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 remains acknowledged.
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Claims 11-20 remain withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as anticipated by Murakami US20220166298 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Murakami US20220166298 and Moura US9948155.
Claims 1 and 10. 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; 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 (42, 52), wherein one or more first stator modules (42) of the multiple stator modules are disposed within the first portion of the housing above the rotor and one or more second stator modules (52) of the multiple stator modules are disposed within the second portion of the housing beneath the rotor; wherein at least a portion of the housing (41, 51, 80) is to form a sealing barrier between the multiple stator modules and a vacuum environment (41, 51 and 80 can at least seal the stator modules against debris larger than the connections therebetween, noting MPEP 2112.01 and 2114 regarding prima facie case of inherency of functions/properties [e.g., “is to form”] in product claims and applicant’s burden to obtain/test the prior art structure and submit evidence to the contrary).
Note that even if claim 1 were amended to positively require the vacuum environment (e.g., by replacing “is to form” with --forms--), the claim would still not set forth any particular magnitude of pressure for the “vacuum environment” nor does the claim set forth any particular region having a different/higher pressure than the “vacuum environment” such that the term “vacuum environment” is considered to be a mere label. Where there is physical identity between the subject matter of the claim and the prior art, the label given to the claimed subject matter does not distinguish the invention over the prior art. In re Pearson, 494 F. 2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974); In re Lemin, 326 F. 2d 437, 140 USPQ 273 (CCPA 1964).
Alternatively, in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner notes that if the claims were amended to stipulate that the rotor is in a vacuum environment and that the stators are in an atmosphere environment that was sealed off from the vacuum environment by a portion of the housing that extends between the rotor and the stators, such would have been well known to be desirable in the art for better protecting parts from corrosion, particle contamination and/or ultra-high vacuum, and thus would have been an obvious modification of Murakami to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See the Moura teachings/depictions of vacuum/atmosphere throughout numerous embodiments of figs. 7-15, 24A, 24B, 28E-28I, 31 and the Moura written descriptions thereof.
Claim 2. The robot of claim 1, 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 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 (the sealing barrier constitutes “at least in part” of the barrier and seals, i.e., a barrier part).
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 (80).
Claim 5. The robot of claim 1, wherein the rotor comprises multiple magnets (6) exposed to the vacuum environment (environment surrounding 6, see the two single-spaced paragraphs at the end of the explanations/mappings of claim 1 elsewhere above), 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 (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, 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, 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, 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's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights