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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 Ln 2-3, please amend to --a third [[guider]] guide follower that--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 5-7, 14 and 17-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 Ln 3-4 states the limitation "when the first finger member and the second finger member face each other”. It is unclear how the first finger member and the second finger member ‘face’ each other or what that term is meant to convey. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate.
Claim 6 Ln 4-8 states the limitation "a distance… is set to a dimension with which a right-angled triangle is drawable with three line segments connecting three points of the first guide follower, the connecting portion between the first finger member and the link member and the third guide follower”. This limitation appears to be a direct translation from a foreign language by which the original meaning has been lost. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate.
Claim 14 Ln 3-6 states the limitation " when three line segments connecting three points of the first guide follower, a connecting portion between the first finger member and the link member, and the third guide follower are in a state of drawing a right-angled triangle”. This limitation appears to be a direct translation from a foreign language by which the original meaning has been lost. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate.
Claims 7 and 17-20 are rejected for their dependence upon a rejected parent claim.
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.
-(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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LOPEZ GILLES WO 2004026540 A1, hereinafter Lopez. A machine translation is provided and used throughout for disclosure callouts.
Regarding claim 1, LOPEZ GILLES WO 2004026540 A1, hereinafter Lopez discloses (Fig. 1-2) a robot hand comprising:
a first finger member (9);
an intermediate member (12) that is rotatably connected to the first finger member (depicted as having a pin-rotatable connection at the right end);
a second finger member (5) that is rotatably connected to the intermediate member (depicted as having a pin-rotatable connection at the right end); and
a guide member (4) that is rotatably connected to the second finger member (depicted as having a pin-rotatable connection at (30)) and includes a first guider (10),
wherein the first finger member includes a first guide follower (depicted structure of (9) encircling (10)) that is rotatably (Fig. 2, Pg 4 Ln 11-14) and movably (Pg 3 Ln 30-33) disposed in the first guider.
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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez.
Regarding claim 2, Lopez discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that a distance from a connecting portion between the first finger member and the intermediate member to the first guide follower is equal to a distance from a connecting portion between the intermediate member and the second finger member to a connecting portion between the second finger member and the guide member. Instead, Lopez provides a generic first and second distance.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having an equal first and second distance solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and
it appears that the generic first and second distance of Lopez would perform equally well with the equal first and second distance as claimed by applicant,
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify a generic first and second distance of Lopez by utilizing an equal first and second distance as claimed for the purpose of connecting the various members and providing a kinematic relationship.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4 and 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.
Claims 5-7 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-13 and 15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Lopez discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the intermediate member includes a second guider, and wherein the first finger member includes a second guide follower that is rotatably and movably disposed in the second guider.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed second guider. Although Lopez discloses a robot hand comprising rotating a first and second finger member, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lopez to incorporate the details of the intermediate member includes a second guider, and wherein the first finger member includes a second guide follower that is rotatably and movably disposed in the second guider, along with the other claimed components of the robot hand. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Claims 4 and 16 depend on claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, as far as is determinate, Lopez discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the robot hand further comprising: a stopper that comes into contact with the intermediate member to hold the intermediate member when the first finger member and the second finger member face each other.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed stopper. Although Lopez discloses a robot hand comprising an intermediate member, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lopez to incorporate the details of the robot hand further comprising: a stopper that comes into contact with the intermediate member to hold the intermediate member when the first finger member and the second finger member face each other, along with the other claimed components of the robot hand. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, as far as is determinate, Lopez discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the robot hand further comprising: a link member that is rotatably connected to the first finger member, and includes a third guider that is disposed rotatably and movably in the first guider, wherein a distance from a connecting portion between the first finger member and the link member to the first guide follower is set to a dimension with which a right-angled triangle is drawable with three line segments connecting three points of the first guide follower, the connecting portion between the first finger member and the link member and the third guide follower.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed stopper. Although Lopez discloses a robot hand comprising first finger member, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lopez to incorporate the details of the robot hand further comprising: a link member that is rotatably connected to the first finger member, and includes a third guider that is disposed rotatably and movably in the first guider, wherein a distance from a connecting portion between the first finger member and the link member to the first guide follower is set to a dimension with which a right-angled triangle is drawable with three line segments connecting three points of the first guide follower, the connecting portion between the first finger member and the link member and the third guide follower, along with the other claimed components of the robot hand. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Claims 7 and 18-20 depend on claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Lopez discloses (Fig. 1-2) an operation method for a robot hand, the method comprising:
disposing, along one straight line,
a first finger member (9) including a first guide follower (depicted structure of (9) encircling (10)),
an intermediate member (12) rotatably connected to the first finger member (depicted as having a pin-rotatable connection at the right end),
a second finger member (5) rotatably connected to the intermediate member (depicted as having a pin-rotatable connection at the right end), and
a guide member (40 rotatably connected to the second finger member (depicted as having a pin-rotatable connection at (30)) and including a first guider (10);
rotating the first finger member with respect to the intermediate member in a first rotation direction (clockwise (CW)) while moving the first guide follower along the first guider (Fig. 2, Pg 4 Ln 11-14, as cable (7) pulls (9) down/right, (9) rotates CW).
Lopez fails to explicitly state that the method further comprises:
rotating the second finger member with respect to the intermediate member in a second rotation direction which is a direction opposite to the first rotation direction. Instead, as cable (7) pulls (9) down/right, (5) also rotates CW.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural relationship between the rotation directions of the first/second finger members. Although Lopez discloses an operation method for a robot hand comprising rotating a first and second finger member, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lopez to incorporate the details of rotating the second finger member with respect to the intermediate member in a second rotation direction which is a direction opposite to the first rotation direction, along with the other claimed components of the operation method for the robot hand. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claim.
Claims 9-15 depend on claim 8.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Art
The following is a listing of relevant art:
US 20220048200 A1, US 10603800 B1 disclose robot hand/grippers actuated by articulated links.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached on 571-272-8648. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights