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:
“an image generation unit” in claim 4.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito (US 20200139543 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Saito teaches an optical tactile sensor (manipulator 1) (Abstract) comprising: a contact part (pressure receiving portion 4) having a contact surface that comes in to contact with an object ([0070]), the contact part being deformed in response to a contact state of the object with respect to the contact surface ([0078]); a marker (M) disposed on the contact part, and configured to be displaced in response to deformation of the contact part ([0070]); and an imaging unit (detection portion 6) configured to capture an image of the marker from an opposite side that is a side opposite to a side where the object comes into contact ([0070], fig. 3), wherein the contact part allows light in a first wavelength range to pass (transmit) therethrough, and blocks light in a second wavelength range different from the first wavelength range ([0258]-[0260], fig. 26), the marker reflects light that is incident on the marker from the opposite side ([0261]), and the imaging unit receives the light reflected by the marker and the light in the first wavelength range, and generates an image ([0261]).
Regarding claim 2, Saito teaches the optical tactile sensor according to claim 1, wherein the first wavelength range includes at least a portion of a wavelength range of infrared light or ultraviolet light, and the second wavelength range includes at least a portion of a wavelength range of visible light ([0109], [0259]).
Regarding claim 3, Saito teaches the optical tactile sensor according to claim 1, comprising an irradiation unit configured to irradiate the contact part with illumination light including the light of the first wavelength range from the opposite side ([0108]).
Regarding claim 6, Saito teaches a robot hand including the optical tactile sensor according to claim1 ([0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Saito teaches a robot arm including the optical tactile sensor according to claim 1 ([0276]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20200139543 A1) in view of Hoshino (JP2009145085 A).
Regarding claim 4, Saito teaches the optical tactile sensor according to claim 1, but fails to disclose comprising an image generation unit configured to generate an image in which influence of a part of light is reduced or removed, based on image information generated by the imaging unit.
However, Hoshino, which relates to tactile sensor and is thus from the same field of endeavor as Saito, teaches comprising an image generation unit configured to generate an image in which influence of a part of light is reduced or removed (noise removal), based on image information generated by the imaging unit ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saito by incorporating an image generation unit configured to generate an image in which influence of a part of light is reduced or removed, based on image information generated by the imaging unit for accurate detection.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20200139543 A1) in view of Nagata (JP,2000-288973,A)
Regarding claim 5, Saito teaches the optical tactile sensor according to claim 1, wherein the contact part has a film shape (elastic layer) ([0070]) but fails to disclose the marker includes a plurality of projections that project from a back surface, of the contact part, opposite to the contact surface.
However, Nagata which relates to tactile sensor and is thus from the same field of endeavor as Saito, teaches wherein the contact part has a film shape (skin), and the marker includes a plurality of projections (plurality of small pins) that project from a back surface, of the contact part, opposite to the contact surface ([0006]-[0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saito by incorporating wherein the contact part has a film shape, and the marker includes a plurality of projections that project from a back surface, of the contact part, opposite to the contact surface for increased marker sensitivity for better detection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Adelson (US20130033595A1) teaches wherein the contact part allows light in a first wavelength range to pass therethrough, and blocks light in a second wavelength range different from the first wavelength range, the marker reflects light that is incident on the marker from the opposite side, and the imaging unit receives the light reflected by the marker and the light in the first wavelength range ([0068])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM ET.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights