DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This final office action is in response to the amendments filled on 05/20/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15 and 18-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Exchange interface” in claim 1, 12 and 19
Based on submitted specification, exchange interface is hardware, see at least fig 1 and 2E of submitted specification. Fig 1 shows exchange interface is included into gripper platform and fig 2E shows gripper platform.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-3 and 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0406475 (“Motowaki”), and further in view of US 2023/0124672 (“Menon”).
Regarding claim 1, Motowaki discloses an end effector system (see at least fig 1, where an end effector system is shown), comprising:
a gripper platform (see at least fig 11, where ATC, 2 is coupled with gripper platform, 10b. see also [0025]);
a finger base operatively coupled to the gripper platform (see at least fig 11, where ATC, 2 is coupled with gripper platform, 10b. see also [0025]);
an automatic fingertip exchange interface (see at least [0032], where controller is sending commands to the holding members);
a tool base operatively coupled to the gripper platform (see at least fig 11, where tool base is coupled to the gripper platform, 10b. tools (41,42) are attached with the flange, 10b);
an automatic tool base exchange interface (see at least [0023], where controller is interpreted as interface); and
a tool configured to be autonomously releasably attached to the tool base via the automatic tool base exchange interface (see at least fig 11, where 2 is automatic tool changer. See also [0025]).
Motowaki does not disclose the following limitation:
a fingertip device configured to be autonomously releasably attached to the finger base via the automatic fingertip exchange interface.
However, Menon discloses a system wherein a fingertip device configured to be autonomously releasably attached to the finger base via the automatic fingertip exchange interface (see at least fig 3A-D, 11 and 12 where various types of fingers is exchanged autonomously based on the tasks. see also [0028], [0034] and [0036]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Motowaki to incorporate the teachings of Menon by including the above feature for manipulating objects autonomously.
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly claim 13), Menon further discloses a system wherein the automatic fingertip exchange interface includes at least one of an electromagnetic exchange interface or an electromechanical exchange interface (see at least [0046], where “Certain of the following figures illustrate examples of such interchangeable tools in various embodiments. In some embodiments, a tool as disclosed herein may be attached to a gripper, stub, or other distal end of a robotic arm via a magnetic snap-locking mechanism. In some embodiments, magnetic alignment is used to align the tool to the gripper, e.g., to make connections for the transfer of power, data, etc.”).
Regarding claim 3, Motowaki further discloses a system wherein the automatic tool base exchange interface includes compliant jaws configured to releasably hold the tool (see at least [0025] and [0039-40]).
Regarding claim 5, Motowaki further discloses a system wherein the gripper platform is operatively couplable to at least one of: a robot, or a human (see at least fig 11, where gripper platform is attached with a robot).
Regarding claim 6, Menon further discloses a system wherein the finger base is a first finger base, the automatic fingertip exchange interface is a first automatic fingertip exchange interface, the fingertip device is a first fingertip device (see at least [0028], where tools/fingers are exchanged autonomously), and the end effector system further comprises:
a second finger base operatively coupled to the gripper platform a second automatic fingertip exchange interface (see at least fig 3A-D, where various types of fingers are exchanged based on the tasks); and
a second fingertip device configured to be autonomously releasably attached to the second finger base via the second automatic fingertip exchange interface (see at least [0028], where tools/fingers are exchanged autonomously).
Regarding claim 7, Motowaki further discloses a system comprising: wherein the tool is one of multiple tools indicated as necessary to perform a manipulation task (see at least fig 14, where the holders 41/42 are holding/manipulating an object).
Regarding claim 8 (and similarly claim 15 and 20), Menon further discloses a system comprising: a controller is configured to:
determine a manipulation task (see at least fig 2 and [0026]): and
cause, based on the manipulation task, the fingertip device to contact and actuate the tool while the tool is autonomously releasably attached to the tool base to perform the manipulation task (see at least [0028]).
Regarding claim 9 (and similarly claim 16), Motowaki further discloses a system comprising: an actuator system (see at least [0025]),
wherein the controller is configured to: receive actuator data associated with the actuator system (see at least [0037], where “The frame rotary actuators 216 are configured to controllably rotate the tool arms 212 relative to the coupling device 210”);
generate, based on the actuator data, a manipulation command (see at least [0004]); and
cause, based on the manipulation command, the manipulation task to be performed (see at least [0004]).
Regarding claim 10 (and similarly claim 17), Motowaki further discloses a system comprising: a sensor system (see at least [0025]),
wherein the controller is configured to:
receive sensor data associated with the sensor system (see at least [0046]);
generate, based on the sensor data, a manipulation command (see at least [0034] and [0058]); and
cause, based on the manipulation command, the manipulation task to be performed (see at least [0034]).
Regarding claim 11 (and similarly claim 18), Menon further discloses a system wherein the controller is configured to:
determine a different manipulation task (see at least [0007] and fig 2);
cause, based on the different manipulation task, at least one of:
a different fingertip device to be exchanged with the fingertip device such that the different fingertip device is autonomously releasably attached to the finger base via the automatic fingertip exchange interface (see at least [0028] and fig 3A-D), or
a different tool, to be exchanged with the tool such that the different tool is mounted to the tool base; and
cause the different manipulation task to be performed using the at least one of the different fingertip device or the different tool (see at least fig 2).
Regarding claim 12 (and similarly claim 19), Motowaki further discloses a method, comprising:
determining, by a controller of an end effector system, a manipulation task (see at least [0023], where command for a task is sent via controller), wherein the end effector system includes:
a gripper platform (see citation on claim 1),
a finger base operatively coupled to the gripper platform (see citation on claim 1),
an automatic fingertip exchange interface (see citation on claim 1),
a tool base operatively coupled to the gripper platform and distinct from the finger base (see at least fig 11, where tool base is distinct from finger base);
an automatic tool base exchange interface (see citation on claim 1), and
multiple tools configured to be available for autonomous releasable attachment to the tool base via the autonomous tool base exchange interface (see at least [0025], where ATC is attachable/detachable. So, tools are exchangeable), and
causing, by the controller, the manipulation task to be performed using the tool (see at least [0023]).
Motowaki does not disclose the following limitations:
a fingertip device configured to be autonomously releasably attached to the finger base via the automatic fingertip exchange interface,
obtaining, by the controller and based on the manipulation task, information indicating a tool of the multiple tools necessary to perform the manipulation task; and
causing, by the controller, the tool to be autonomously releasably attached to the tool base via the automatic tool base exchange interface.
However, Menon further discloses a method wherein a fingertip device configured to be autonomously releasably attached to the finger base via the automatic fingertip exchange interface (see citation on claim 1),
obtaining, by the controller and based on the manipulation task, information indicating a tool of the multiple tools necessary to perform the manipulation task (see at least fig 2);
causing, by the controller, the tool to be autonomously releasably attached to the tool base via the automatic tool base exchange interface (see at least [0028]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0406475 (“Motowaki”), and in view of US 2023/0124672 (“Menon”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2026/0042207 (“Hwang”).
Regarding claim 4 (and similarly claim 14), Motowaki in view of Menon does not disclose claim 4. However, Hwang discloses a system wherein the fingertip device and the tool are independently actuatable (see at least [0012] and [0048], where various tools are controlled independently. So, it would be obvious to replace one tool from one tool arm with a fingertip device and actuate independently).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Motowaki in view of Menon to incorporate the teachings of Hwang by including the above feature for manipulating delicate objects without damage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination used in the current rejection that is due to the newly added claim amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, 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, Abby Lin can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights