DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed December 18, 2025 for the above identified patent application.
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 .
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, 3-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto (JP 61-55435) in view of Shamberger (USP 1,916,391).
Morimoto teaches a strain wave gear comprising: a wave generator (6) configured to contact a spline (10), the wave generator being rotatable; and a coupler (4) configured to couple a driver shaft to the wave generator, the coupler having a coupling frame (5), the coupling frame positioned between the wave generator and the coupler, the coupler permitting displacement of the driver shaft relative to the wave generator.
Morimoto does not teach the coupling frame is positioned in an aperture of the wave generator sized larger than the coupling frame in a first direction and the coupler is positioned in an aperture of the coupling frame sized larger than the coupler in a second direction.
The prior art to Shamberger teaches a coupler (21) permitting radial displacement between a shaft (17) and a gear (10), the coupler having a coupling frame (20) positioned in an aperture of the gear sized larger than the coupling frame in a first direction (vertical direction in Fig. 1) and the coupler (21) positioned in an aperture of the coupling frame sized larger than the coupler in a second direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 1), the coupler formed with a pair of driving arms (21,32,33) having a cross-section profile (outer surface) in the form of a rectangle, the coupler frame formed with a pair of arms (24,25) having a cross-section profile (outer surface) in the form of a rectangle, wherein the driving arms of the coupler and the driving arms of the coupling frame have the same cross-section profile (rectangular outer surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to replace the coupling arrangement of Morimoto with the coupling arrangement of Shamberger, since replacing a known coupler with another known coupler involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 3: Morimoto and/or Shamberger teach the coupling frame permits displacement of the driver shaft relative to the wave generator and/or the coupler in a direction perpendicular to the displacement permitted by the coupler.
Claim 4: Morimoto and/or Shamberger teach the coupler or coupling frame permits displacement of the driver shaft relative to the wave generator by sliding along a major axis and/or a minor axis of the strain wave gear.
Claim 5: Morimoto and/or Shamberger teach one of the coupler and the coupling frame permits displacement of the driver shaft relative to the wave generator by sliding along a major axis of the strain wave gear or is fixed relative to the wave generator along a minor axis of strain wave gear. Note, the terms “major” and “minor” when referring to an axis (throughout the claims) has been broadly interpreted as any two axes since the claims do not specifically define the structure required to differentiate between “a minor axis” and “a major axis”.
Claim 6: Morimoto and/or Shamberger teach teaches another of the coupler and the coupling frame permits displacement of the driver shaft relative to the wave generator by sliding along a minor axis of the strain wave gear or is fixed relative to the wave generator along a major axis of the strain wave gear.
Claim 7: Morimoto does not teach a low friction element positioned between engaging components of the coupler. It was notoriously known in the art to apply a grease/oil between relatively moving components to reduce friction/wear between the components. For example, Shamberger teaches a coupler (as described above) having grease (low friction coating) between engaging components of the coupler. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to provide the coupler and coupler frame of Morimoto with a coating of grease between the mating components, as taught by Shamberger, motivation being to reduce friction and wear between mating components.
Claim 9: Morimoto and/or Shamberger teach the coupler and/or coupling frame has a square or rectangular cross-sectional shape.
Claim 10: Morimoto and/or Shamberger teach the coupler (4) and/or coupling frame (5) has curved edges (at outer peripheral edges and an inner hole).
Claim 11: Morimoto and/or Shamberger teach the coupler and coupling frame form a two-dimensional misalignment coupling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
1) “Replacing Morimoto's coupling with Shamberger's would directly defeat the stated objective of Morimoto's invention.”
2) “Morimoto's entire contribution is to move away from a sliding- surface Oldham coupling (which is what Shamberger teaches) and toward a protrusion-and- clearance pivot coupling capable of absorbing angular tilt.” and
3) “Morimoto explicitly criticizes the prior art sliding Oldham coupling (Figures 1-3) for being unable to handle tilt, and designs his invention specifically to overcome that deficiency.”
It is acknowledged (by applicant and examiner) that the claimed coupling of Morimoto is designed to allow for both radial misalignment (parallel positional offset between the input axis and output axis) and tilt (angular offset between the input axis and output axis). Similarly, Shamberger teaches a coupling designed to allow for both radial misalignment (parallel positional offset between the input axis and output axis) and tilt (non-parallel offset between the input axis and output axis). Specifically, Shamberger discloses “my invention resides in providing a torque-transmitting connection for the gear wheel 10 and the axle 17 that permits relative movement in all directions, except angularly in the direction that the torque is being transmitted….” Column 2, lines 47-52. Accordingly, the couplings of Morimoto and Shamberger are designed to allow the same type of misalignment between the input axis and the output axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to replace the coupling with the arrangement of Morimoto (which allows for misalignment in all directions) with the coupling arrangement of Shamberger (which allows for misalignment in all directions), since replacing a known coupler with another known coupler involves only routine skill in the art.
In view of the above, replacing Morimoto's coupling with Shamberger's coupling is not improper and would not defeat the stated objective of Morimoto's invention. Accordingly, the claims stand rejected as described above.
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 WILLIAM C JOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 571-270-7778. 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.
/WILLIAM C JOYCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights