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 without traverse of Group I robot invention, in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2 (fig.3A) in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the species distinct since they are closely related variations of one another sharing some common features such that the species are not independent or distinct and do not require undue burden to search together in a single application. This is not persuasive as follows:
35 USC 121 allows for restriction of "Independent and distinct" inventions/species, and also allows for restriction of distinct (albeit dependent/related) inventions/species.
See MPEP 802.01 which states "The term 'independent' as already pointed out, means not dependent, or unrelated. A large number of inventions between which, prior to the 1952 Act, division had been proper, are dependent inventions… If section 121 of the 1952 Act were intended to direct the Director never to approve division between dependent inventions, the word "independent" would clearly have been used alone. If the Director has authority or discretion to restrict independent inventions only, then restriction would be improper as between dependent inventions... Such was clearly not the intent of Congress. Nothing in the language of the statute and nothing in the hearings of the committees indicate any intent to change the substantive law on this subject. On the contrary, joinder of the term "distinct" with the term "independent", indicates lack of such intent. The law has long been established that dependent inventions (frequently termed related inventions)… may be properly divided if they are, in fact, "distinct" inventions, even though dependent." (emphasis added).
See also MPEP 808.01(a) which states "A requirement for restriction is permissible if there is a patentable difference between the species as claimed and there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required" and further states that restriction where only generic claims are presented is permitted where the multiple disclosed species encompassed by the generic claims is such that "an unduly extensive and burdensome search would be necessary to search the entire scope of the claim" (emphasis added).
In the instant case, the mutually exclusive differences between the species disclosed in the drawings, written description and/or claims can support separate patents noting that applicant has made no admission on record that the species are obvious variants of one another. The mutually exclusive differences disclosed for the various species require different search queries thereby serving as an indication of undue burden in accordance with MPEP 808.02. Note that a full search and examination is not limited to the single symbol assigned to classify an application nor to the terms of the claims alone.
See MPEP 904.03 which states “It is normally not enough that references be selected to meet only the terms of the claims alone… the search should, insofar as possible, also cover all subject matter which the examiner reasonably anticipates might be incorporated into applicant’s amendment… In doing a complete search, the examiner should find and cite references that, while not needed for rejecting the claims, would be useful for forestalling the presentation of claims to other disclosed subject matter regarded by applicant as his or her invention, by showing that this other subject matter is old or obvious” (emphasis added).
Further note that examination burden is not limited to the initial search but rather includes numerous other activities conducted throughout prosecution such as careful consideration of amended claim scope, careful consideration of all arguments, reconsideration of all art in view of arguments/amendments (to include the U.S. Patents in all relevant classes, all relevant foreign art, all relevant publications and any relevant Non-patent literature), updating prior searches, formulating responses, constructing formal written replies, etc. The burden of all such tasks increases with the number of inventions under examination. Lastly, the examiner notes that the time spent searching, examining and preparing the current Office Action for only the features of the elected species has exceeded the time allotted for a first action on the merits of a single application such that any additional search/examination for the non-elected species would have been impossible and thus unduly burdensome as a factual matter.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking 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 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Moura US9948155.
Claims 1 and 10. A robot (e.g., fig.12), comprising: a first robot linkage (1509A); and a first axial flux motor (103, 1501, 1506) configured to drive the first robot linkage, wherein the first axial flux motor comprises: a housing (103); a rotor (1501) coupled to the first robot linkage; and multiple stator modules (1506) within the housing, wherein at least a portion of the housing (portion of 103) is to form a sealing barrier (sealing barrier of 103) between the multiple stator modules and a vacuum environment (fig.12 shows that stator modules 1506 are each on an opposite side of 103 from the “sealed environment (vacuum or atmosphere)”).
Claim 3. The robot of claim 1, wherein the multiple stator modules are sealed from the vacuum environment at least in part by the sealing barrier and one or more seals (1520).
Claim 4. The robot of claim 1, wherein the housing comprises an upper portion (1500) and a lower portion (103), and wherein a region between the upper portion and the lower portion is sealed by one or more seals (1520).
Claim 5. (Original) The robot of claim 1, wherein the rotor comprises multiple magnets (rotors are disclosed to be “ferromagnetic rotors” and “a closed magnetic flux circuit between the at least one stator and the at least one rotor”) exposed to the vacuum environment (see fig.12), 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, further comprising: a second robot linkage (1509B); and a second axial flux motor (1502) configured to drive the second robot linkage.
Claim 7. (Original) The robot of claim 6, wherein the second axial flux motor is disposed adjacent (i.e., adjacently below) to the first axial flux motor and shares a common axis (central axis of 2000) with the first axial flux motor.
Claim 8. The robot of claim 1, wherein a first set of the multiple stator modules (left set of 1506) are disposed on a first side of the rotor (left side of 1501), and wherein a second set of the multiple stator modules (right set of 1501) are disposed on a second side of the rotor (right side of 1501) opposite the first side.
Claim 9. A robot (e.g., figs.20A-20K), comprising: a first robot linkage (20208 and/or 20201); and a first axial flux motor (20206R, 20206S, 20200H) configured to drive the first robot linkage, wherein the first axial flux motor comprises: a housing (20200H, 20204); a rotor (20206R) coupled to the first robot linkage; and multiple stator modules (multiple modules of 20206S) within the housing, wherein at least a portion of the housing (20204) is to form a sealing barrier (20204) between the multiple stator modules and a vacuum environment (see written descriptions of figs. 20A-20K in col.18-21, and more particularly descriptions of housing/isolation wall 20204 and sealing of stators thereby), wherein the multiple stator modules are disposed (via 20200H) on a printed circuit board (see written description of “In one aspect the housing 20200H includes a control board aperture or slot PCBS formed in the housing 20200H and into which one or more printed circuit boards PCB…”).
Claims 1, 3-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hudgens US7688017.
Claims 1 and 10. A robot (figs.1-2), comprising: a first robot linkage (110); and a first axial flux motor (106, 134, 108, 104, 102, 120) configured to drive the first robot linkage, wherein the first axial flux motor comprises: a housing (106, 134, 108); a rotor (104) coupled to the first robot linkage; and multiple stator modules (102, 120) within the housing, wherein at least a portion of the housing (106) is to form a sealing barrier (106) between the multiple stator modules and a vacuum environment (“Vacuum” in figs 1-2).
Claim 3. The robot of claim 1, wherein the multiple stator modules are sealed from the vacuum environment at least in part by the sealing barrier and one or more seals (136, 138).
Claim 4. The robot of claim 1, wherein the housing comprises an upper portion (134) and a lower portion (106 and/or 108), and wherein a region between the upper portion and the lower portion is sealed by one or more seals (136, 138).
Claim 5. The robot of claim 1, wherein the rotor comprises multiple magnets (in that the rotors “magnetically couple” with the stators) exposed to the vacuum 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, further comprising: a second robot linkage (124); and a second axial flux motor (122) configured to drive the second robot linkage.
Claim 7. The robot of claim 6, wherein the second axial flux motor is disposed adjacent (i.e., adjacently below) to the first axial flux motor and shares a common axis (central axis of 100) with the first axial flux motor.
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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moura US9948155.
Claim 2. The figure 12 embodiment relied upon for anticipation of claim 1 above does not expressly disclose housing pockets for the stator modules nor that the stators each having conductive windings wound around a core. However, other embodiments of figures 24B and figures 25A-C show and are described as desirably so, and one of ordinary skill would recognize such pocket supporting structure to better retain the stators than without. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the figure 12 embodiment such that the housing forms multiple pockets (similar to pockets in 2405 receiving stators 206 in fig.24B; or similar to pockets in 2520a/2520b receiving stators in figs.25A-C), each of the multiple pockets to house one of the multiple stator modules, and wherein the multiple stator modules each comprise multiple conductive windings (similar to windings around 206 in fig.24B; similar to wound coils 2503 in figs.25A-C ) wound around a core (similar to “core of stator 206” in fig.24B; or similar to core 2506 in figs.25A-C).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudgens US7688017 in view of Murakami US20220166298.
Claim 2. The robot of claim 1, wherein Hudgens further discloses that the housing forms multiple pockets (pocket in 106 receiving 102; pocket in 106 receiving 120), each of the multiple pockets to house one of the multiple stator modules, and wherein the multiple stator modules each comprise multiple conductive windings (“application of current to windings of the stator”, col.3, ll.5-10 and 48-51). Hudgens does not expressly state that the windings are supported by cores. However, Murakami teaches that it was known to be desirable to support stator windings around a stator core (windings 43 around core of stator 42, and windings 53 around core of stator 52) and one of ordinary skill would have recognized such core support to be more desirable than not. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as such.
Conclusion
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