DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 21 claims “the first preset included angle A” and “the second preset included angle B”. However, claim 6, from which claim 21 depends, claims “a first preset included angle” and “a second preset included angle” (i.e. it does not refer to them as A and B). Applicant should correct either claim 6 or claim 21 to give proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11, 13-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (herein “Ding”; CN Pub. No. 108454850 A; as cited in applicant’s IDS) in view of Terzian et al. (herein “Terzian”; US Pat. No. 5,088,954).
Regarding claim 1, Ding discloses a driving mechanism for a robot (page 1, 3rd line of machine translation, noting “the invention relates to the field of flapping wing robots”), comprising: a driving member having an output end (Fig. 1, item 4 below; noting the “drive motor” with the pulley end); a transmission member connected to the output end of the driving member (Fig. 1, item 7 below, noting the cylindrical cam; noting “connection” by belt, item 5), wherein the transmission member has a driving slot that extends along a circumferential direction of the transmission member (Fig, 1, item 71; noting the “groove”; extension around the entire cylinder is obvious); and a swinging member configured to be movably connected to a body of the robot (Fig. 1, below), wherein a part of the swinging member is movably connected in the driving slot (Fig. 2, item 81), and configured to move along the driving slot under drive of the transmission member to drive the swinging member to swing (entire machine translation; noting this is its purpose), wherein the transmission member is a cam (top of machine translation, page 3, specifically calling it a “cylindrical cam”), the driving slot is in and around an outer peripheral wall of the cam, and the outer peripheral wall of the cam is parallel to a rotation axis of the cam (Fig. 1 below, noting this is obvious), wherein the driving slot comprises a first segment that has a curve (Fig. 1 below; clearly showing a curve; see rejection of claim 14 below and explanation for the curve being in a “first segment”) wherein the transmission member comprises a first transmission portion (Fig. 1; noting this can be the upper half of cam 71; see specifically the rejection of claim 13 below and the subsequent figure) and a second transmission portion opposite to each other (Fig. 1; noting this can be the lower half of cam 71; see specifically the rejection of claim 13 below and the subsequent figure), and the first transmission portion is connected to the second transmission portion to define the driving slot (Fig. 1 below; noting this is obvious as the entire cam appears to be integral). It is noted that Ding does not specifically disclose wherein the first transmission portion is detachably connected to the second transmission portion. However, Ding appears to show a solid integral cam (Fig. 1, below). In addition, Terzian discloses a similar type of cylindrical cam with a groove (Fig. 10, item 100), wherein the cam is made from two pieces that are detachably connected (col. 3, lines 49-51; noting the use of two pieces that are press fit makes obvious the limitation “detachably connected”). In the alternative, it has been that making a larger structure separable is not patentable if it were desirable to gain access to either part. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)(see applicant’s par. [0073]; applicant specifically giving no criticality for use a “detachable” transmission member over an “integral” transmission member). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ding to make the first transmission portion is detachably connected to the second transmission portion as taught by Terzian because doing so would be combining prior art elements (using an integral cam with an outer wall groove and using a cam assembled from two pieces with an outer wall groove) according to known methods (using the two piece cam instead of the integral cam) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use a cam with an outer wall groove, the cam made from two assembled pieces). In the alternative, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that making the first and second transmission portions detachably connected would be known to a POSA as evidenced by Terzian (col. 3, lines 49-51).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combined Ding and Terzian disclose that the swinging member comprises: a swinging portion configured to be connected to the body (Ding: Fig. 1 as generally defined above; connection by support, item 9); and a linkage portion (Ding: Fig. 2, collectively items 81 and 8; noting the portion internal to item 9 best seen in Fig. 2) having a first end and a second end opposite to each other (Ding: Fig. 2; noting this is inherent), wherein the first end of the linkage portion is connected to the swinging portion (Ding: Fig. 2; noting item 8 is connected to items 14 and 10a; collectively the “first part” of the swinging portion), and the second end of the linkage portion is in the driving slot (Ding: Fig. 2, item 81; which travels within the slot).
Regarding claim 3, the combined Ding and Terzian disclose that the swinging portion comprises: a first part having a first end and a second end opposite to each other (Ding: see Fig. 1 above as defined), wherein the first end of the first part is configured to be movably connected to the body (Ding: Fig. 1 above; noting rotational movement along support, item 9); a second part having a first end and a second end opposite to each other, wherein the first end of the second part is connected to the second end of the first part, and the second part is connected to the linkage portion (Ding: Fig. 1 above; noting the second part is connected to the linkage via the first part); and a third part connected to the second end of the second part (see Ding: Fig. 1 above, as defined).
Regarding claim 4, the combined Ding and Terzian disclose that a center line of the first part and a center line of the second part are coplanar and a first preset included angle is defined between the center line of the first part and the center line of the second part (Ding: Fig. 1 above; noting the first part and second part center lines are not only “coplanar”, they are aligned; and noting the first preset angle would be 180 degrees).
Regarding claim 5, the combined Ding and Terzian disclose a center line of the third part and a center line of the second part are coplanar and a second preset included angle is defined between the center line of the third part and the center line of the second part (Ding: Fig. 1 above; noting the third part and second part center lines are not only “coplanar”, they are aligned; and noting the second preset angle would be 180 degrees).
Regarding claim 6, the combined Ding and Terzian disclose a center line of the first part and a center line of the second part are coplanar and a first preset included angle is defined between the center line of the first part and the center line of the second part (Ding: Fig. 1 above; noting the first part and second part center lines are not only “coplanar”, they are aligned; and noting the first preset angle would be 180 degrees), and a center line of the third part and the center line of the second part are coplanar and a second preset included angle is defined between the center line of the third part and the center line of the second part (Ding: Fig. 1 above; noting the third part and second part center lines are not only “coplanar”, they are aligned; and noting the second preset angle would be 180 degrees).
Regarding claim 7, the combined Ding and Terzian disclose that the first end of the first part comprises a hinge section (Ding: Fig. 1, item 14 above; noting pivotally mounted would encompass a “hinge” under a broadest reasonable interpretation; see Ding: Fig. 2 for a clearer view).
Regarding claim 8, the combined Ding and Terzian disclose that the linkage portion comprises: a connecting part having a first end and a second end opposite to each other, wherein the first end of the connecting part is connected to the swinging portion; and a sliding part connected to the second end of the connecting part and in the driving slot (Ding: Fig. 2, items 81 and 8 collectively; noting the entire collective combination can be considered “the connecting part”; noting item 81 is the second end, item 8 connected to the first part of the swinging portion as see in Fig. 1 above; see also Ding: Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, the combined Ding and Terzian disclose that on a plane perpendicular to a rotation axis of the cam, an outer contour of the transmission member comprises a first side edge, a second side edge, and a third side edge, and each of the first side edge, the second side edge and the third side edge comprises a respective first end and a respective second end; the first end of the second side edge is transitionally connected to the first end of the first side edge, the second end of the second side edge is transitionally connected to the first end of the third side edge, and the second end of the third side edge is connected to the second end the first side edge; the first side edge is a circular arc edge, and a circle center of the first side edge is on the rotation axis of the transmission member (Ding: Fig. 1 above; noting this is obvious; noting under a broadest reasonable interpretation; the Examiner believes that the cylindrical cam as shown in Ding: Fig. 1 may be functionally separated into a first, second, and third edge by a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation intersecting it; those edge portions can each have a first and second side connected to each other; restated, the Examiner does not import from the specification that the edges need to have a different shape as seen in applicant’s Fig. 6 because this is not claimed; the Examiner attempts to show this in an annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
455
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the combined Ding and Terzian disclose that the first transmission portion has a first guide groove, the second transmission portion has a second guide groove, and the first guide groove and the second guide groove define the driving slot (Ding: Fig. 1 above; noting this is obvious as the top portion of the cylindrical cam may be the first transmission portion with a first portion of the guide groove, and the lower portion of the cylindrical cam can be the second transmission portion with a second portion of the guide groove; both portions in combination define the groove; see annotated Ding: Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
767
615
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, it is noted that the combined Ding and Terzian do not specifically discloses that the driving slot comprises a third preset included angle is defined between an extension direction of at least a part of the first segment and a rotation axis of the cam on a development surface of the outer peripheral wall. However, in Fig. 1 above Ding clearly discloses a slot having a peaked and curved slot (see location of annotated “1st Guide Groove”). On page 2, 4th paragraph of the machine translation, Ding specifically describes the groove as being a “periodically varying curve”. As such, the disclosure in Ding would make it obvious to a POSA that the prior art invention has a peaked and curved groove that creates at least one full cycle (i.e. the period of a curve is one complete cycle; see also specifically Terzian: col. 3, lines 44-60 specifically disclosing a “sinusoidal” slot; completely consistent with Ding). As such, when laid out horizontally, the Ding groove would inherently or obviously have the following shape.
PNG
media_image4.png
454
800
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The first, second, and third segments simply break up the outer cam cylinder into 1/3s, and there is no requirement for their exact location along the outer edge of the cam except for, as per claim 1, the “first segment” has a “curve”. Thus, the groove shape of Ding can be broken up as shown above. The above analysis makes it obvious to a POSA that the first segment can also inherently have a third preset angle.
Regarding claim 15, the combined Ding and Terzian disclose that the driving slot comprises a second segment, a fourth preset included angle is defined between an extension direction of the second segment and the rotation axis of the cam on a development surface of the outer peripheral wall (see annotated figure above showing the horizontal groove of Ding used in the rejection of claim 14, making obvious a fourth preset angle within the second segment).
Regarding claim 16, the combined Ding and Terzian disclose that the driving slot comprises a second segment, wherein a third preset included angle is defined between an extension direction of at least a part of the first segment and the rotation axis of the cam on a development surface of the outer peripheral wall (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein a fourth preset included angle is defined between an extension direction of the second segment and the rotation axis of the transmission member on the development surface of the outer peripheral wall (see rejection of claim 15 above).
Regarding claim 21, the combined Ding and Terzian disclose that the first preset included angle A is greater than 0° and less than 180°, and the second preset included angle B is greater than 0° and less than 180° (see rejection of claim 6 above; noting a value of 180 degrees for both preset angles A and B under MPEP 2144.05(I) and Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), makes obvious a value slightly less than 180 degrees, for example, 179.9 degrees, by the inherent disclosure of 180 degrees as the two values are “merely close”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 11, 13-16, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For the record, the Examiner appreciates applicant specifically citing to portions of the specification to show criticality for the groove being located on the outer wall of the cam. Applicant’s position is that the specific location of the groove on the outer wall of the cam allows for most complex movement of the swinging member in both radial and axial direction of the cam (see Remarks, page 9, citing to par. [0050]). The Examiner agrees with the argument of criticality and thus removes the rejection under Beny.
On page 10, applicant now also argues an alleged criticality for having the transmission portions separable (see Remarks, page 10, applicant arguing “the cam can be assembled more conveniently”). For this argument, the Examiner does not find criticality. Specifically, in applicant’s specification, par. [0073], applicant specifically states that the transmission member may be made “integral”. There is nothing in par. [0073] that gives any criticality for the transmission member being made “separable” as now claimed in claim 1. In fact, an argument can be made that it is more “convenient” to “injection mold” the “integral” part as disclosed in par. [0073]. With that said, the Examine also brings in Terzian to show a similarly grooved cylindrical cam that is created by two pieces (i.e. is thus detachably connected). If applicant’s positions is that using two pieces to make the cam is truly “more convenient”, then Terzian makes not only the structure, but the motivation, obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (571)270-1775. 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 B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
2/26/26