DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Amendments filed 07/06/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-19, and 21-24 are pending; claims 6-7, 10, and 20 are canceled.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in view of Rodriguez Garcia et al. (US 2021/0146532 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Rodriguez Garcia et al. (US 2021/0146532 A1) and Casse et al. (US 2020/0094412 A1).
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claim 11 that Rodriguez Garcia does not disclose finger portions, Rodriguez Garcia discloses a hand portion including a finger (see at least Figs. 4A and 4B). Since claim 11 does not require a plurality of finger portions, the initial rejection of claim 11 in view of Rodriguez Garcia is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 line 3: A period “.” should be added after “the first value.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rodriguez Garcia et al. (US 2021/0146532 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Rodriguez Garcia teaches:
A control method for a hand portion (see annotated Figs. 1 and 4A below; the hand portion includes the portion from the wrist of the robot arm and the end effector 120) of an apparatus (Fig. 1; [0042] “a robotic system 100”), comprising:
detecting a slip of a work on a gripping surface based on an output of a sensor unit (Figs. 4A-4B; [0050] “a processor receives signals from a tactile sensor 122b on the second end effector 120b and determines that slippage has occurred, prompting an adjustment in the contact state.”) capable of detecting a pressure distribution ([0036] “The signals from the tactile sensor may include information associated with a contact state between the tactile sensor and an object. The signals may include information associated with a normal force, a shear force, a force magnitude, and/or a force direction. Of course, it should be appreciated that, in some embodiments, a robotic system may include a plurality of end effectors, each of which may include a plurality of tactile sensors.”) on the gripping surface of at least one finger portion (Figs. 4A and 4B; [0050] discloses first end effector 120a or second end effector 120b) of hand portion capable of gripping the work ([0049] “A grasp, as depicted in FIG. 3A, may include disposing two or more end effectors (or two or more surfaces of one or more end effectors) on opposing surfaces of an object, and moving the end effectors (or end effector surfaces) toward the object to apply a compressive force to the object.”); and
changing a relative position of the hand portion with respect to the work ([0050] “Upon detecting slippage, the robotic system may adjust the contact state by adjusting operation of one or more of the robotic limbs. For example, the first end effector 120 a may be commanded to increase the magnitude of the force it applies to the object 150 (indicated by the straight arrow in FIG. 4B), while the second end effector 120b may be commanded to rotate to adjust the direction of the force it applies to the object 150 (indicated by the curved arrow in FIG. 4B).” – Fig. 4B shows the hand portion including the end effector 120b rotating to adjust the direction of force it applies to the object 150).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
412
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Rodriguez Garcia further teaches:
for a first object, setting a gripping force to a first value ([0044] “In some embodiments, the processor may be configured to operate an end effector to adjust a magnitude and/or a direction of an applied force between the end effector and an object.”).
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Garcia et al. (US 2021/0146532 A1), in view of Casse et al. (US 2020/0094412 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rodriguez Garcia teaches:
An apparatus (Fig. 1; [0042] “a robotic system 100”), comprising:
a hand portion (see annotated Figs. 1 and 4B above on page 5) with a finger portion (Figs. 4A and 4B; [0050] disclose end effector 120a or end effector 120b) having a gripping surface ([0047] “ a contact surface 126 disposed on an external surface of the end effector 120.”) capable of gripping a work ([0049] “A grasp, as depicted in FIG. 3A, may include disposing two or more end effectors (or two or more surfaces of one or more end effectors) on opposing surfaces of an object, and moving the end effectors (or end effector surfaces) toward the object to apply a compressive force to the object.”);
a sensor unit provided in at least one finger portion ([0036] “a robotic system comprises an end effector with a tactile sensor and a processor operatively coupled to the tactile sensor.”) and capable of detecting a pressure distribution on the gripping surface ([0036] “The signals from the tactile sensor may include information associated with a contact state between the tactile sensor and an object. The signals may include information associated with a normal force, a shear force, a force magnitude, and/or a force direction. Of course, it should be appreciated that, in some embodiments, a robotic system may include a plurality of end effectors, each of which may include a plurality of tactile sensors.”); and
a control apparatus ([0050] “a processor”) configured to detect a slip of the work on the gripping surface based on an output of the sensor unit (Figs. 4A-4B; [0050] “a processor receives signals from a tactile sensor 122b on the second end effector 120b and determines that slippage has occurred, prompting an adjustment in the contact state.”) and change a relative position of the hand portion with respect to the work ([0050] “Upon detecting slippage, the robotic system may adjust the contact state by adjusting operation of one or more of the robotic limbs. For example, ... the second end effector 120b may be commanded to rotate to adjust the direction of the force it applies to the object 150 (indicated by the curved arrow in FIG. 4B).” – Fig. 4B shows the hand portion including the end effector 120b rotating to adjust the direction of force it applies to the object 150).
Rodriguez Garcia does not specifically teach the hand portion includes a plurality of finger portions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia to include a plurality of finger portions, since Rodriguez Garica has already taught a finger portion and having a plurality of finger portions is a mere duplication of an essential working part. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378.
In addition, in the same field of endeavor, Casse teaches:
a hand portion with a plurality of finger portions respectively having gripping surfaces capable of gripping a work (Fig. 1; [0024] “End effector 250 is a hand/gripper-type mechanism having two gripper fingers 255-1 and 255-2 that open (move away from each other) or close (move toward each other) in accordance with the corresponding actuation of motors mounted inside the gripper structure.”; [0025] “whereby target object 90 is manipulated in a programmed manner using end effector 250 (e.g., robot mechanism is actuated to move end effector toward object 90, and then end effector 250 is actuated such that gripper fingers 255 press against opposite sides of target object 90).”);
a sensor unit provided in at least one of the plurality of finger portions ([0026] “Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, multimodal sensing architecture 100 includes sensor arrays 101-1 and 101-2 that are respectively fixedly attached to opposing contact surfaces 257-1 and 257-2 of gripper fingers 255-1 and 255-2”) and capable of detecting a pressure distribution on the gripping surface ([0027] “superpixel 102-1 includes a pressure sensor 103 configured to generate pressure (static event) data PSD in response to an amount of static force SF received at corresponding surface portion 257-1, a vibration sensor 104 configured to generate vibration (dynamic event) data VD in response to mechanical vibrations MV applied onto corresponding surface portion 257-1”).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia to include a plurality of finger portions, as taught by Casse. Such modification provides improved stability when the robot holds an object.
Claims 2-4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Garcia et al. (US 2021/0146532 A1), in view of Casse et al. (US 2020/0094412 A1), and in further view of Tsuboi et al. (US 2009/0076657 A1).
Regarding claim 2, neither Rodriguez Garcia nor Casse specifically teaches wherein the sensor unit includes an elastically deformable sensor sheet having a plurality of capacitive elements that detects a pressure applied to the gripping surface, and the control apparatus detects the slip of the work on the gripping surface based on a change in pressure detected by the plurality of capacitive elements.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tsuboi teaches:
wherein the sensor unit includes an elastically deformable sensor sheet ([0079] “The deforming section 41 is made of a viscoelastic body having a viscoelastic characteristic such as a silicon gel material. The deforming section 41 can be easily deformed by a load from the outside.”) having a plurality of capacitive elements that detects a pressure applied to the gripping surface ([0067] “ Each of the sensors 21 provided in the robot hand 1 includes a capacitance-type pressure sensor that detects only normal force (a normal direction component of reaction of gripping force) perpendicular to a surface of the sensor.”; [0079] “The pressure detecting section 42 includes a capacitance-type pressure sensor that detects pressure making use of a principle of detection of, for example, a resistance change and a capacitance change.”), and
the control apparatus detects the slip of the work on the gripping surface based on a change in pressure detected by the plurality of capacitive elements ([0067] “The sensor 21 detects, on the basis of the detected distributed pressure value, a slip between a gripped object and a fingertip”; [0080] “The pressure detecting section 42 can acquire amounts equivalent to a slip direction and slip speed according to a slip by using the pressure center for sensing of a slip.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia, in view of Casse, to include an elastically deformable sensor sheet having a plurality of capacitive elements that detects a pressure applied to the gripping surface, and detect the slip of the work on the gripping surface based on a change in pressure detected by the plurality of capacitive elements, as taught by Tsuboi, in order to accurately detect a slippage of the work.
Regarding claim 3, neither Rodriguez Garcia nor Casse specifically teaches wherein the control apparatus detects the slip of the work on the gripping surface responsive to a number of capacitive elements that have a pressure detection value changing, within a predetermined time, meeting a predetermined threshold.
However, Tsuboi teaches:
wherein the control apparatus detects the slip of the work on the gripping surface responsive to a number of capacitive elements (Fig. 5; [0089] “one-hundred sixty-eight sensor elements 52”) that have a pressure detection value changing ([0094] “The sensor elements 52 output a distributed pressure value detected by using a capacitance change as a detection principle to the signal processing unit 53. The principle of detection of the distributed pressure value may be other than the capacitance change.”; [0103] “the pressure-center calculating unit 122 calculates a pressure center position using distributed pressure values of the sensor elements 52 for which the contact detection is performed by the contact detecting unit 121.”), within a predetermined time ([0104] “ The pressure-center-movement calculating unit 123 as pressure-center-movement calculating means for calculating a movement value of a pressure center position using a temporal change of the pressure center position accumulates pressure center positions from the pressure-center calculating unit 122 in time series. The pressure-center-movement calculating unit 123 calculates, for example, a difference in a moving average of the accumulated pressure center positions or a difference among the pressure center positions and outputs the calculated difference to the slip detecting unit 124 as a pressure center movement calculated value.”), meeting a predetermined threshold ([0105] “The slip detecting unit 124 as slip-detection-value calculating means for calculating a slip detection value on the basis of the movement value of the pressure center position performs a pressure center movement detection calculation using a calculation result from the pressure-center-movement calculating unit 123. The slip detecting unit 124 compares a calculation result of the pressure center movement detection calculation with a predetermined threshold (hereinafter referred to as judgment threshold) and detects a slip”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia, in view of Casse and Tsuboi, to detect the slip of the work on the gripping surface responsive to a number of capacitive elements having a pressure detection value changing, within a predetermined time, meeting a predetermined threshold, as taught by Tsuboi. Such modification can accurately detect a slip at the time when an object slips very slowly.
Regarding claim 4, neither Rodriguez Garcia nor Casse specifically teaches wherein the control apparatus detects the slip of the work on the gripping surface responsive to a pressure center position or a pressure distribution calculated based on pressure detection values of the plurality of capacitive elements changes within a predetermined time.
However, Tsuboi teaches:
wherein the control apparatus detects the slip of the work on the gripping surface ([0094] “The sensor elements 52 output a distributed pressure value detected by using a capacitance change as a detection principle to the signal processing unit 53. The principle of detection of the distributed pressure value may be other than the capacitance change.”; [0103] “the pressure-center calculating unit 122 calculates a pressure center position using distributed pressure values of the sensor elements 52 for which the contact detection is performed by the contact detecting unit 121.”) responsive to a pressure center position or a pressure distribution calculated based on pressure detection values of the plurality of capacitive elements changes within a predetermined time ([0104] “ The pressure-center-movement calculating unit 123 as pressure-center-movement calculating means for calculating a movement value of a pressure center position using a temporal change of the pressure center position accumulates pressure center positions from the pressure-center calculating unit 122 in time series. The pressure-center-movement calculating unit 123 calculates, for example, a difference in a moving average of the accumulated pressure center positions or a difference among the pressure center positions and outputs the calculated difference to the slip detecting unit 124 as a pressure center movement calculated value.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia, in view of Casse and Tsuboi, to detect the slip of the work on the gripping surface responsive to a pressure center position or a pressure distribution calculated based on pressure detection values of the plurality of capacitive elements changes within a predetermined time, as taught by Tsuboi. Such modification allows the robot to detect a slip at the time when an object slips very slowly.
Regarding claim 21, Rodriguez Garcia further teaches:
wherein the control apparatus is configured to, for a first object, set a gripping force to a first value ([0044] “In some embodiments, the processor may be configured to operate an end effector to adjust a magnitude and/or a direction of an applied force between the end effector and an object.”).
Neither Rodriguez Garcia nor Casse specifically teaches the control apparatus is configured to determine whether a predetermined pressure distribution profile is present.
However, Tsuboi teaches:
determining whether a predetermined pressure distribution profile is present ([0104] “The pressure-center-movement calculating unit 123 calculates, for example, a difference in a moving average of the accumulated pressure center positions or a difference among the pressure center positions and outputs the calculated difference to the slip detecting unit 124 as a pressure center movement calculated value.”; [0105] “The slip detecting unit 124 compares a calculation result of the pressure center movement detection calculation with a predetermined threshold (hereinafter referred to as judgment threshold) and detects a slip.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia, in view of Casse, to determine whether a predetermined pressure distribution profile is present, as taught by Tsuboi, in order to detect whether a slip of the work has occurred.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Garcia et al. (US 2021/0146532 A1), in view of Casse et al. (US 2020/0094412 A1), and in further view of Suzuki (US 9,868,215).
Regarding claim 5, Rodriguez Garcia further teaches wherein the control apparatus causes, from a state of gripping the work with a first gripping force, a pressure adjustment adjusting the work ([0050] “Of course, each end effector may be commanded to adjust only the magnitude of its applied force, only the direction of its applied force, or both the magnitude and the direction of its applied force.”) ... and a movement changing the relative position of the hand portion with respect to the work ([0050] “ while the second end effector 120b may be commanded to rotate to adjust the direction of the force it applies to the object 150 (indicated by the curved arrow in FIG. 4B)”).
Neither Rodriguez Garcia nor Casse teaches the pressure adjustment includes adjusting the work from the first gripping force to a second gripping force lower than the first gripping force.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches the pressure adjustment includes adjusting the work from the first gripping force to a second gripping force lower than the first gripping force (Claim 1 “the robot hand controller controls the robot hand so as to decrease a force, by which the robot hand grips the object, after the robot hand is arranged at the position and posture in which the moment is generated at the object, to allow the object to rotate relative to the robot hand by the action of gravity while preventing the object from dropping from the robot hand”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia, in view of Casse, to adjust the work from the first gripping force to a second gripping force lower than the first gripping force, as taught by Suzuki, in order to allow the work to rotate relative to the robot hand by the action of gravity while preventing the work from dropping from the robot hand, as stated by Suzuki.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Garcia et al. (US 2021/0146532 A1), in view of Casse et al. (US 2020/0094412 A1) and Tsuboi et al. (US 2009/0076657 A1), and further in view of Katsuhara et al. (US 2021/0208012 A1).
Regarding claim 8, neither Rodriguez nor Casse specifically teaches wherein the sensor sheet comprises a pressure sensor, the pressure sensor including a sensor electrode layer in which the plurality of capacitive elements are arranged in a matrix form, a reference electrode layer, and a deformation layer disposed between the sensor electrode layer and the reference electrode layer.
However, Tsuboi teaches:
wherein the sensor sheet comprises a pressure sensor (Fig. 3A; [0077] “sensor 21”), the pressure sensor including a sensor electrode layer in which the plurality of capacitive elements are arranged in a matrix form ([0088] “The pressure detecting section 42 includes, for example, plural pressure detection elements (hereinafter also referred to as sensor elements) 52 arranged in a matrix shape on a flexible substrate 51”), and a deformation layer (Fig. 3A; [0077] “a deforming section 41”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia, in view of Casse and Tsuboi, to include a pressure sensor including a sensor electrode layer in which the plurality of capacitive elements are arranged in a matrix form, and a deformation layer, as taught by Tsuboi, in order to acquire pressure information of the object while improving safety for humans and realizing physical interaction with higher affinity with humans, as stated by Tsuboi in [0082].
Tsuboi does not specifically teach a reference electrode layer, and the deformation layer is disposed between the sensor electrode layer and the reference electrode layer.
However, Katsuhara teaches:
a pressure sensor ([0038] “sensor 10 has an elongated sheet shape, and is capable of detecting pressure applied to both main faces of the sensor 10”) including a sensor electrode layer (Fig. 2; [0046] “sensor electrode layer 20”), a reference electrode layer (Fig. 2; [0059] “ The electrode base 11 includes a flexible base 11c and a reference electrode layer (hereinafter referred to as “REF electrode layer”) 11d provided on one main face of the base 11c.”), and a deformation layer (Fig. 2; [0040] “deformable layer 12”) disposed between the sensor electrode layer and the reference electrode layer ([0040] “The deformable layer 12 is provided between the one main face of the electrode base 11 and the one main face of the sensor electrode layer 20”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia, in view of Casse and Tsuboi, to include a reference electrode layer, and dispose the deformation layer between the sensor electrode layer and the reference electrode layer, as taught by Katsuhara. Such modified configuration of the pressure sensor enables an input operation with a higher degree of flexibility, as stated by Katsuhara in [0151].
Regarding claim 9, neither Rodriguez Garcia nor Casse specifically teaches wherein the sensor sheet includes a pair of pressure sensors, the pressure sensors each having a sensor electrode layer in which the plurality of capacitive elements are arranged in a matrix form, a reference electrode layer, and a deformation layer disposed between the sensor electrode layer and the reference electrode layer, and a separation layer comprising a viscoelastic material disposed between the pair of pressure sensors.
However, Tsuboi teaches:
wherein the sensor sheet
includes a pair of pressure sensors (Fig. 1A shows a plurality of sensors 21”), the pressure sensors each having a sensor electrode layer in which the plurality of capacitive elements ([0067] “a capacitance-type pressure sensor”) are arranged in a matrix form ([0088] “The pressure detecting section 42 includes, for example, plural pressure detection elements (hereinafter also referred to as sensor elements) 52 arranged in a matrix shape on a flexible substrate 51”), a deformation layer (Fig. 3A; [0077] “a deforming section 41”), and
a separation layer comprising a viscoelastic material disposed between the pair of pressure sensors ([0067] “The sensor 21 has on the surface thereof a viscoelastic body having softness like the human skin. The viscoelastic body is deformed into various shapes by force received from the outside and a form of the force, whereby pressure is dispersed to the sensor 21 on the inside.” – Since the sensor 21 has a viscoelastic layer on the surface and Fig. 1B shows the sensors 21 are placed next to each other, the viscoelastic layer of each the sensor 21 separates the sensors 21 from each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia, in view of Casse and Tsuboi, to include a pair of pressure sensors, the pressure sensor each including a sensor electrode layer in which the plurality of capacitive elements are arranged in a matrix form, and a deformation layer, and a separation layer comprising a viscoelastic material disposed between the pair of pressure sensors, as taught by Tsuboi, in order to acquire pressure information of the object while improving safety for humans and realizing physical interaction with higher affinity with humans, as stated by Tsuboi in [0082].
Tsuboi does not specifically teach a reference electrode layer, and the deformation layer is disposed between the sensor electrode layer and the reference electrode layer.
However, Katsuhara teaches:
a pressure sensor ([0038] “sensor 10 has an elongated sheet shape, and is capable of detecting pressure applied to both main faces of the sensor 10”) including a sensor electrode layer (Fig. 2; [0046] “sensor electrode layer 20”), a reference electrode layer (Fig. 2; [0059] “ The electrode base 11 includes a flexible base 11c and a reference electrode layer (hereinafter referred to as “REF electrode layer”) 11d provided on one main face of the base 11c.”), and a deformation layer (Fig. 2; [0040] “deformable layer 12”) disposed between the sensor electrode layer and the reference electrode layer ([0040] “The deformable layer 12 is provided between the one main face of the electrode base 11 and the one main face of the sensor electrode layer 20”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia, in view of Tsuboi, to include a reference electrode layer, and dispose the deformation layer between the sensor electrode layer and the reference electrode layer, as taught by Katsuhara. Such modified configuration of the pressure sensor enables an input operation with a higher degree of flexibility, as stated by Katsuhara in [0151].
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Garcia et al. (US 2021/0146532 A1), in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP2005177977 A).
Regarding claim 12, Rodriguez Garcia does not specifically teach incrementing a gross slip detection frame rate counter.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamamoto teaches:
incrementing a gross slip detection frame rate counter ([0026] “the control unit 4 determines the slip amount of the object X by counting the number of pulses of the sensor output (detection signal) of the slip sensor 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia to increment a gross slip detection frame rate counter, as taught by Yamamoto, in order to determine a slip of amount of the work.
Regarding claim 13, Rodriguez Garcia does not specifically teach determining whether the gross slip detection frame rate counter meets a threshold.
However, Yamamoto teaches determining whether the gross slip detection frame rate counter meets a threshold ([0025] “ a detection signal with the number of pulses corresponding to the amount of change (movement amount) is output, and the object to the slip sensor 1 is output. If X is stationary, the number of pulses is zero, that is, no detection signal is output.”; [0026] “the control unit 4 determines the slip amount of the object X by counting the number of pulses of the sensor output (detection signal) of the slip sensor 1, and refers to the sensor outputs of the angle sensor 2 and the torque sensor 3, By controlling the driving unit 54 so that the slip amount becomes zero ...”) – The threshold can be 0; hence, if the slip amount of the object is detected, the gross slip detection frame rate/number of pulses of sensor output is more than zero and therefore has met the threshold.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia to determine whether the gross slip detection frame rate counter meets a threshold, as taught by Yamamoto, in order to determine a slip of amount of the work.
Regarding claim 14, Rodriguez Garcia does not specifically responsive to determining the gross slip detection frame rate counter meets the threshold, reset the gross slip detection frame rate counter to zero.
However, Yamamoto teaches:
responsive to determining the gross slip detection frame rate counter meets the threshold, reset the gross slip detection frame rate counter to zero ([0026] “the control unit 4 determines the slip amount of the object X by counting the number of pulses of the sensor output (detection signal) of the slip sensor 1, and refers to the sensor outputs of the angle sensor 2 and the torque sensor 3, By controlling the driving unit 54 so that the slip amount becomes zero and adjusting the gripping force of the robot hand 50, the object X gripped by the robot hand 50 is prevented from slipping down.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia to reset the gross slip detection frame rate counter to zero responsive to determining the gross slip detection frame rate counter meets the threshold, as taught by Yamamoto, in order to adjust a gripping force of the robot hand and prevent the work from slipping down.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Garcia et al. (US 2021/0146532 A1), in view of Tsuboi et al. (US 2009/0076657 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Rodriguez Garcia does not specifically teach determining whether a predetermined pressure distribution profile is present.
However, Tsuboi teaches:
determining whether a predetermined pressure distribution profile is present ([0104] “The pressure-center-movement calculating unit 123 calculates, for example, a difference in a moving average of the accumulated pressure center positions or a difference among the pressure center positions and outputs the calculated difference to the slip detecting unit 124 as a pressure center movement calculated value.”; [0105] “The slip detecting unit 124 compares a calculation result of the pressure center movement detection calculation with a predetermined threshold (hereinafter referred to as judgment threshold) and detects a slip.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia, in view of Tsuboi, to determine whether a predetermined pressure distribution profile is present, as taught by Tsuboi, in order to detect whether a slip of the work has occurred.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 and 22-24 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 NHI Q BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-3962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 AM - 6:00PM EST.
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 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.
/NHI Q BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights