DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 7-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant' s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 08/01/2025.
Claims 11-12 and 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/06/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 01/20/2026 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 1, 7-10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 20200108513 A1) in view of Kawabe (US 20060128261 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shao discloses a limb portion (see Fig. 1) for a limb of a robot (10) comprising: a first actuator (see annotated Fig. 1 below, A; see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0023], wherein an accommodation space 16 configured for accommodating the elements having higher heat dissipation demand (e.g., motor)) adapted to pivotably couple with a first further limb section (see annotated Fig. 1 below, B), a second actuator (see annotated Fig. 1 below, C; see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0023], wherein an accommodation space 16 configured for accommodating the elements having higher heat dissipation demand (e.g., motor)) adapted to pivotably couple with a second further limb section (see annotated Fig. 1 below, D), a housing (see annotated Fig. 1, housing of A, 11 and C) enclosing a first heat source of the first actuator (see Fig. 5, fins at 12 of A) and a second heat source of the second actuator (see Fig. 5, fins at 12 of C), wherein the housing forms at least one cavity (14), the at least one cavity (14) comprises a first cavity (14 of C) and a second cavity (14 of A), wherein the housing comprises a first air opening (13 of C) and a second air opening (13 of C) for an airstream to vent the first cavity (via 12 of C), wherein the housing comprises a third air opening (13 of A) and a fourth air opening (13 of A) for an airstream to vent the second cavity (via 12 of A), wherein the first cavity thermally couples to the second heat source (see Fig. 5, wherein 14 of C thermally couples to 12 of C) and the second cavity thermally couples to the first heat source (see Fig. 5, wherein 14 of A thermally couples to 12 of A). Shao fails to disclose a first fan is arranged within the first cavity to actively vent the first cavity, and a second fan arranged within the second cavity to actively vent the second cavity; and wherein at least one temperature sensor is disposed in the at least one cavity and the at least one temperature sensor is configured to activate the first fan and/or the second fan when a temperature in the at least one cavity sensed by the at least one temperature sensor exceeds a threshold temperature Tmax. However, Kawabe teaches a fan (see Fig. 4, 49) to actively vent a cavity (cavity shown in Fig. 4); and wherein at least one temperature sensor (S1, S2) is disposed in the at least one cavity and the at least one temperature sensor is configured to activate the first fan and/or the second fan when a temperature in the at least one cavity sensed by the at least one temperature sensor exceeds a threshold temperature Tmax (see paragraph [0012], wherein a temperature sensor for detecting a temperature of the inner space and controlling the fan according to the detected temperature). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Shao with a fan to actively vent a cavity and a temperature sensor to control the fan, as taught by Kawabe, to draw air into the inner space and to push warm air out of the inner space from the vent holes (see paragraph [0031]) so that the entire part of a heat generating component can contact the air flow, and a uniform cooling effect can be achieved with a minimum power consumption and a minimum noise generation; and so that the consumption of power and emission of noises can be minimized because the fan may be activated only when needed (see paragraph [0012]). Shao in view of Kawabe fail to disclose Tmax ≥ 40°C. However, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this instance, one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the maximum operating temperature for the motors before failure, and set a maximum temperature to prevent damage to the robot through routine optimization. Additionally, Applicant has failed to provide any criticality for the limitation Tmax ≥ 40°C. According to MPEP 2144.04, it is appropriate to rely solely on case law to support an obviousness rejection when Applicant has failed to demonstrate any criticality of a specific limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Shao discloses a first pivot axis of the first actuator (pivot axis of A) is arranged parallel to a second pivot axis of the second actuator (pivot axis of C).
Regarding claim 8, Shao discloses a first rotation direction of the first pivot axis (pivot axis of A) and a second rotation direction of the second pivot axis (pivot axis of B) are directed in opposite directions (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Shao discloses the first actuator is a first electric drive and/or the second actuator is a second electric drive (see paragraph [0023], wherein an accommodation space 16 configured for accommodating the elements having higher heat dissipation demand (e.g., motor)).
Regarding claim 10, Shao discloses the first heat source (see Fig. 5, fins at 12 of A) and/or the second heat source (see Fig. 5, fins at 12 of C) comprises one or more cooling ribs thermally connected to a stator, a circuitry, and/or a gearbox of the respective first and/or second electric drive (see Fig. 5, wherein the ribs are connected to the stator of the motor).
Regarding claim 14, Shao discloses the first actuator (A) comprises a tubular opening extending along the first pivot axis (see Fig. 5) adapted to serve as a first cable duct (the opening in Fig. 5 can inherently serve as a first cable duct), and/or wherein the second actuator (C) comprises a tubular opening extending along the second pivot axis (see Fig. 5) adapted to serve as a second cable duct (the opening in Fig. 5 can inherently serve as a second cable duct).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 20200108513 A1) in view of Kawabe (US 20060128261 A1) and Namie (KR 20150001639 A).
Regarding claim 13, Shao fails to disclose at least one cable connected to the first actuator passes through the at least one cavity. However, Namie teaches at least one cable (see Fig. 3b, cables in dashed outline), in particular all cables, which connect to the first actuator (23c) pass through the cavity (SP). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Shao with at least one cable which connects to the actuator pass through the cavity, as taught by Namie, to provide power to the actuator within the robot cavity which reduces pinching between robot joints or snagging on external elements.
PNG
media_image1.png
620
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1 - US 20200108513 A1 Fig. 1 Annotated
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Shao and Kawabe lack temperature sensors activating at a threshold temperature, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kawabe discloses temperature sensors, S1, S2 and S3, and discloses “If the robot further comprises a temperature sensor for detecting a temperature of the inner space and controlling the fan according to the detected temperature, the consumption of power and emission of noises can be minimized because the fan may be activated only when needed”, in paragraph [0012]. Additionally, the threshold temperature of Tmax ≥ 40°C is considered routine optimization and is obvious. Therefore, claim 1 in unpatentable in view of Shao and Kawabe.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is no reason to modify Shao to arrive at the claimed invention, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that these arguments have already been addressed in the Final Office action of 08/01/2025 and that the combination is proper. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618