses.
Claim 12 recites “a member” (line 4). It is unclear if this member is the same or different from those previously recited.
Claim 13 recites “the dents including…”. It is unclear if each dent must include all the properties recited thereafter. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed as if it was a Markush group.
Claim 14 recites “an object” (line 4). It is unclear if this object is the same or different from the one recited in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 4834767 B2.
PNG
media_image1.png
566
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 1, JP discloses a gripping device (200; Fig. 3) to grip an object, comprising: an arm part (100, 150); a first member (240) fixed to a first region at an end of the arm part, and extending in a direction nonparallel to an extending direction of the arm part with the first region as a start point; and a second member (220, 230, 250, 261, 262) disposed in parallel with the first member and movable along the arm part, wherein the first member and the second member are configured to be capable of clamping and gripping the object, at least one of the first and second members has a tapered part that tapers toward a tip end of the at least one of the first and second members, and an inclined portion of the tapered part has a recess (280, 262i) that dents in a direction perpendicular to an extending direction of the inclined portion (both the first and second members are tapered and comprise perpendicular recesses; 280 and Figs. 12-14).
Re claim 2, JP discloses the gripping device according to claim 1 wherein the second member has a first elastic body (263), connection is made between the arm part and the second member through connection of the first elastic body and the arm part, and the first elastic body extends in a direction opposite to a direction from the second member toward the first member, thereby the second member forms an L shape (distal members 262 have shapes that resemble inverted L-shapes; Figs, 9-10 and 12-13).
Re claim 3, as best understood, JP discloses the gripping device according to claim 1 wherein at least one of regions has a recess (280, 262i), the regions including a second region being a tip end of the first member on a side, and a third region being a tip end of the second member on a side.
Re claim 4, as best understood, JP discloses the gripping device according to claim 3 wherein at least the first member is a rectangular member (see rectangular profile of first member illustrated on Fig. 2) extending from the arm part, the second region and the third region are each a tapered region disposed at a tip end of the rectangular member, and the recess (280, 262i) is formed in the tapered region (Figs. 3-4,, 6-7).
Re claim 5, as best understood, JP discloses gripping device according to claim 3 wherein a second elastic/rubber body (262) is attached to at least one of respective surfaces of the second region and the third region, the surfaces being opposed to each other.
Re claim 9, as best understood, JP discloses the gripping device according to claim 3 wherein at least a regions is configured of an elastic/rubber body.
Re claim 11, JP discloses the gripping device according to claim 1 further comprising a strain sensor (280) that detects deflection of the second member and thus detects a gripping state of the object by the first member and the second member.
Re claim 12, as best understood, JP discloses the gripping device according to claim 1 wherein the second member has a second elastic/rubber body (262), connection is made between the arm part and the second member through connection of a member (210) protruding from the arm part and the second elastic body, and the second elastic body is disposed to contract depending on strength of clamping when the first and second members grip the object by clamping the object.
Re claim 13, as best understood, JP discloses the gripping device according to claim 3 wherein the recess (280, 262i) includes a curved dent (262i) and a rectangular dent (280).
Re claim 14, JP discloses the gripping device according to claim 4 wherein the gripping device raises and lowers the arm part while supporting an object by the recess.
Regarding claim 16, JP does not explicitly teach wherein the object has a second recess. It should be noted, however, that the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Also, JP does not explicitly teach pressing the first member to one of inner walls of the second recess, and moves the second member in a direction away from the first member, thereby presses the second member to the other of the inner walls of the second recess, thereby grips the object via the second recess. Again, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQsd 1647 (1987).
Re claim 17, JP discloses the gripping device according to claim 1 further comprising a driving mechanism (150) to change a posture of the arm part, and the driving mechanism is configured to be capable of changing a type of operation (e.g., horizontal/vertical movement) performed by the gripping device by changing the posture of the arm part.
Re claim 18, JP discloses the gripping device according to claim 1 wherein the first member and the second member are configured to respectively have rigidities, the rigidity of the first member being higher than the rigidity of the second member via elastic/rubber elements (.
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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4834767 B2.
Re claim 10, JP discloses the gripping device according to claim 1 wherein the second member is thinner than the first member (or a hollow section within the helical spring 263), thereby the first and second members are configured to respectively have rigidities, the rigidity of the first member being higher than the rigidity of the second member.
JP does not explicitly teach, however, that the first member and the second member are formed of the same material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make first member and the second member from the same material to simplify its manufacture, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 6-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4834767 B2 in view of Hara US 20180333864 A1.
Re claim 6, JP does not teach a gripping device according to claim 1 further comprising a first protrusion formed to protrude from the arm part in a direction opposite to the extending direction of the first member in the first region.
Re claim 7, JP does not teach a gripping device according to claim 6 wherein the first protrusion includes a second protrusion formed to protrude in a direction nonparallel to the direction in which the first protrusion protrudes from the arm part and in a direction opposite to a direction from the first member toward the second member.
Re claim 8, JP does not teach a gripping device according to claim 6 wherein length of the first protrusion protruding from the arm part is shorter than length of the first member or the second member protruding from the arm part.
PNG
media_image2.png
641
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hara, on the other hand, discloses another gripping device an additional grasping device with shorter (z-axis) and perpendicular fingers/protrusions (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of JP in view of Hara to include additional fingers/protrusions in view of Hara to provide additional versatility to the gripper.
Regarding claim 15, JP does not teach wherein the gripping device performs at least one of operations including: opening a door by hooking the second protrusion onto a grip of the door; closing the door by pushing the door by the first or second protrusion; and pulling a drawer structure out by hooking the second protrusion onto a slit of the drawer structure. However, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQsd 1647 (1987).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAUL J RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7097. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
SAUL J. RODRIGUEZ
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights