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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: the response filed on 07/31/2026.
Claims 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28-30, 33, 34, 37, 39, 42, and 45-47 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11, and 13 are "Withdrawn - Currently Amended" and are not examined on the merits.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 48, and 49 are canceled.
Claim 16 and 33 are independent.
Response to Arguments
The rejections of claims 16-17, 20, 22-23, 25, 28-30, 33-34, 37, 39, 42, and 45-47 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite are WITHDRAWN.
Applicant’s amendments resolving "at least one of all the at least one," deleting the optional terms "preferably" and "further preferably," changing "fits" to "is attached to," and clarifying "integrally provided" to "combined to form an integral assembly" successfully define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, satisfying the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s remarks filed in the response have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
Applicant argues that Iqtidar teaches the motors and mass are centered around the base, and therefore fails to teach that the driver controller integrated board is disposed on the mechanical arm. This argument is not persuasive. While Iqtidar does state that mass may be centered around the base (Iqtidar, paragraph [0049]), the reference explicitly details that an output section of a motor/gear 32 and a PCB board 34 with a position sensor 36 are aligned with an output shaft 37, and that stepper motors 45, 48 are distributed within the structure (Iqtidar, paragraphs [0072], [0073]). Applicant argues that Duffy teaches a specialized processor and memory as separate components from the controller 118, meaning they do not reside on a common substrate with the drive module. This argument is not persuasive. Duffy teaches an integrated robotic controller comprising a processor and memory to control the robot (Duffy, paragraphs [0146]-[0147]). The integration of standard logic control electronics and drive hardware onto a unified printed circuit board is an established standard practice in motor drive semiconductor design to reduce spatial footprint and wiring complexity (MPEP § 2144). Applicant argues that neither reference teaches the exact arrangement where a first control part is on the first side of a substrate, a second part and drive module are on the opposite side, or a communication module is located between the control and drive modules. This argument is not persuasive. Under MPEP § 2144.05, the specific physical positioning of electronic components on a printed circuit board—such as utilizing a double-sided PCB layout or centrally locating a communication module—is considered a routine design choice. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that positioning low-voltage control logic on the opposite side of, or spaced apart from, high-power drive components is an obvious layout strategy to isolate noise and optimize thermal dissipation.
Examiner Note on Withdrawn Claims (MPEP § 821.02)
The applicant has submitted amendments to claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11, and 13. Because these claims are directed at a non-elected invention, they were previously withdrawn from consideration. Under MPEP § 821.02, when an applicant amends claims directed to a non-elected invention without traversing the restriction or securing their rejoinder, the examiner must treat the amended claims as withdrawn from consideration. The examiner should not examine these claims on the merits. To ensure proper processing, the applicant should either formally cancel these withdrawn claims or maintain them as withdrawn pending the potential allowability of the elected claims, at which point a petition for rejoinder may be considered if the claims depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable elected claim.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 16-17,20,22-23,25,28-30,33-34,37,39,42,45,46 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqtidar (US 2017/0217013 A1) in view of Duffy (US 2019/0248007 A1).
Regarding independent claim 16, Iqtidar teaches that a robot comprising:
a mechanical arm (a second arm 15 connected to the first arm via a third joint 16; ¶0053); and
at least two driver controller integrated board (a microcontroller 240 in communication with a control module 242, one or more optional accessory modules 246, and one or more end effectors 248 (¶0084)),
Iqtidar fail to teach but Duffy teaches that wherein at least one of the at least two driver controller integrated board is disposed on the mechanical arm, each driver controller integrated board comprises a control module, a drive module, a first communication module, (Abstract, ¶0056)and a substrate, the control module, the drive module, and the first communication module are disposed on the substrate, and the control module is electrically connected to the drive module; wherein the control module comprises a first control part and a second control part, the first control part and the first communication module are disposed on a first side of the substrate, and the second part and the drive module are disposed on a second side of the substrate which is opposite to the first side; or the first communication module is located between the control module and the drive module and disposed near the control module (A controller 118 comprising a processor and memory configured to execute computer readable instructions to control the robot (¶¶0146-0147).Integrated control systems with communication modules configured to connect to a network in a wired or wireless manner (¶¶0147).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Iqtidar with Duffy as follows:Mechanical arm: Iqtidar explicitly teaches a robotic arm with multiple arm segments (arms 13, 15) connected via joints for movement (¶0053). This satisfies the "mechanical arm" limitation.
Driver controller integrated board on the mechanical arm: Iqtidar teaches that control electronics and motors are integrated within the arm structure. Specifically, stepper motors 45, 48 and control electronics (including PCB board 34 with position sensor 36) are disposed within the arm assembly (¶0073, and ¶0072). While Iqtidar does not explicitly state that a single "integrated board" contains both control and drive modules on a substrate, Duffy teaches the integration of control modules with drive modules in a single robotic system (Abstract, ¶0056).
Control module, drive module, and first communication module disposed on substrate with electrical connection: Iqtidar teaches that the device includes PCB boards 34 with position sensors 36, and microcontroller 240 in communication with control module 242 (¶0072, ¶0084). The integration of control electronics (including microcontrollers and position sensors) with drive mechanisms (motors and harmonic drives) on PCB substrates is inherent in the disclosed architecture.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate the control and drive modules onto a single substrate as claimed, because:Duffy teaches the integration of control modules with drive modules for efficient robotic control (Abstract).The integration of control and drive electronics on a common substrate (PCB) is standard practice in robotic systems to reduce size, weight, and complexity while improving reliability. Iqtidar's unified architecture explicitly aims to electrically and mechanically connect modules (¶0084), which would motivate integrating control and drive functions.
Regarding claim 17, Iqtidar teaches that wherein the first communication module is configured to be connected to a network (Iqtidar teaches: A microcontroller 240 in communication with control module 242, sensors 250(i.e. communication module), and end effectors 248 via interfaces (¶0084).
Communication between the robotic arm and external systems for control purposes (¶0046-0047). Duffy explicitly teaches a communications unit 116 including one or more receivers, transmitters, and/or transceivers configured to send/receive transmissions via various protocols including BLUETOOTH®, Wi-Fi, radio frequencies, and cellular technologies (¶0131).
The communications unit enables the robot to connect to networks in a wired or wireless manner for data exchange and control (¶0131).
Regarding claim 20, Iqtidar teaches that each driver controller integrated board (¶0072).The device includes sensors 250 for providing feedback to the microcontroller 240 (¶0084)
Iqtidar fails to teach but Duffy teaches that further comprises an input/output (I/O) interface, wherein the I/O interface is electrically connected to at least one of the control modules or the drive module; or wherein each driver controller integrated board further comprises a heat sink, wherein the heat sink is attached to the substrate (. Duffy teaches sensor and actuator units requiring I/O connections (¶0124-0125); Heat sink: A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that driver controller integrated boards generating heat during operation would benefit from heat dissipation means. The use of heat sinks for electronic components is well known in the art and would have been an obvious design choice to address thermal management.
Regarding claim 22, Iqtidar teaches that wherein the mechanical arm comprises a plurality of arm bodies, each of the at least two driver controller integrated boards controls at least one of the plurality of arm bodies(A robotic arm comprising a first arm 13 and a second arm 15 connected via joints (¶0053).Multiple stepper motors 45, 48 for controlling different arm segments (¶0073).Each joint and arm segment requires control electronics for movement (¶0074-0076)).
Regarding claim 23, Iqtidar teaches that wherein one of the at least two drivers
controller integrated boards controls one of the plurality of arm bodies (a microcontroller 240 in communication with a control module 242, one or more optional accessory modules 246, and one or more end effectors 248 (¶0084)).
Regarding claims 25 and 42, Iqtidar teaches that further comprising a base, wherein the mechanical arm is movably mounted on the base(Iqtidar explicitly teaches:A tower 19 supported by a base 11, with the base connected to the tower via a first joint 12 (¶0053 and ¶0073).Motors positioned at the base for controlling base rotation (¶0073).The RPR configuration places the mass of motors and gears near the base for stability (¶0049).Duffy explicitly teaches: A master robot with a control module controlling slave or minion devices (¶0245).A hierarchical system where a master device controls other components (¶0245).A central control unit (brain hub) for networking multiple mobile units (¶0097).Base with movably mounted mechanical arm: Iqtidar explicitly teaches a base 11 with the robotic arm mounted thereon (¶0053).Iqtidar teaches motors and control electronics positioned at the base for controlling base rotation (¶0073, ¶0049,).
Regarding claim 28, Iqtidar fails to teach but Duffy teaches that wherein the at least two driver controller integrated boards are connected in a cascaded arrangement; and any of the at least two driver controller integrated boards is capable of acting as a master control board, is connected to an external device, is configured to coordinate signal interaction among different driver controller integrated boards and perform signal interaction with the external devices or all of the at least two driver controller integrated boards are configured to be connected to a cloud controller is connected to an external device, and is configured to coordinate signal interaction among different driver controller integrated boards and perform signal interaction with the external device. (Duffy explicitly teaches: A master robot 200-A that controls minion devices (¶0385).Connection to remote servers or the internet for interaction with users (¶0384).Cloud-based control and networking of multiple robotic units (¶0097).Communications unit 116 for connecting to networks including cellular technologies and the internet (¶0131)).
Regarding claim 29, recits further comprising a connecting plate, wherein the connecting plate is connected to an external device the connecting plate comprises a control part and a mounting plate, the control part is disposed on the mounting plate, and each of the at least two driver controller integrated boards is electrically connected to the control part; and the connecting plate is configured to coordinate signal interaction among different driver controller integrated boards and perform signal interaction with the external device. (Iqtidar teaches a unified architecture with modules that can be stacked on a portion of the tower such that the stacked modules are mechanically and electrically connected (¶0006). Modules including control module 242 with interfaces 252 for electrical and mechanical connection (¶0084). Duffy teaches a Connection interface 214 for connecting a main robot to modular attachments (¶0146).Connection unit 218 configured to control and ensure proper attachment (¶0146).Control signals communicated between controller 118 and various modules (¶0147).A connecting plate with a control part and mounting plate for aggregating and distributing control signals is essentially a backplane or signal distribution board, which is a standard component in electronic systems for organizing and routing signals between multiple controller boards. Iqtidar's unified architecture and Duffy's connection interface teachings would have made this configuration obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 30, recites wherein the connecting plate further comprises a second communication module, wherein the second communication module is disposed on the mounting plate, and the control part is electrically connected to the second communication module(This claim adds the limitation of a second communication module on the connecting plate. As discussed above regarding claim 17, Duffy explicitly teaches communications units with wireless connectivity capabilities (¶0131). Adding a communication module to the connecting plate for network connectivity would have been obvious for the reasons stated in the rejection of claim 17.).
Regarding independent claim 33, Iqtidar teaches that a robot, comprising:
a mechanical arm (a second arm 15 connected to the first arm via a third joint 16; ¶0053); and
at least two driver controller integrated boards(a microcontroller 240 in communication with a control module 242, one or more optional accessory modules 246, and one or more end effectors 248 (¶0084)),
Iqtidar fail to teach but Duffy teaches that wherein at least one of the at least two driver controller integrated boards is disposed on the mechanical arm, each driver controller integrated board comprises a first substrate and a second substrate, combined to form an integral assembly, and further comprises a first communication module; and the first substrate is a control function board, the second substrate is a drive function board, the first substrate is electrically connected to the second substrate and the first communication module is connected to the first substrate; wherein the first communication module is located between the control function board and the drive function board and disposed near the control function board.(¶¶0146-0147).Integrated control systems with communication modules configured to connect to a network in a wired or wireless manner (¶¶0147).
Claim 33 differs from claim 16 primarily in specifying that the driver controller integrated board comprises "a first substrate and a second substrate that are integrally provided," where the first substrate is a control function board and the second substrate is a drive function board. This structure—separate but integrated control and drive function boards—is a common configuration in motor drive electronics. Motor drive circuits typically separate control electronics (low power) from power drive electronics (high power) for: Thermal management, Noise isolation, Manufacturing efficiency. This configuration is well-known in the art of motor drives and power electronics. Iqtidar's teaching of integrated control electronics and motors, combined with general knowledge in the art, would have made this configuration obvious.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Iqtidar with Duffy as follows:Mechanical arm: Iqtidar explicitly teaches a robotic arm with multiple arm segments (arms 13, 15) connected via joints for movement (¶0053). This satisfies the "mechanical arm" limitation.
Driver controller integrated board on the mechanical arm: Iqtidar teaches that control electronics and motors are integrated within the arm structure. Specifically, stepper motors 45, 48 and control electronics (including PCB board 34 with position sensor 36) are disposed within the arm assembly (¶0073, and ¶0072). While Iqtidar does not explicitly state that a single "integrated board" contains both control and drive modules on a substrate, Duffy teaches the integration of control modules with drive modules in a single robotic system (Abstract, ¶0056).
Control module, drive module, and first communication module disposed on substrate with electrical connection: Iqtidar teaches that the device includes PCB boards 34 with position sensors 36, and microcontroller 240 in communication with control module 242 (¶0072, ¶0084). The integration of control electronics (including microcontrollers and position sensors) with drive mechanisms (motors and harmonic drives) on PCB substrates is inherent in the disclosed architecture.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate the control and drive modules onto a single substrate as claimed, because:Duffy teaches the integration of control modules with drive modules for efficient robotic control (Abstract).The integration of control and drive electronics on a common substrate (PCB) is standard practice in robotic systems to reduce size, weight, and complexity while improving reliability. Iqtidar's unified architecture explicitly aims to electrically and mechanically connect modules (¶0084), which would motivate integrating control and drive functions.
Regarding claim 34, 37, and 39, For the same reasons set forth above regarding
claims 17-28, which correspond to the similar limitations in claims 34, 37-39, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Iqtidar in view of Duffy.Specifically: Claim 34 (corresponding to claim 17) is rejected for the reasons stated above.Claim 37 (corresponding to claim 20) is rejected for the reasons stated above.Claim 39 (corresponding to claims 22-23) is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 45, This claim recites :The robot of claim 39, wherein the at least two driver controller integrated boards are connected in a cascaded arrangement; any of the at least two driver controller integrated boards is capable of acting as a master control board, and the any of the at least two driver controller integrated boards is connected to an external device; and the any of the at least two driver controller integrated boards is configured to coordinate signal interaction among different driver controller integrated boards and perform signal interaction with the external device; or all of the at least two driver controller integrated boards are configured to be connected to a cloud controller, wherein the cloud controller is connected to an external device and is configured to coordinate signal interaction among different driver controller integrated boards and perform signal interaction with the external device (For the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 28, claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Iqtidar in view of Duffy.)
Regarding claim 46, This claim recites : The robot of claim 39, further comprising a connecting plate, is connected to an external device, the connecting plate comprises a control part and a mounting plate, the control part is disposed on the mounting plate, and each of the at least two driver controller integrated boards is electrically connected to the control part; and the connecting plate is configured to coordinate signal interaction among different driver controller integrated boards and perform signal interaction with the external device(For the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 29, claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Iqtidar in view of Duffy.)
Regarding claim 47, This claim recites : wherein the connecting plate further comprises a second communication module, wherein the second communication module is disposed on the mounting plate, and the control part is electrically connected to the second communication module; (For the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 30, claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Iqtidar in view of Duffy).
Conclusion
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 MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30am to 6:00pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights