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 .
Amendment filed 6/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the present application.
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 7-10, 14-17 and 21 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.
Re. Cls. 7, 14 and 21, the limitation “a compliance” (in Line 3 of claim 7 and 14 and Line 12 of claim 21) renders the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. Claims 7 and 14 depend from claims 1 and 11 respectively, which both include the limitation “a compliance” in Line 5 but then claims 7 and 14 do not use antecedent basis terminology to refer back to the previous mentioning of the term “compliance.” Therefore, it is unclear in claims 7 and 14 if the Applicant is intending to refer back to the compliance in claims 1 and 11 to further limit the compliance from claims 1 and 11 or establish a different structure from what was referenced in claims 1 and 11. In the manner in which the claims are currently written, it does not appear as if the compliance from claims 1 and 11 are the same compliance being referred to in claims 7 and 14. The Examiner notes that claim 21 has the same issue where the term compliance in 12 does not use antecedent terminology to refer back to the establishment of “a compliance” in Line 6. It is suggested that Applicant amend claims 7, 14 and 21 to definitively establish how the two instances of the term “compliance” are related to overcome this issue. For instance if the compliance mentioned in claims 7, 14 and the latter part of claim 21 are the same was what previously mentioned, it is suggested that the Examiner amend claims 7, 14 and 21 to read “deflecting the compliance to develop a desired force.”
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the stall point" in Line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9, 11-16, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trujillo US 9815193 (hereinafter Trujillo) in view of Langbein DE 102017208972 (hereinafter Langbein).
Re. Cl. 1, Trujillo discloses: A gripping device (Fig. 1-2) comprising: a body (36, Fig. 2), a stepper motor (15, Fig. 2) positioned within the body (see Fig. 2); a lead screw (50, Fig. 2) driven by the stepper motor; a gripper (37, 38 Fig. 2) coupled with the lead screw for gripping and releasing a part (see Fig. 2); and a controller (14, Fig. 2) electrically coupled with the motor providing motion control and maintaining a set of positions learned based on sensing when the motor is approaching its stall torque (using 26, Col. 6 Lines 24-27 and Col. 5, Lines 39-43).
Re. Cl. 2, Trujillo discloses: the gripper further comprises a pair of fingers (38, Fig. 2) for gripping the part.
Re. Cl. 3, Trujillo discloses: a pair of jaws (see Fig. 2, joined to 38 and interacting with 42), each one coupled with one of the fingers (see Fig. 2).
Re. Cl. 4, Trujillo discloses: a wedge coupled with the lead screw and the pair of jaws moving the pair of jaws and fingers between the open and gripping positions (see 42, Fig. 2).
Re. Cl. 5, Trujillo discloses: the controller senses the motor approaching its stall torque, the controller changes current to the stepper motor (see Fig. 9).
Re. Cl. 6, Trujillo discloses: the stepper motor, when moving from the open position to the gripping position, has low torque and moves at a high speed as the motor approaches it stall torque, the stepper motor moves to high torque and low speed (see Fig. 9, before detecting the stall condition, the motor would be operating at a low torque a higher speed, by reducing the current after detecting a stall condition and reducing the current, the torque would increase and speed would decrease as per Mechtex, NPL cited on attached PTO-892).
Re. Cl. 11, Trujillo discloses: An actuator (Fig. 2) comprising: a stepper motor (15, Fig. 2) to be coupled with mechanical ground (see 36, Fig. 2); a shaft (50, Fig. 2) driven by the stepper motor; a load (38, Fig. 2) coupled with the shaft for moving the load (see Fig. 6); and a controller (14, Fig. 2) electrically coupled with the motor providing motion control and maintaining a set of positions learned based on sensing when the motor is approaching its stall torque (using 26, Col. 6 Lines 24-27 and Col. 5, Lines 39-43).
Re. Cl. 12, Trujillo discloses: the controller senses the motor approaching its stall torque, the controller changes current to the stepper motor (see Fig. 9).
Re. Cl. 13, Trujillo discloses: the stepper motor, when moving to the locations, has low torque and moves at a high speed, and as the motor approaches its stall torque, the stepper motor moves to a high torque and low speed (see Fig. 9, before detecting the stall condition, the motor would be operating at a low torque a higher speed, by reducing the current after detecting a stall condition and reducing the current, the torque would increase and speed would decrease as per Mechtex, NPL cited on attached PTO-892).
Re. Cl. 21, Trujillo discloses: A gripping device (Fig. 1-2) comprising: a body (36, Fig. 2), a stepper motor (15, Fig. 2) positioned within the body (see Fig. 2); a lead screw (50, Fig. 2) driven by the stepper motor; a gripper (37, 38 Fig. 2) coupled with the lead screw for gripping and releasing a part (see Fig. 2); and a controller (14, Fig. 2) electrically coupled with the motor providing motion control and maintaining a set of positions learned based on sensing when the motor is approaching its stall torque (using 26, Col. 6 Lines 24-27 and Col. 5, Lines 39-43).
Re. Cls. 1, 7-8, 11, 14-15, 18 and 20-21, Trujillo does not disclose a compliance mounted between the body and the motor enabling movement of the motor with respect to the body (Cl. 1), the controller moves the stepper motor with high current and low speed a predetermined number of steps farther, deflecting a compliance to develop a desired force without reaching the stall point of the motor (Cl. 7), as any force up to a force less than the stall force is applied, the compliance device deflects causing a force to develop in proportion to the deflection (Cl. 8), a compliance enabling the stepper motor to apply a force to the load (Cl. 11); the controller moves the stepper motor with high current and low speed a predetermined number of steps farther, deflecting a compliance (Cl. 14), as any force up to a force less than the stall force is applied, the compliance device deflects causing a force to develop in proportion to the deflection (Cl. 15), the compliance is positioned between the mechanical ground and the motor (Cl. 18) the compliance is positioned between the load and ground (Cl. 20) or a compliance mounted between the body and the motor enabling movement of the motor with respect to the body, the controller moves the stepper motor with high current and low speed a predetermined number of steps farther, deflecting a compliance to develop a desired force without reaching the stall point of the motor (Cl. 21). Langbein discloses a gripping device/actuator (Fig. 1) which includes a body/mechanical ground (3, Fig. 1), a stepper motor (5, Fig. 1) positioned within/coupled to the body/mechanical ground (see Fig. 1), a lead screw/shaft (10, Fig. 2) and a compliance (25, 31, 24, 32 Fig. 1). Re. Cl. 1, Langbein discloses the compliance mounted between the body and the motor enabling movement of the motor with respect to the body (see Fig. 1, between 5 and 3 and enabling movement as shown in Figs. 1-2). Re. Cl. 7, Langbein discloses deflecting a compliance member to develop a desired force without reaching the stall point of the motor (see Fig. 1 to Fig. 2, deflection of springs 31, 32 during release of the object as discussed in Paragraph 0043). Re. Cl. 8, Langbein discloses the compliance device deflects causing a force to develop in proportion to the deflection (see Fig. 1-2, as gripping 2). Re. Cl. 11, Langbein discloses a compliance enabling the stepper motor to apply a force to the load (see Fig. 1 to 2). Re. Cl. 14, deflecting a compliance member (see Fig. 1 to 2). Re. Cl. 15, Langbein discloses the compliance device deflects causing a force to develop in proportion to the deflection (see Fig. 1 to 2). Re. Cl. 18, Langbein discloses the compliance is positioned between the mechanical ground and the motor (see Fig. 1, 31, 32 are between ground 3 and motor 5 as suspending 5 within 3). Re. Cl. 20, Langbein discloses the compliance is positioned between the load and ground (see springs 31, 32 between the load 47, 48 and ground 3). Re. Cl. 21, Langebin discloses a compliance (31, 32, Fig. 1) mounted between the body and the motor enabling movement of the motor with respect to the body (see Fig. 1, along vertical directional lines), deflecting a compliance to develop a desired force without reaching the stall point of the motor (see Fig. 1-2 and Paragraph 0041 and 0043, so long as the gripping force isn’t driven too tightly against the object or loosened too far to reach a hard travel stop). Re. Cls. 7-8, 14-15 and 21, specifically regarding the limitations “a controller moves the stepper motor with high current and low speed a predetermined number of steps further” and “as any force up to a force less than the stall force is applied,” it is the Examiner’s position that the combination of Trujillo in view of Langbein would disclose the cited limitations since in Langbein the deflection of the springs (31, 32) occur before stalling of the motor since they deform while the jaws (47, 48) grip onto object (2) and while the object is released as discussed in Paragraphs 0041 and 0043 respectively. By having the springs (31, 32) compress and enable axial displacement of the housing along axis (10) as discussed in Paragraph 0041 of Langebin, the compliance (springs 31, 32) would deflect without reaching a stall point of the motor when combined with Trujillo since Trujillo states that stalls happen at hard stops or travel limits (Col. 6, Lines 35-40). The travel limit of the lead screw would need to be a distance greater than what is required to release the object so the object could be fully released from the gripper, therefore having the compliance deflected without reaching the travel limit of opening the gripper. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the claim language is met by the combination of Trujillo in view of Langebin
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Trujillo device to include the compliance of Langbein with reasonable expectation of success since Langbein states that such a modification provides for relative movement between the drive unit and gripper housing which aids in vibration decoupling (see Paragraph 0005).
Re. Cls. 9 and 16, Trujillo discloses: the controller determines its location to be at a previously taught point, the controller turns off the stepper motor, saving energy while gripping force is maintained by the pitch of the lead screw which cannot be back- driven by the gripper fingers (Col. 7, Lines 43-60).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trujillo in view of Langbein as applied to claims 1-9, 11-16, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Zick US 6236177 (hereinafter Zick).
Re. Cls. 10 and 17, the combination of Trujillo in view of Langbein does not disclose the controller provides further braking through back-EMF by shorting the motor coils. Zick discloses a braking a control circuit for a motor (see Fig. 2-3) which includes a controller (86, Fig. 2-3) that provides braking through back-EMF by shorting the motor coils (Col. 4, Lines 60-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined Trujillo in view of Langbein device to include the braking of Zick with reasonable expectation of success since Zick states that such a modification enables for braking to be initiated by a desired voltage and thus is not generally initiated when there is little to no voltage present (Col. 4, Lines 35-42).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trujillo US 9815193 (hereinafter Trujillo) in view of Ostwald US 7014235 (hereinafter Ostwald).
Re. Cl. 11, Trujillo discloses: An actuator (Fig. 2) comprising: a stepper motor (15, Fig. 2) to be coupled with mechanical ground (see 36, Fig. 2); a shaft (50, Fig. 2) driven by the stepper motor; a load (38, Fig. 2) coupled with the shaft for moving the load (see Fig. 6); and a controller (14, Fig. 2) electrically coupled with the motor providing motion control and maintaining a set of positions learned based on sensing when the motor is approaching its stall torque (using 26, Col. 6 Lines 24-27).
Re. Cls. 11 and 19, Trujillo does not disclose a compliance enabling the stepper motor to apply a force to the load (Cl. 11) or the compliance is positioned between the motor and the load. Ostwald discloses an actuator (Fig. 2) which includes a motor (210) and a load (201, 202, Fig. 2) and a compliance (301, Fig. 3) enabling the stepper motor to apply a force to the load (see Fig. 3) and the compliance is positioned between the motor and the load (see Fig. 2-3, between the motor 210 and load 201,202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Trujillo device to include the compliance of Ostwald with reasonable expectation of success since Ostwald states that such a modification provides a pre-load between driver nut and wedge which provides mechanical damping to a collision between the gripper jaws and objects (Col. 3, Lines 33-37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the amendments made to claims 7 and 14 overcome the indefiniteness rejection, the Examiner disagrees. Specifically, the issue is with the term “compliance” and the lack of antecedent basis terminology linking the two instances of the term. Applicant has not amended this portion of the claim and therefore the indefiniteness issue remains as discussed above. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that Trujillo does not disclose the limitation “the controller...to maintain a set of positions learned based on sensing when the motor is approaching its stall torque,” the Examiner disagrees. As set forth above, it is the Examiner’s position that in Col. 5, Lines 39-43, Trujillo specifically addresses this limitation by stating that “the motor control module 14 may also include a memory 29 for storing various software algorithms and routines, predetermined values, thresholds, set points, voltages, current values, etc. disclosed below.” Further, Trujillo indicates that the motor control stores stall signals in its memory in Col. 7, Lines 3-10 and that the current to the motor is reduced based on values stored in the memory in Col. 13, Lines 9-15. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the Trujillo reference does disclose Applicant’s claim language and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the Examiner has failed to illustrate why one of ordinary skill would combine Trujillo with Langebin, the Examiner disagrees. As cited above, the Examiner has provided motivation from the secondary reference (Langebin) as to why one of ordinary skill would combine the two references. Specifically, the reasoning being to provide for relative movement between the drive unit and gripper housing which aids in vibration decoupling. Per MEPE 2144 I. the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In this instance, the Examiner has provided rationale contained in the prior art references as guided by the cited section. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Coules US 4600357, Geary US 2011/0248520, and Schembri US 2019/0090416 disclose other known actuators which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights