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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 11/05/2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a “search for the subject matter of any one group would encompass search for the subject matter of the remaining groups” and that the search “could be made without serious burden”.
This is not found persuasive because Applicant has merely alleged a conclusory statement that there would be no serious burden for searching the entire application and that a search of one group would encompass another group. However, as set forth in the Restriction Requirement mailed on 09/12/2024, the various embodiments require different search strategies and fields of search due to the significant structure differences between the embodiments (e.g. see the significant layout differences of the joints and links in Figs. 4, 7 and 8).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 15: The recitation “the vertical direction” lacks antecedent basis and should be amended to --a vertical axis. Further note, that the vertical direction has not been tied to any structure of the robot, and accordingly any direction can be chosen to be “vertical”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 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.
Claim 1 Lines 12-13: The recitation “a linkage mechanism that is coupled to a distal end side of the first arm via a plurality of links” is indefinite. In particular, in Applicant’s originally filed Specification, the linkage mechanism (30) itself is made up of three links (31, 32, 33), which couples with the first and second arms. It is unclear if this is a typo and the plurality of links (31,32, 33) are part of the linkage mechanism, or alternatively if Applicant is relabeling one of the links (e.g. 32) as the linkage mechanism and the remaining two links (e.g. 31, 33) as the plurality of links.
Claim 2 Lines 2-5: The recitation “the linkage includes a first link, a second, a third link” is indefinite. In particular, it is unclear if the first, second, and third links are the same as the previously recited “plurality of links” (Claim 1 Lines 12-13) or if they are intended to be in addition to the plurality of links.
Claims 3-4 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 10,751,873).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a robot (10) comprising:
A base (20).
A first arm (41) coupled to the base so as to be rotatable about a first rotation axis (A1) along a horizontal direction (see Fig. 2).
A second arm (43) including a distal end portion and a proximal end portion (see Fig. 2), the proximal end portion being coupled to the first arm so as to be rotatable about a second rotation axis (see Fig. 2, showing joint 60), which is parallel to the first rotation axis (see Fig. 2).
A first drive source (31) including a first output shaft for outputting rotational force for rotationally driving the first arm (see Fig. 2).
A second drive source (32) including a second output shaft for outputting rotational force for rotationally driving the second arm (see Fig. 2; see also Col. 4 Lines 15-28).
A linkage mechanism (50) that is coupled to a distal end side (see Fig. 2, showing the joint 60) of the first arm via a plurality of links (51, 52, 53, 54) with a proximal end side of the first arm (see Fig. 5) as a starting point and that transmits rotational force generated by the second drive source to the second arm (see Figs. 2 and 5).
Wherein when viewed from the vertical direction (see Examiner’s annotated version of Wang’s Fig. 5, hereinafter “Figure A”, note that the vertical direction has not been defined relative to any structure of the robot, and accordingly any direction could be chosen to be vertical), the first rotation axis is located between the distal end portion of the second arm and at least one of a centroid G1 of the first drive source or a centroid G2 of the second drive source (see Figure A).
PNG
media_image1.png
828
1565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Wang further discloses the robot according to claim 1, wherein the linkage mechanism includes:
A first link (52).
A second link (53).
A third link (54).
A first joint (see Fig. 2) rotatably coupling together the first arm and the first link (see Fig. 2).
A second joint (see Fig. 2) rotatably coupling together the first link and the second link (see Fig. 2).
A third joint (see Fig. 2) rotatably coupling together the second link and the third link (see Fig. 2).
A fourth joint (60) rotatably coupling together the third link and the first arm (see Fig. 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 10,751,873) in view of Mihai (CA 3034763 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang does not disclose that when viewed from the vertical direction, a central axis of the second arm is located between the first drive source and the second drive source for the robot according to claim 1.
However, Mihai discloses in a similar robot (see Figs. 1 and 3), wherein when viewed from the vertical direction, a central axis of the second arm (see Examiner’s annotated version of Mihai’s Fig. 3, hereinafter “Figure B”) is located between the first drive source and the second drive source (see Figure B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the robot disclosed in Wang with the first and second drive sources located on opposite sides of the first arm when viewed from the vertical direction as taught in Mihai to balance the weight being placed on the first arm between the two sides, to reduce an overall torque being applied to the arms due to the weight and location of the drive sources.
PNG
media_image2.png
549
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Wang does not disclose that the second drive source is located on the second joint, rather the second drive source is coupled indirectly to the second joint, but located remote from it spatially. It would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide such a relationship between the second joint and the second drive source, without impermissible hindsight, since this would require significant structural modification of the robot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY WEBER whose telephone number is (571)272-3307. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, CHARLES FOX can be reached on (571)272-6923. 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 ROBERT WEBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618