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 .
General
MPEP 608.01(m) dictates the form of claims presented to the Office in an application and states: “Claims should preferably be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive. All dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable. Where separate species are claimed, the claims of like species should be grouped together where possible”
Applicant consistently interleaves the dependent claims of independent claims 1 and 2 which are furthermore separate species.
Examiner will correct the form of the claims such that claims are properly grouped together upon any issuance of allowance.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant has provided several references which have no translation. Only those portions in English have been reviewed, except for Okura et al. ("Analysis of Fingertip Tactile Sensors for Slip Detection of Rope", SICE, 23rd System Integration Division Annual Conference, 12/14/2022, PP. 1607-1612) which was determined to be prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) wherein a translation was acquired and used in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The term or noun phrase of “pulp region” appears defined as a region “for applying a force to a subject” based on Applicant’s specification, or the region of a finger for tactile sensation based on human anatomical terminology.
Examiner notes that the term “deformable” is especially broad, as effectively all materials may be deformed or having a shape alterable by some unquantified amount of stress (based on definition 3 of the verb “deform” of the Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary accessed 6/18/2026).
The phrase “removably attached” is not particularly limiting, or in other words especially broad, inasmuch as the nature of removal is not provided for within the claim to qualify the phrase. For example, effectively any structure, component, etc. is removable in some manner, even if that is by destructive and aggressive means. The dictionary definition of the intransitive verb of “removable” of which removably is an adverb of is “to be capable of being removed” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary accessed 6/18/2026).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1 – 18 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the phrase “easily deformable” in the overall limitation of “the pulp region has an easily deformable portion”. The term “easily” is a relative or subjective term, particularly due to the manner in which it is claimed, which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “easily deformable”, and “easily” in particular, is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree or objective standard for measuring the scope of the term, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(IV) relates.
For example, Applicant appears to describe this feature in the most detail on Page 6 of Applicant’s specification which reads:
“However, the "easily-deformable portion" is not limited to a groove. For example, for the "easily-deformable portion", an elastic material softer than its peripheral elastic material may be used, a cavity or foam may be provided inside for softening, or a portion having not a distinct shape like a groove but a thin thickness may be formed. The "portion having a thin thickness" also includes a portion having a distinct shape like a groove”
This section appears to at most describe how a portion of the structure may be easier to deform than the rest, or a surrounding or peripheral portion, of the structure. It does not provide any form of objective qualification which informs the reader what qualifies as a portion being easily-deformable in general as is presently claimed. In other words, while one of ordinary skill in the art may understand the scope of the invention when the ease of deformability is defined by being bounded to the context of deformability between two specific structures/components or structural portions of a structure/component, as presently claimed wherein it is simply “easily-deformable”, the metes and bounds is wholly unclear. There is no means by which to understand what may be considered as easy, not-easy, hard, difficult, etc.
Examiner furthermore notes, that the limitation already recites “at least in a range corresponding to the gap”. Therefore, it is unclear if the intent of the limitation is simply to indicate that at least this region corresponding to the gap is deformable under the desired/expected/anticipated operating conditions, or if it is intended to more specifically limit such that what is considered “easy” is more clearly incorporated.
In the interest of compact prosecution and lacking a clear direction, the overall limitation has instead been interpreted as just reading:
“a deformable portion” (removing “easily-”).
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites the phrase “thin thickness” in the overall limitation of “the pulp region has a portion locally having a thin thickness”. The term “thin” is a relative or subjective term, particularly due to the manner in which it is claimed, which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree or objective standard for measuring the scope of the term, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(IV) relates.
For example, Applicant appears to describe this feature in the most detail on Page 6 of Applicant’s specification which reads:
“However, the "easily-deformable portion" is not limited to a groove. For example, for the "easily-deformable portion", an elastic material softer than its peripheral elastic material may be used, a cavity or foam may be provided inside for softening, or a portion having not a distinct shape like a groove but a thin thickness may be formed. The "portion having a thin thickness" also includes a portion having a distinct shape like a groove”
and in the associated figures, e.g. Figure 3
None of these portions actually disclose what makes something “thin” in general, e.g. reciting a maximum thickness or similar, and instead merely appear to indicate that there is a localized thinner area of the structure. In other words, what appears described is that there may be an area thinner than the surrounding area which thus is more readily/easily deformed, rather than that portion necessarily being thin itself by some objective standard. In effect, when bounded by being relative “thin”, or more specifically “thinner” is understood, but “thin” generally as claimed is not.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the overall limitation has instead been interpreted as reading in line with what appears to be the actual bounded disclosure related to the claimed feature:
“a portion locally thinner in thickness than the surrounding or another portion of the surface member”.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, the claims recite the phrase “both ends” in the larger limitation of “both ends of the sensors arrayed”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims do not previously define or describe any “end” to the two or more sensors, let alone that there be only two ends to the sensors such that it can be clearly understood what this limitation means.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation has instead been interpreted as reading “ends” (remove “both”). Examiner notes that this is particularly broad as any given “end” is still not defined or described in the claims.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “the surface member covering the back region is harder than the portion covering the pulp region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims do not previously recite that the surface member covers the whole finger, completely covers the finger, or otherwise recites some limitation whereby the back region must be covered.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation should instead read prior to this limitation:
“the surface member covers the back region, and”
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “the sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims previously recite “two or more sensors”. There is never a single sensor called out from this group, recited, etc.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation should instead read prior to this limitation:
“a sensor of the two or more sensors”
Regarding Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18, the claims recite the limitation “the robot hand control device detects”. The claims are directed to the statutory category of a machine or apparatus. MPEP 2106 relates. Per MPEP 2114, “Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” “ “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)”. This limitation is not recited as a structure or functional limitation thereof. It is unclear if Applicant is merely claiming what the device does, rather than what the device is.
The claims should instead read:
“the robot hand control device is configured to detect”
Regarding Claims 7 – 13, the claims depend from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claims 7 – 13 are rejected under the same logic presented above.
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 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Okura et al. ("Analysis of Fingertip Tactile Sensors for Slip Detection of Rope", SICE, 23rd System Integration Division Annual Conference, 12/14/2022, PP. 1607-1612).
Examiner first notes that Applicant discloses this reference as prior art, and furthermore appears to specify the only perceived distinction between the prior art and the present Application’s disclosure in [0012] which reads “While the outer grip (corresponding to the surface member) of Non-Patent Literature 1 depicted in FIG. 1 has convex portions on its inner surface, the convex portions are not designed to be in contact with sensors. In the sensor module 100, all convex portions are each in contact with its corresponding sensor. With this, sliding is easily detected also from an output from a sensor not at a position gripping a subject”
With respect to the present claims, the only claims which appear to exhibit the identified feature are those of Claims 9 and 10.
Consequently, by Applicant’s disclosure, all remaining claims (Claims 1 – 8 and 11 – 18) appear at minimum taught by Okura et al.
Examiner notes that Figure 1 of Okura et al. and Figure 1 of Applicant’s Drawings appear to be identical, however Applicant’s filed drawings appear to provide a much higher resolution image thereof which has been used to verify features used in the rejection.
In the interest of clear and compact prosecution, all claims will be addressed based on what Examiner finds taught by the actual reference itself below.
Regarding Claim 1, Okura teaches:
A sensor module arranged on a finger of a robot hand (See at least Section 2, “This inner grip is attached so as to cover the core of the fingers of the robot hand”), the finger having a pulp region for applying a force to a subject, and a back region opposite to the pulp region (See at least Figure 1 wherein there is at least a side having the sensors and a side which is opposite to at least one sensor), the sensor module comprising:
two or more sensors arranged at positions corresponding to the pulp region of the finger (See at least Figure 1 including caption which reads “a sheet of … sensor” and illustrates a plurality of sensors) to (Indicates intent or purpose of preceding) detect the force; and
a surface member that covers the finger and the sensors (See outside/outer grip of Figure 1), wherein the sensors are arrayed in a circumferential direction (See at least Figure 1, in particular the combination of the sensor sheet with the inner grip, and additionally the finger not previously illustrated in the assembly diagram (located top center)) with a predetermined gap (The claim does not specify what the gap is with respect to, between, etc. Therefore, this limitation is inherently met each sensor has a gap with respect to something. In the interest of compact prosecution, see Figure 1 or Figure 2 wherein there is a gap between each sensor element),
a portion of the surface member covering the pulp region is formed of an elastic material (See at least Section 2, Page 3, “an outer grip as shown in the lower center of Fig. 1 was created and wrapped around the outside of the sensor sheet as shown on the right of Fig. 1. A resin with a Shore hardness of A30 was used as the material”), and
the portion of the surface member covering the pulp region has an easily-deformable portion at least in a range corresponding to the gap (The nature of the correspondence is not claimed. The nature of the “range” is not claimed. A correspondence inherently exists inasmuch as they are part of the assembly. See again immediately above wherein the surface member is made of “A resin with a Shore hardness of A30”).
Regarding Claim 2, Okura teaches:
A sensor module arranged on a finger of a robot hand (See at least Section 2, “This inner grip is attached so as to cover the core of the fingers of the robot hand”), the finger having a pulp region for applying a force to a subject, and a back region opposite to the pulp region (See at least Figure 1 wherein there is at least a side having the sensors and a side which is opposite to at least one sensor), the sensor module comprising:
two or more sensors arranged at positions corresponding to the pulp region of the finger (See at least Figure 1 including caption which reads “a sheet of … sensor” and illustrates a plurality of sensors) to (Indicates intent or purpose of preceding) detect the force; and
a surface member that covers the finger and the sensors (See outside/outer grip of Figure 1), wherein the sensors are arrayed in a circumferential direction (See at least Figure 1, in particular the combination of the sensor sheet with the inner grip, and additionally the finger not previously illustrated in the assembly diagram (located top center)) with a predetermined gap (The claim does not specify what the gap is with respect to, between, etc. Therefore, this limitation is inherently met each sensor has a gap with respect to something. In the interest of compact prosecution, see Figure 1 or Figure 2 wherein there is a gap between each sensor element),
a portion of the surface member covering the pulp region is formed of an elastic material (See at least Section 2, Page 3, “an outer grip as shown in the lower center of Fig. 1 was created and wrapped around the outside of the sensor sheet as shown on the right of Fig. 1. A resin with a Shore hardness of A30 was used as the material”), and
the portion of the surface member covering the pulp region has a portion locally having a thin thickness at least in a range corresponding to the gap (The nature of the correspondence is not claimed. The nature of the “range” is not claimed. A correspondence inherently exists inasmuch as they are part of the assembly. See again Figure 1 wherein the outer grip is of non-uniform thickness).
Regarding Claim 3, Okura teaches:
The sensor module according to Claim 1, wherein the portion of the surface member covering the pulp region further has an easily-deformable portion in a range corresponding to both ends of the sensors arrayed in the circumferential direction (The nature of the correspondence is not claimed. The nature of the “range” is not claimed. A correspondence inherently exists inasmuch as they are part of the assembly. See again immediately above wherein the surface member is made of “A resin with a Shore hardness of A30”).
Regarding Claim 4, Okura teaches:
The sensor module according to Claim 2, wherein the portion of the surface member covering the pulp region further has a portion locally having a thin thickness in a range corresponding to both ends of the sensors arrayed in the circumferential direction (The nature of the correspondence is not claimed. The nature of the “range” is not claimed. A correspondence inherently exists inasmuch as they are part of the assembly. See again Figure 1 wherein the outer grip is of non-uniform thickness).
Regarding Claim 5, Okura teaches:
The sensor module according to Claim 1, wherein the surface member is made of resin (See at least Section 2, Page 3, “an outer grip as shown in the lower center of Fig. 1 was created and wrapped around the outside of the sensor sheet as shown on the right of Fig. 1. A resin with a Shore hardness of A30 was used as the material”), and a portion of the surface member covering the back region is harder than the portion covering the pulp region (The nature of “harder” is not claimed, nor appears disclosed in any manner. [0010] of Applicant’s specification, which appears to be the only support for this limitation merely recites “If a portion of the surface member 120 covering the back region 912 is made harder than the portion covering the pulp region 911, the sensor module 100 is easily fixed to the finger 910”, which does not indicate what is considered harder, except that it maybe relates to fixing the outer grip to the finger.
See Figure 1 wherein the back side of the outer grip is generally thicker. Alternatively, and additionally, see the mating assembly notch which corresponds to slot of the inner grip, which is explicitly of a harder shore hardness and thus makes the outer grip firmer in this location and furthermore secures the outer grip as it can no longer bend or flex from this location (and is similarly “harder” under that definition of the term)
Finally, and again alternatively, this claim does not claim an inner grip, outer grip, etc. and furthermore clearly delineate between them such that they are considered separate and distinct structures within the claim.
See at least inner grip, and Section 2, wherein “The inner grip around which this sensor sheet is wrapped was created so that the outside is a 9-sided prism, as shown in the lower left of Fig. 1. The material used was resin with a Shore hardness of A95”
See also Figure 4 of Applicant’s disclosure wherein pulp region 911, back region 912, and the finger 910 are defined at the interior/core of the assembly and thus “covered” by any and all other structures).
Regarding Claim 6, Okura teaches:
The sensor module according to Claim 5,
wherein the sensor is directly attached to the finger of the robot hand (The claim does not define or describe the nature of the “finger”. The inner grip may presently be considered the finger or part thereof. See at least Figure 1), and
the surface member is removably attached as an outer grip so as to cover the finger (See again outer grip of Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Okura teaches:
The sensor module according to Claim 5, further comprising:
a cylindrical inner grip (See inner portion of inner grip in Figure 1), wherein
the inner grip removably covers the finger of the robot hand (See at least Figure 1), and
the surface member is removably attached as an outer grip so as to cover the inner grip (See at least Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Okura teaches:
The sensor module according to Claim 5, wherein
the sensors are attached to the surface member (The nature of attachment is not claimed. See at least Figure 1), and
the surface member is removably attached as an outer grip so as to cover the finger together with the sensors (See at least Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Okura teaches:
The sensor module according to Claim 6, wherein convex portions are formed at positions on an inner surface of the surface member corresponding to the sensors, and the convex portions are in contact with the sensors (The claim does not specify how often they need to be in contact.
See at least Section 2, Page 3, “In addition, to enhance the responsiveness of the sensor elements, a 1.1 mm protrusion was provided on the inside of the outer grip in a position that overlapped with the sensor elements” wherein contact and convexity are described in Section 3.3, Page 10, “This is thought to be because the outer grip deforms in the opposite direction of the tension due to friction with the string, causing the convex parts to press against s0-2 and move away from s6-8.” and Figure 1. Convexity is also stated by Applicant in [0012] of Applicant’s specification.
Examiner furthermore notes that Applicant’s statement that “the convex portions are not designed to be in contact with sensors” does not appear to be supported by what is actually disclosed by Okura et al. Okura et al. discloses “a uniform gap of about 1.5 mm between the inner and outer grips” and “to enhance the responsiveness of the sensor elements, a 1.1 mm protrusion was provided on the inside of the outer grip in a position that overlapped with the sensor elements” in Section 2, Page 3. This means that there is only a .4 mm gap excluding any tolerances implied by “about” where the sensor sheet and any bonding, attaching, adhering means may exist. Per the data sheet of the FSR 400 (see Conclusion Section below), the nominal thickness of the sensor alone is 0.30mm with a tolerance of 0.03mm. This leaves less than a .1mm excluding the sheet it is bonded to and any other binding materials of the sensors and sensor sheet. Thus, the fit between these parts appears to be of a slide fit level of clearance fit, if not an interference or transition fit, rather than simply being two non-touching parts and consequently are in contact under normal considerations).
Regarding Claim 10, Okura teaches:
The sensor module according to Claim 7, wherein convex portions are formed at positions on an inner surface of the surface member corresponding to the sensors, and the convex portions are in contact with the sensors (The claim does not specify how often they need to be in contact, and the specification does not appear to qualify the nature of “contact” to any particularly narrow definition.
See at least Section 2, Page 3, “In addition, to enhance the responsiveness of the sensor elements, a 1.1 mm protrusion was provided on the inside of the outer grip in a position that overlapped with the sensor elements” wherein contact and convexity are described in Section 3.3, Page 10, “This is thought to be because the outer grip deforms in the opposite direction of the tension due to friction with the string, causing the convex parts to press against s0-2 and move away from s6-8.” and Figure 1. Convexity is also stated by Applicant in [0012] of Applicant’s specification.
Examiner furthermore notes that Applicant’s statement that “the convex portions are not designed to be in contact with sensors” does not appear to be supported by what is actually disclosed by Okura et al. Okura et al. discloses “a uniform gap of about 1.5 mm between the inner and outer grips” and “to enhance the responsiveness of the sensor elements, a 1.1 mm protrusion was provided on the inside of the outer grip in a position that overlapped with the sensor elements” in Section 2, Page 3. This means that there is only a .4 mm gap excluding any tolerances implied by “about” where the sensor sheet and any bonding, attaching, adhering means may exist. Per the data sheet of the FSR 400 (see Conclusion Section below), the nominal thickness of the sensor alone is 0.30mm with a tolerance of 0.03mm. This leaves less than a .1mm excluding the sheet it is bonded to and any other binding materials of the sensors and sensor sheet. Thus, the fit between these parts appears to be of a slide fit level of clearance fit, if not an interference or transition fit, rather than simply being two non-touching parts and consequently are in contact under normal considerations).
Regarding Claim 11, Okura teaches:
A robot hand having attached thereto the sensor module according to Claim 1 (See at least Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Okura teaches:
A robot hand having attached thereto the sensor module according to Claim 2 (See at least Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Okura teaches:
A robot system comprising:
a robot hand having attached thereto the sensor module according to Claim 1 (See at least Figure 2); and
a robot hand control device connected to the sensor module (See at least Section 3.1, Page 6, “Force control was performed with a target value of 10N when the string was in a sliding state and SN when it was in a non-slip state”).
Regarding Claim 14, Okura teaches:
The robot system according to Claim 13, wherein
the robot hand control device detects a sliding state of a gripped subject based on outputs from the two or more sensors arrayed in the circumferential direction of the finger of the robot hand (See at least Section 3.1, Page 6, “Force control was performed with a target value of 10N when the string was in a sliding state and SN when it was in a non-slip state”).
Regarding Claim 15, Okura teaches:
The robot system according to Claim 13, wherein
the robot hand control device detects a sliding state of a gripped subject based on a difference between outputs from predetermined two sensors among the two or more sensors arrayed in the circumferential direction of the finger of the robot hand (See at least Section 3.1, Page 6, “Force control was performed with a target value of 10N when the string was in a sliding state and SN when it was in a non-slip state” and Section 3.3, Page 13, “s0-2 When tension is applied to the string, the change in value is observed to detect the slipping state”).
Regarding Claim 16, Okura teaches:
A robot system comprising: a robot hand having attached thereto the sensor module according to Claim 2 (See at least Figure 2); and
a robot hand control device connected to the sensor module (See at least Section 3.1, Page 6, “Force control was performed with a target value of 10N when the string was in a sliding state and SN when it was in a non-slip state”).
Regarding Claim 17, Okura teaches:
The robot system according to Claim 16, wherein the robot hand control device detects a sliding state of a gripped subject based on outputs from the two or more sensors arrayed in the circumferential direction of the finger of the robot hand (See at least Section 3.1, Page 6, “Force control was performed with a target value of 10N when the string was in a sliding state and SN when it was in a non-slip state”).
Regarding Claim 18, Okura teaches:
The robot system according to Claim 16, wherein the robot hand control device detects a sliding state of a gripped subject based on a difference between outputs from predetermined two sensors among the two or more sensors arrayed in the circumferential direction of the finger of the robot hand (See at least Section 3.1, Page 6, “Force control was performed with a target value of 10N when the string was in a sliding state and SN when it was in a non-slip state” and Section 3.3, Page 13, “s0-2 When tension is applied to the string, the change in value is observed to detect the slipping state”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FSR 400 Series Data Sheet, specific author unknown, published 2015
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights