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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 8-15, 17-20 and 23-24 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/24/2026.
Claims 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 04/28/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 line 2 reads “the rotor is placed inside the stator, and the rotor rotates inside the stator”, --the first rotor is placed inside the first stator, and the first rotor rotates inside the first stator-- is suggested.
Claim 24 line 4 reads “the stator is placed inside the rotor, and the stator rotates inside the rotor”, --the first stator is placed inside the first rotor, and the first stator rotates inside the first rotor-- is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the stator is placed inside the rotor, and the rotor rotates inside the rotor to move the first link relative to the second link, as required by claim 24, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8-15, 17-20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 23 recite the limitation “wherein the first link is made as one with the first stator and the second link is made as one with the first rotor”. However, the disclosure fails to describe the subject matter in such a way to reasonable convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor has possession of the claimed invention, and is therefor considered new matter.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-15, 17-20 and 23-24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 23 recite the limitation “wherein the first link is made as one with the first stator and the second link is made as one with the first rotor”. It is unclear what is required to be “made as one”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the stator is placed inside the rotor, and the stator rotates inside the rotor to move the first link relative to the second link”. However, claim 1 recites the limitation “the rotor is placed inside the stator, and the rotor rotates inside the stator to move the first link relative to the second link”. It is unclear how the actuator can have the rotor is placed inside the stator, as required by claim 1, and also can have the stator placed inside the rotor, as required by claim 24.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8-14 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umetsu (JP 2001191290 A).
Regarding claim 1, Umetsu discloses an actuator (see Fig. 1) comprising: an electric motor (14, 15), the electric motor comprising a first link (1, 11, 12, 13) comprising a first stator (14) and a second link (2, 21, 23) comprising a first rotor (15), wherein the first rotor is placed inside the first stator (see Fig. 1, wherein first rotor 15 is placed inside the first stator 14), and the first rotor rotates inside the first stator to move the first link relative to the second link (see Fig. 1), wherein the actuator does not comprise a gear (see Fig. 1, wherein no gears are disclosed), and wherein the first link is made as one with the first stator (see Fig. 1, wherein the first link 1, 11, 12, 13 and the first stator 14 are made as one) and the second link is made as one with the first rotor (see Fig. 1, wherein the second link 2, 21, 23 and the first rotor 15 are made as one). Note that Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose what is required to be “made as one”. As such, the Examiner has used Fig. 15C of Applicant’s application as a guide for determining the definition of “made as one”. In Fig. 15c, the first link 1 and the coil part 3 (stator) are separate parts, but are connected to form a single unit. Similarly, second link 2 and the magnet part 4 (rotor) are separate parts, but are connected to form a single unit. As can be seen in Fig. 1 of Umetsu, the first link and the first stator are separate parts, but connected to from a single unit. Additionally, the second link and the first rotor are connected to form a single unit. Therefore, Umetsu discloses the elements “made as one” just as Applicant’s own disclosure.
Regarding claim 3, Umetsu discloses the motor (14, 15) is a radial gap motor (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Umetsu discloses a second stator (see Fig. 3; stator 14 of 3b) is provided on an opposite side of the second link where the first rotor of the second link is present (rotor 15 of 3a).
Regarding claim 9, Umetsu discloses a second rotor (see Fig. 3; rotor 15 of 3b) is provided on an opposite side of the second link where the first rotor of the second link is present (rotor 15 of 3a).
Regarding claim 10, Umetsu discloses a second stator (see Fig. 3; stator 14 of 3b) is provided on an opposite side of the first link where the first stator of the first link is present (stator 14 of 3a).
Regarding claim 11, Umetsu discloses a second rotor (see Fig. 3; rotor 15 of 3b) is provided on an opposite side of the first link where the first stator of the first link is present (stator 14 of 3a).
Regarding claim 12, Umetsu discloses a third link (see Fig. 3-5, wherein a plurality of links can be connected together, including a third link) that comprises a second rotor (rotor 15) rotated by the second stator (stator 14).
Regarding claim 13, Umetsu discloses a third link (see Fig. 3-5, wherein a plurality of links can be connected together, including a third link) that comprises a second stator (stator 14) rotated by the second rotor (rotor 15).
Regarding claim 14, Umetsu discloses the actuator is connected to another actuator in series (see Fig. 3-5).
Regarding claim 23, Umetsu discloses an actuator (see Fig. 1) consisting essentially of; an electric motor (14, 15), the electric motor comprising a first link (1, 11, 12, 13) comprising a first stator (14) and a second link (2, 21, 23) comprising a first rotor (15), wherein; the first rotor is placed inside the first stator (see Fig. 1, wherein first rotor 15 is placed inside the first stator 14), and wherein the first link is made as one with the first stator (see Fig. 1, wherein the first link 1, 11, 12, 13 and the first stator 14 are made as one) and the second link is made as one with the first rotor (see Fig. 1, wherein the second link 2, 21, 23 and the first rotor 15 are made as one). Note that Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose what is required to be “made as one”. As such, the Examiner has used Fig. 15C of Applicant’s application as a guide for determining the definition of “made as one”. In Fig. 15c, the first link 1 and the coil part 3 (stator) are separate parts, but are connected to form a single unit. Similarly, second link 2 and the magnet part 4 (rotor) are separate parts, but are connected to form a single unit. As can be seen in Fig. 1 of Umetsu, the first link and the first stator are separate parts, but connected to from a single unit. Additionally, the second link and the first rotor are connected to form a single unit. Therefore, Umetsu discloses the elements “made as one” just as Applicant’s own disclosure.
Regarding claim 24, Umetsu discloses the rotor (15) is placed inside the stator (14), and the rotor rotates inside the stator to move the first link (1) relative to the second link (2); or the stator is placed inside the rotor, and the stator rotates inside the rotor to move the first link relative to the second link.
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 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umetsu (JP 2001191290 A) in view of Tesar (US 5355743 A).
Regarding claim 15, Umetsu fails to disclose the actuator is connected to another actuator in parallel. However, Tesar teaches the actuator is connected to another actuator in parallel (see Fig. 19a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Umetsu with actuators arranged in parallel, as taught by Tesar, to distribute the weight of the end effectors evenly across two arms allowing for heavier loads. Additionally, paragraph [0011] of Umetsu reads “since a plurality of connecting portions for connecting the joint modules to each other are provided, it is possible to increase the variety of the joint structure of the manipulator constituted by the joint modules”. Since it has been held that a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), and it has been held that a rearrangement of parts, which does not modify the operation of the device, is an obvious matter of design choice, In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide multiple joints in multiple configurations, as disclosed by Umetsu, including a actuator connected to another actuator in parallel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections that were necessitated by an amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights