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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/17/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I robot invention (claims 1-9), in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 remains acknowledged. Claim 10 is a linking claim and is thus examined with the elected invention (see explanation of linking claim 10 on p.2 of the 10/9/2025 restriction).
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2 (fig.3A) in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 remains acknowledged. The traversal was found non-persuasive and the requirement made final in the previous 2/10/2026 Office action.
Claims 11-20 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1-10 remain rejected below.
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 and 3, 4, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Caveney US 20250087514.
Claims 1 and 10. A robot (“robot” throughout written description), comprising: a first robot linkage (a first one of the linkages throughout figures); and a first axial flux motor (figs. 4A-6A, 505B, 501AC, 501BC) configured to drive the first robot linkage, wherein the first axial flux motor comprises: a rotor (505B) coupled to the first robot linkage, wherein the rotor and the first robot linkage are disposed within a first environment (VAC); a housing (housing surrounding motor in figs.4A-6A) comprising a first portion (portion of housing above 505) on a top side of the rotor and a second portion (portion of housing below 505) on a bottom side of the rotor; and multiple stator modules (501), wherein one or more first stator modules (501AC) of the multiple stator modules are disposed within a first subset of second environments (ATM environments of each of 501AC) within the first portion of the housing above the rotor and one or more second stator modules (501BC) of the multiple stator modules are disposed within a second subset of second environments (ATM environments of each of 501BC) within the second portion of the housing beneath the rotor; and wherein at least a portion of the housing (510, 510D, 510R) forms a sealing barrier between the second environments and the first environment.
Claim 3. The robot of claim 1, wherein the first environment is a vacuum environment (VAC), and wherein the multiple stator modules are sealed from the first environment at least in part by the sealing barrier and one or more seals.
Claim 4. The robot of claim 1, wherein a region between the first portion of the housing and the second portion of the housing is sealed by one or more seals (510, 510D, 510R).
Claim 6. The robot of claim 1, further comprising: a second robot linkage (linkage fixed to stator which the rotor linkage rotates relative to); and a second axial flux motor (505C, 501BC) configured to drive the second robot linkage.
Claim 7. The robot of claim 6, wherein the second axial flux motor is disposed adjacent to the first axial flux motor and shares a common axis (axis of 505 and 501) with the first axial flux motor.
Claim 8. The robot of claim 1, wherein the one or more first stator modules comprises a first set of stator modules (stator coils of 501AC), and wherein the one or more second stator modules comprises a second set of stator modules (stator coils of 501BC).
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fradella US4520300.
Claims 1 and 10. A robot (one of the plural “robots”, col.2, l.65 – col.3, l.15), comprising: a first robot linkage (97); and a first axial flux motor (figs.1 and 12) configured to drive the first robot linkage, wherein the first axial flux motor comprises: a rotor (8 in fig.1; and/or a right 8 in figure 12) coupled to the first robot linkage, wherein the rotor and the first robot linkage are disposed within a first environment (environment receiving 8 and 97); a housing (96) comprising a first portion (portion of 96 in which 4a/5b are molded into) on a top side of the rotor and a second portion (portion of 96 in which 4b/5a are molded into) on a bottom side of the rotor; and multiple stator modules (4a, 5b, 4b, 5a), wherein one or more first stator modules (4a, 5b) of the multiple stator modules are disposed within a first subset of second environments (surface environments encasing 4a and 5b) within the first portion of the housing above the rotor and one or more second stator modules (4b, 5a) of the multiple stator modules are disposed within a second subset of second environments (surface environments encasing 4b and 5a) within the second portion of the housing beneath the rotor; and wherein at least a portion of the housing (portions of 96 encasing 4a, 5b, 4b, 5a) forms a sealing barrier between the second environments and the first environment
Claim 3. The robot of claim 1, wherein the first environment is a vacuum environment, and wherein the multiple stator modules are sealed from the first environment at least in part by the sealing barrier and one or more seals (col.4, ll.47-54 and col.26, ll.42-65).
Claim 4. The robot of claim 1, wherein a region between the first portion of the housing and the second portion of the housing is sealed by one or more seals (“sealed by an adhesive therebetween” (col.4, ll.47-54 and col.26, ll.42-65).
Claim 5. The robot of claim 1, wherein the rotor comprises multiple magnets (“rotor magnets” shown in fig.1 as twelve N/S magnets of rotor 8) exposed to the first environment, and wherein the rotor is configured to rotate based on an interaction between the multiple magnets and the multiple stator modules (see written descriptions of rotor and stator).
Claim 6. The robot of claim 1, further comprising: a second robot linkage (8c of left 8 in fig.12); and a second axial flux motor (left 8 in fig.12) configured to drive the second robot linkage.
Claim 7. The robot of claim 6, wherein the second axial flux motor is disposed adjacent to the first axial flux motor and shares a common axis (axis of 97) with the first axial flux motor.
Claim 8. The robot of claim 1, wherein the one or more first stator modules comprises a first set of stator modules (4a, 5b), and wherein the one or more second stator modules comprises a second set of stator modules (4b, 5a).
Claim 9. The robot of claim 1, wherein the multiple stator modules are disposed on a circuit board (circuit board shown powering stators in fig.1 and/or fig.2). Regarding the limitation “printed” see MPEP § 2113 which states that the specific method of forming is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself and that it is well established by case law that it is the patentability of the product that is to be determined even though such claims are limited and defined by process steps. See also In re Thorpe et al, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Murakami US20220166298 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Murakami US20220166298, Moura US9948155, and/or Fradella US4520300.
Claims 1 and 10. Murakami discloses (figs.1, 18 and 19) a robot (100), comprising: a first robot linkage (a first one of the linkages of 100); and a first axial flux motor (a first one of the motors of 100, e.g., see 1 in fig.1) configured to drive the first robot linkage, wherein the first axial flux motor comprises: a rotor (3) coupled to the first robot linkage, wherein the rotor and the first robot linkage are disposed within a first environment (open space environment receiving/surrounding 3 and the first one of the linkages of 100); a housing (41, 51) comprising a first portion (41) on a top side of the rotor and a second portion (51) on a bottom side of the rotor; and multiple stator modules (“plurality of stator cores 42”; “plurality of stator cores 52”), wherein one or more first stator modules (“plurality of stator cores 42”) of the multiple stator modules are disposed within a first subset of second environments (surface environments of 41 conforming to each of the plurality of stator cores 42) within the first portion of the housing above the rotor and one or more second stator modules (“plurality of stator cores 52”) of the multiple stator modules are disposed within a second subset of second environments (surface environments of 51 conforming to the plurality of stator cores 52) within the second portion of the housing beneath the rotor; and wherein at least a portion of the housing (surface portions of 41 and 52 conforming/sealing to 42 and 52) forms a sealing barrier between the second environments and the first environment.
Note that claims 1 and 10 do not limit the first and second environments as being of any particular composition, physical state, pressure, etc. such that the Murakami surface environments relied upon by the examiner above, read on the claimed second environments within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim phraseology.
Alternatively, in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner notes that if the claims were amended to stipulate that the rotor first environment is a vacuum environment and that the stator second environments were completely cut off from the rotor first vacuum environment by the sealing barrier, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murakami to that end since such was well known to be desirable in the art, e.g., see Moura figs. 7-15, 24A, 24B, 28E-28I, 31 and the written descriptions thereof; and see Fradella figs. 1 and 12 and written descriptions thereof, especially Fradella col.26, ll.42-65 detailing “ultra-high efficiency” and “negligible rotor heating” advantages of keeping the rotor in sealed vacuum.
Claim 2. The robot of claim 1, Murakami further discloses wherein the housing forms multiple pockets (pockets in 41, pockets in 51), each of the multiple pockets to house one of the multiple stator modules, and wherein the multiple stator modules each comprise multiple conductive windings (43, 53) wound around a core (42, 52).
Claim 3. The robot resulting from the Murakami/Moura/Fradella modification of claim 1, wherein the first environment is a vacuum environment (vacuum taught by Moura and/or Fradella, see last single spaced paragraph of claim 1 rejection above), and wherein the multiple stator modules are sealed from the first environment at least in part by the sealing barrier and one or more seals (as results from the modification of Murakami in view of Moura and/or Fradella set forth in last single spaced paragraph of the claim 1 rejection above).
Claim 4. The robot of claim 1, Murakami further discloses wherein a region between the first portion of the housing and the second portion of the housing is sealed by one or more seals (80).
Claim 5. The robot of claim 1, Murakami further discloses wherein the rotor comprises multiple magnets (6) exposed to the first environment, and wherein the rotor is configured to rotate based on an interaction between the multiple magnets and the multiple stator modules.
Claim 6. The robot of claim 1, Murakami further discloses: a second robot linkage (a second one of the linkages of 100); and a second axial flux motor (a second motor of 100) configured to drive the second robot linkage.
Claim 7. The robot of claim 6, Murakami further discloses wherein the second axial flux motor is disposed adjacent to the first axial flux motor and shares a common axis (vertical axis) with the first axial flux motor (see fig 19 and note that rotational axis of 176/174/171 would be aligned/coaxial when the robot is extended fully vertical.
Claim 8. The robot of claim 1, Murakami further discloses wherein the one or more first stator modules comprises a first set of stator modules (42), and wherein the one or more second stator modules comprises a second set of stator modules (52).
Claim 9. The robot of claim 1, Murakami further discloses wherein the multiple stator modules are disposed on a printed circuit board (7, 97, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to overcome the prior art rejections set forth in the previous Office action. This is not persuasive. Numerous claims are newly anticipated by Caveney US 20250087514 and Fradella US4520300, respectively, as is detailed in the new grounds of rejection above. Claims 1-10 remain anticipated by Murakami US20220166298 and/or obvious over Murakami US20220166298, Moura US9948155, and/or Fradella US4520300 as is detailed in the reworded/new grounds above.
The examiner notes applicant’s argument that the Moura sealing between stator and rotor environments cannot be taught onto the Murakami stator/rotor environments since the stator/rotor arrangements differ therebetween (i.e., radial vs. axial). This is not persuasive. Applicant fails to persuasively explain how the benefits of sealing the stator from the rotor would not apply equally regardless of stator/rotor arrangement (radial or axial). To the contrary, the newly applied reference Fradella US4520300 demonstrates a stator/rotor arrangement similar to Murakami and expressly states that sealing of such arrangement is beneficial/obvious (e.g., see Fradella col.26, ll.42-65 detailing advantages of “ultra-high efficiency” and “negligible rotor heating” from keeping the rotor in sealed vacuum). Note the following:
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon above is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure due general structural similarity thereto (e.g., stator/rotor arrangements and environments thereof).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR L MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7085.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VICTOR L MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
