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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rotation detector that is placed at one end portion of the rotation shaft and at a second end portion of the rotation shaft, in the same embodiment, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). (Alternatively, if the Applicant is claiming two different rotation detectors, each at different locations, together in the same embodiment, then both rotation detectors must be shown in the same embodiment. The Examiner notes the specification as originally filed does not appear to describe or provide support for two different rotation detectors used together in the same embodiment.) No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. This is in response to the title as amended on 1/9/2025. The Examiner suggests “ROBOT DRIVE UNIT HAVING A REDUCER AND WIRING CONNECTORS” or something similar. See MPEP 606.01
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 as amended lacks a transitional phrase in the preamble. See MPEP 2111.03.
The claims as amended on 1/09/2025 contain changes which are not properly marked up (e.g. additions which are neither underlined nor contained within double hyphens, deletions which are neither struck through nor contained within double brackets). See MPEP § 714 and 37 CFR 1.121(b):
Claims 3 and 4 each recite “Note that the “) A set of single brackets is not a set of double brackets, and so does not indicate deletion of that contained by the brackets according to 37 CFR 1.121(b). Additionally, there is no “the” located in the previous set of claims (as filed on 9/26/2022) at these locations in the claims to be deleted. There is no “is” located at these locations in the claims to be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that the Applicant uses some terms in an unconventional manner, which is noted below.
Claim 1 claims, inter alia, “a reducer having an input portion engaging with a first end portion of the rotation shaft”, “an attachment portion attached to the motor via the input portion and the output poriton”, and “an output portion reducing and outputting rotation of the rotation shaft”.
As disclosed, in the “reducer”, the “input portion (wave generator 31)” is located inside of the “output portion (flexible gear 33)”, while the “attachment portion (rigid gear 35)” is located outside of both of the output portion and input portion. While the claim and specification state that the “attachment portion (rigid gear 35) [is] attached to the motor 20”, in fact the attachment portion is farther from the motor than the input portion and the output portion in the transmission of motion from the rotation shaft of the motor to the attachment portion, and the attachment portion is connected to the motor indirectly via the input and output portions. See paragraph [0121] in particular. Thus, the Examiner notes that the claim limitation requiring the attachment portion to be attached to the motor only requires at least an indirect attachment, and does not require direct attachment. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that as claimed and disclosed, the “motor [has] a rotation shaft” and thus the rotation shaft is a component of the motor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3 and 5 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.
Claims 3 and 4 each recite “brackets should be ignored. For the purpose of further examination on the merits, it will be assumed that the applicant was striking out “a” with the intention to delete those characters, and that “[the]” should be “the” and “[is]” should be “is”.
Claim 1 recites “a rotation detector having at least a part covered by the case, placed at one end portion of the rotation shaft”. Claim 3 which depends upon claim 1 recites “[sic] rotation detector is placed at a second end portion of the rotation shaft”. It is unclear whether the “rotation detector” recited in claim 3 is the same or different from the rotation detector recited in parent claim 1. The Examiner notes that the specification only discloses the use of a single rotation detector in any given embodiment (See paragraphs [0172]-[0174] of the instant application.). Furthermore, it is unclear whether the one portion claimed in parent claim 1 is the same as the second end portion claimed in claim 3. Again, the Examiner notes that the specification only discloses the use of a single rotation detector in any given embodiment, and so accordingly only discloses the rotation detector being placed at a single end of the rotation shaft and not at multiple different ends of the rotation shaft. For the purpose of further examination on the merit, it is assumed that the “rotation detector” recited in claim 3 is the same as those recited in claim 1 to be consistent with the specification, and that the second end portion of the rotation shaft may be the same as the first end portion of the rotation shaft recited in claim (since a single rotation detector cannot be located in two different locations at the same time).
Claim 1 recites “a rotation detecting board”. Claim 3 recites “See paragraphs [0172]-[0174] of the instant application.). For the purpose of further examination on the merit, it is assumed that the “rotation detecting board” recited in claim 3 is the same as those recited in claim 1 to be consistent with the specification.
Claim 4 recites “
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US2003/0062858) in view of a Koenig (US10,661,453) and Kassow (US8,410,732).
Re claim 1
Shimizu discloses a drive unit comprising:
a motor (33) having a rotation shaft (331) in which a through hole (see Fig. 3 - shaft has wires (21, 22) inside hole; para. [0027]) is provided, a drive section rotating the rotation shaft, and a case (unlabeled case seen in Fig. 3 surrounding motor and encoder) covering at least a part of the drive section;
a first connector (at 314a, 314b) fixed to the case of the motor and coupled to first wiring coupled to outside (See Fig. 3), the first wiring has a signal line (In Fig. 3, line 21 that is partially external, not to be confused with line 21 that is internal) and a power line (In Fig. 3, line 22 that is partially external, not to be confused with line 22 that is internal);
Shimizu further discloses an attachment portion (at 341, 342), but is silent to the combination of a reducer having an input portion engaging with a first end portion of the rotation shaft, an output portion reducing and outputting rotation of the rotation shaft, and an attachment portion attached to the motor via the input portion and the output portion.
Koenig teaches a reducer (See C16/L62-C18/L9 - “harmonic drive”) having an input portion (See C16/L62-C18/L9 - “harmonic drive wave generator”. Compare to paragraph [0048] of the instant application.) engaging with a first end portion of the rotation shaft, an output portion (See C17/L10-19 - “flex spline”. Compare to paragraph [0048] of the instant application.) reducing and outputting rotation of the rotation shaft, and an attachment portion (See C17/L10-19 - “circular spline”. Compare to paragraph [0048] of the instant application.) attached to the motor via the input portion and the output portion, for the purpose of increasing overall torque output (see C16/L22-25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Shimizu further such that a reducer having an input portion engaging with a first end portion of the rotation shaft, an output portion reducing and outputting rotation of the rotation shaft, and an attachment portion attached to the motor via the input portion and the output portion, as taught by Koenig, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing overall torque output.
Shimizu as modified above further suggests:
a second connector (at 351, 352) fixed to the attachment portion (at 341, 342 in Shimizu, “circular spline” in Koenig) of the reducer and coupled to second wiring coupled to the outside; and
internal wiring (21 ,22 inside of shaft 331; see Fig. 3) passing through the through hole and coupled to the first connector (at 314a, 314b) and the second connector (at 351, 352).
a rotation detector (32) having at least a part covered by the case (see Fig. 3), placed at one end portion of the rotation shaft (331), and detecting the rotation of the rotation shaft (331).
Shimizu discloses the rotation detector (encoder 32), but is silent to a rotation detecting board.
Kassow teaches a rotation detecting board (C16/L49-62 - printed circuit board 131; C17/L6-18 - “PCB 131” and :encoder 132”), for the purpose of ensuring the most simple and straightforward mounting and connection of the encoder (i.e. optical encoder 133) (rotation detector) (C16/L48-62).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Shimizu such that there is a rotation detecting board, as taught by Kassow, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring the most simple and straightforward mounting and connection of the encoder.
Shimizu as modified above further suggests:
the rotation detecting board (circuit board taught by Kassow above) capturing a signal (In Kassow, the encoder 133 is mounted on the circuit board 131, and will electrically communicate with and send signals to the circuit board 131, and so the circuit board 131 will capture signals from the encoder/rotation detector 133. When taught to Shimizu, the taught rotation detecting board will capture a signal from the rotation detector (encoder 32) of Shimizu.) from the rotation detector (encoder 32 in Shimizu; see also encoder 133 in Kassow)
the internal wiring has a signal line (See Fig. 3 - 21 that is internal, not to be confused with 21 that is partially external) and a power line (See Fig. 3 - 22 that is internal, not to be confused with 22 that is partially external) (see para. [0028]),
the first connector (at 314a, 314b on 313) comprises a first transmitting and receiving circuit board (at 314a, 314b, on 313; the first connector may be considered a first transmitting and receiving circuit board since it is part of a circuit, able to take input power and input signal and output power and output signal. The Examiner notes that the claim does not require the transmitting and receiving circuit board to be an integrated circuit, etc.) , a first signal line terminal being able to be connected to the signal line of the internal wiring, a first power line terminal being able to be connected to the power line of the internal wiring, a second signal line terminal being able to be connected to the signal line of the first wiring and a second power line terminal being able to be connected to the power line of the first wiring (See Fig.3 and para. [0028])
the rotation detecting board (circuit board taught by Kassow above) is coupled to the first transmitting and receiving circuit board and coupled to the signal line of the internal wiring (See Figs. 2 and 3. The rotation detecting board is connected via signal line 21 and power line 22 to the to the first transmitting and receiving circuit board)
Shimizu as modified above further suggests:
Re claim 3
The drive unit according to claim 1, further comprising:
rotation detector (32) (see Fig. 3) is placed at a second end portion of the rotation shaft,
rotation detecting board (circuit board taught by Kassow above) [is][sic] formed separately from the first connector (See Fig. 3 in Shimizu, the encoder 32 is separate component from first connector (at 314, 314b))
Re claim 4
The drive unit according to claim 1, wherein
rotation detecting board (circuit board taught by Kassow above) [is][sic] formed integrally (The Examiner notes that the term “formed integrally” does not require single-piece construction, and so does not preclude separate parts assembled together forming a unit.) with the first connector (See Fig. 3 in Shimizu, the encoder 32 is integrally connected with the first connector (at 314a) via wire(s) 21. See para. [0025]).
Re claim 6. A robot comprising:
the drive unit according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove);
a first member having a first housing (2) and passing the first wiring therethrough; and
a second member (4) having a second housing (4) and passing the second wiring therethrough and relatively rotating to the first member, wherein
the motor (33) is fixed to the first member, and
the output portion (“flex spline” of Koenig) is fixed to the second member (fixed via 35 in Shimazu).
Re claim 7. The robot according to claim 6, wherein
the second member (4) has an opening portion, and
the second connector (at 351, 352) is placed in a region of the opening portion.
Re claim 8. The robot according to claim 7, further comprising an attachment plate (flat portion integral with the case and immediately above the cylindrical portion of the case) between the case of the motor (See Fig. 3) and the attachment portion (at 341, 342 in Shimazu, “circular spline” in Koenig) of the reducer in a direction along a center axis of the rotation of the rotation shaft, wherein
the attachment plate is attached to the first member (fixed to 2 via unlabeled case).
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner suggests claiming details of the harmonic gearing (the Applicant does not use that term in the specification, but does use terms like wave generator which suggests the Applicant’s device is harmonic gearing (also known as strain wave gearing in the art)) such as the wave generator 31, the flexible external gear 33, and the rigid internal gear 35, etc. to differentiate from the harmonic gearing of the prior art (as well as exclude other prior art that is not harmonic gearing). The Examiner notes that claiming this will require further search/consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., harmonic drive wave generator, circular spline, flex spline, flexible external gear (or flexible gear or external gear), rigid gear, not being necessary to pull in and pull out signal lines and power lines into or from through holes of drive units when replacing drive units) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner additionally notes that the applicant’s claims claim “a reducer”, but do not claim strain wave gearing (also known as harmonic gearing), and so the claims are not limited to such, and therefore the prior art does not need to be mapped in the same manner as described (but not claimed) in the specification of the instant application. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner used prior art that disclosed a harmonic gearing reducer having a wave generator, etc., similar to what the Applicant discloses but has not claimed, but prior art which discloses a reducer that is not harmonic/strain wave gearing could likewise read upon the claims. The Examiner suggests that if the Applicant wishes to distinguish from the prior art because of the arrangement of their reducer components, including a wave generator, flexible external gear, rigid gear, etc., that the Applicant claim those components and the arrangement thereof in sufficient detail to overcome the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rotation detecting board capturing a signal from the rotation detector 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. The new grounds of rejection is necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY T PRATHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 AM - 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. 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.
/GREGORY T PRATHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/VICTOR L MACARTHUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618