DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the applicant’s latest claim set includes two claim 12s. For the purpose of this action, the third independent claim will be considered claim 12 and the following claim will be considered 13, claim 13 will be considered 14 (commensurate with the applicant’s unamended filing). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyland et al (US Pat No 11,161,258) in view of “Achieving High-Performance Electrified Actuation System with Integrated Motor Drive and Wide Bandgap Power Electronics” (hereafter ‘NPL’).
Regarding claim 1, Boyland discloses a self-contained actuator for a robot manipulator, the actuator comprising:
a housing (101) with a free end (102);
a motor (rotor and stator 131 and 118, respectively); and
a motor drive (104, fig. 3), which motor drive is arranged in heat-dissipating relationship with the free end of the housing and axially closer to the same than the motor (see at least column 10, lines 15-19),
wherein the motor drive and the motor are arranged in axial sequence and at least the motor defines a central channel (134) for receiving a cable (820, see col 8, lines 20-39).
It is noted that Boyland fails to explicitly disclose the motor drive including wide-bandgap electronics. However, applicant’s cited NPL discloses an integrated motor drive with the use of wide bandgap electronics. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified to increase the efficiency of the motor drive and further allow the motor drive to operate with greater switching frequencies.
Regarding claim 2, Boyland discloses a gear (140), wherein: the motor is arranged axially between the motor drive and the gear; and at least the gear and the motor define the central channel (134).
Regarding claim 3, Boyland discloses a brake (114) and a sensor (112), arranged axially between the motor drive and the gear, wherein at least the motor and said further components define the central channel.
Regarding claim 4, Boyland discloses the motor drive, motor and further components define the central channel, which extends axially through the actuator.
Regarding claim 5, Boyland discloses the motor drive is arranged axially closer to the free end of the housing than any of the further components.
Regarding claim 6, Boyland discloses the motor is a frameless electric motor.
Regarding claim 8, NPL discloses the efficiency of the WBGs at frequencies up to and exceeding 15kHz. The ability for the device to be switched at such frequency would be a particular design choice, given the lack of criticality for this claimed feature and disclosure by the NPL.
Claim(s) 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyland et al in view of NPL, further in view of Park et al (US Pub No 2015/0100159).
Regarding claim 9, Boyland discloses the central channel is suitable for receiving a cable. It is noted that Boyland fails to explicitly disclose the feature of connecting multiple actuators. However, Park discloses a similar actuator wherein plural actuators are provided in a single robot manipulator (shown in figures 1A and 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified connected to at least one further actuator of the robot manipulator to achieve the predictable result of actuating each motor with the respective drive to control the robot arm accordingly.
Regarding claim 10 and 12, Boyland discloses a self-contained actuator for an industrial robot including a manipulator (20), the actuator comprising:
a housing (101) with a free end (102);
a motor (rotor and stator 131 and 118, respectively); and
a motor drive (104, fig. 3), which motor drive is arranged in heat-dissipating relationship with the free end of the housing and axially closer to the same than the motor (see at least column 10, lines 15-19),
wherein the motor drive and the motor are arranged in axial sequence and at least the motor defines a central channel (134) for receiving a cable (820, see col 8, lines 20-39).
It is noted that Boyland fails to explicitly disclose the motor drive including wide-bandgap (WBG) electronics. However, applicant’s cited NPL discloses an integrated motor drive with the use of wide bandgap electronics. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified to increase the efficiency of the motor drive and further allow the motor drive to operate with greater switching frequencies.
Further, it is noted that Boyland fails to explicitly disclose the feature of connecting multiple actuators. However, Park discloses a similar actuator wherein plural actuators are provided in a single robot manipulator (shown in figures 1A and 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified connected to at least one further actuator of the robot manipulator to achieve the predictable result of actuating each motor with the respective drive to control the robot arm accordingly.
Regarding claim 11, it is noted that Boyland and Park fail to explicitly disclose the weight or speed the manipulator can handle. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the have provided the ability for a manipulator to achieve 10m/s or handle a 100kg load to achieve the predictable result of being provided for a specific use case as designed for. Given the applicant’s lack of criticality for this aspect, this feature is believed to be within routine design experimentation for those of routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Boyland discloses a robot controller (50) at least partially integrated into the industrial robot.
Regarding claim 14, it is noted that Boyland is silent to the use of wide-bandgap devices, however, similar to above, NPL discloses the use of WBGs in motor to allow for higher operating temperatures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the controller of Boyland to employ WBGs to allow for a higher operating temperature of the industrial robot.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyland et al in view of NPL, further in view of CN111660299 (hereafter ‘299).
Regarding claim 7, Boyland discloses the motor drive is operable to regenerate braking energy. However, ‘299 discloses a brake regeneration system (see disclosure relating to braking resistor, middle of page 5 of provided translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Boyland with the teachings of ‘299 to achieve the predictable result of recovering the wasted energy to be reused.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 5PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights