DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1: The limitation “a middle part of a projection of the output cover on the input sleeve,” as recited in Claim 1, is reasonably interpreted to mean that the claimed “projection” forms part of the “input sleeve.” However, based on Applicant’s disclosure, this is not the case. The Office acknowledges that a dimension of the “projection” may be defined by the “peripheral edge of the input sleeve” – and perhaps this is a concept that Applicant is attempting to claim. The limitation recited in Claim 1, however, does not clearly claim this concept based on the above reasoning. If Applicant intends to claim the spatial relationship between the “middle part of the projection of the output cover” and the “peripheral edge of the input sleeve,” then one possible, easy way of doing so would be to delete the words “on the input sleeve” (Line 12) and amending the word “out” (Line 12) to recite “past.”
Claims 2, 5-9, 18, and 22: The metes and bounds of the limitation “far away” (e.g., Line 6 of Claim 2, Line 1 of Claim 5, etc.) are unclear. How far is far? The Office recommends amendments which clarify, e.g., first and second sides of various elements as a way of defining relevant spatial relationships. The Office acknowledges Applicant’s 03/17/2026 arguments. The Claim language remains indefinite.
Claims 5, 9, and 23: The metes and bounds of the limitation “close to” (e.g., Line 3 of Claim 5, Line 3 and 9 of Claim 9, etc.) are unclear. How close is close? The Office acknowledges Applicant’s 03/17/2026 arguments. The Claim language remains indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The text of 35 U.S.C. § 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 27 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Publication No. 208117853 U to Zhao, which discloses:
Claim 1: A joint module (see annotated FIG. 6 below), comprising:
a mounting shell, wherein the mounting shell comprises a joint mounting portion and an input sleeve connected to the joint mounting portion, the joint mounting portion defines a joint mounting cavity, and the input sleeve is configured to be connected to an external power input structure to enable the external power input structure to drive the joint module to move; and
a central axis of the joint mounting portion is perpendicular to a central axis of the input sleeve; and
a joint body, wherein the joint body is partially mounted in the joint mounting cavity, the joint body has an output cover, the output cover is located out of the joint mounting cavity, and a middle part of a projection of the output cover on the input sleeve does not protrude out of a peripheral edge of the input sleeve.
Claim 27 essentially recites a “joint robot comprising [the joint module of Claim 1].” Zhao discloses a joint robot (see annotated FIG. 6 below). Thus, Zhao anticipates Claim 27.
PNG
media_image1.png
939
1148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The text of 35 U.S.C. § 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Publication No. 208117853 U to Zhao, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. 218837821 U to He et al.
Claim 18: Zhao discloses the joint module according to claim 1, wherein the joint module comprises a motor assembly.
Zhao does not disclose the speed reducer or encoder recited in Claim 18.
He teaches an encoder which is fixed to an output shaft 5 of a speed reducer of a “high precision robot joint.” The encoder comprises a first code disk 2, a second code disk 1, a first reading head 7, and a second reading head 6, wherein the first code disk 2 is installed at an end of the output shaft 5, and the second code disk 1 is installed on a motor rotor 4 and surrounds the first code disk 2, the first reading head 7 is opposite to the first code disk 2 to read motion information of the first code disk 2, the second reading head 6 is opposite to the second code disk 1 to read motion information of the second code disk 1, a first spacing is formed between the first reading head 7 and the first code disk 2, and a second spacing is formed between the second reading head 6 and the second code disk 1, wherein the first spacing is greater than or less than the second spacing (see FIGS. 1-2).
The encoder further comprises a circuit board, and the first reading head 7 and the second reading head 6 are mounted on the circuit board (relevant to Claim 19).
Further, a protruding height of the first reading head 7 on the circuit board is the same as a protruding height of the second reading head 6 on the circuit board, and a surface of the first code disk 2 facing the circuit board and a surface of the second code disk 1 facing the circuit board are not flush with each other (relevant to Claim 20).
Further, a difference between the first distance and the second distance is 0.1 mm to 1 mm (relevant to Claim 21).
Further, the encoder further comprises a connecting seat 201, the connecting seat 201 comprises a connecting cylinder and a connecting ring, the connecting cylinder is connected to one end of the output shaft 5 far away from the output cover, the connecting ring is connected to a free end of the connecting cylinder, and the first code disk 2 is mounted on the connecting ring (relevant to Claim 22).
Further, the encoder further comprises a support ring 101, the support ring 101 being connected to an end of the motor rotor 4 close to the encoder, and the second code disk is mounted on the support ring 101 (relevant to Claim 23).
A motivation that He provides for the design of the encoder taught therein is to more fully utilize a narrow space within the robot joint.
In view of the He teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the joint module disclosed by Zhao, so as to comprise a speed reducer in order to reduce an output speed of the motor of the joint module, and an encoder in order to accurately measure the speed and orientation of the output of the joint module, wherein the motor assembly comprises a housing, a motor stator and a motor rotor, the motor stator being mounted in the housing, and the motor rotor being rotatably mounted on an inner peripheral side of the motor stator (the Office takes Official Notice that a well-known configuration of motors includes a housing, a motor stator and a motor rotor, wherein the motor stator is mounted in the housing, and the motor rotor is rotatably mounted on an inner peripheral side of the motor stator), and wherein the speed reducer is installed on one side of the motor assembly, the speed reducer comprises an input shaft, an output cover and an output shaft (similar to the output shaft 5 of He), the input shaft being matched with the motor rotor (in order to transfer torque from the motor to the speed reducer), the output cover being disposed on one side of the speed reducer far away from the motor assembly, the output shaft passes through the input shaft (similar to the way output shaft 5 of He passes through the input shaft 4 of He), wherein one end of the output shaft is connected to the output cover in order to transfer rotational motion to the output cover, and another end of the output shaft extends to one side of the motor assembly far away from the speed reducer, wherein the encoder comprises a first code disk, a second code disk, a first reading head, and a second reading head, wherein the first code disk is installed at an end of the output shaft, and the second code disk is installed on a motor rotor and surrounds the first code disk, the first reading head is opposite to the first code disk to read motion information of the first code disk, the second reading head is opposite to the second code disk to read motion information of the second code disk, a first spacing is formed between the first reading head and the first code disk, and a second spacing is formed between the second reading head and the second code disk, wherein the first spacing is greater than or less than the second spacing, in order to more fully utilize a narrow space within the joint module.
Claim 19: As described above in the rejection of Claim 18, the He encoder includes the features of the encoder recited in Claim 19. Thus, in view of the He teaching, the Office further finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify the joint module disclosed by Zhao, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the encoder further comprises a circuit board, and the first reading head and the second reading head are mounted on the circuit board, in order to more fully utilize a narrow space within the joint module.
Claim 20: As described above in the rejection of Claim 18, the He encoder includes the features of the encoder recited in Claim 20. Thus, in view of the He teaching, the Office further finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify the joint module disclosed by Zhao, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that a protruding height of the first reading head on the circuit board is the same as a protruding height of the second reading head on the circuit board; and a surface of the first code disk facing the circuit board and a surface of the second code disk facing the circuit board are not flush with each other, in order to more fully utilize a narrow space within the joint module.
Claim 21: As described above in the rejection of Claim 18, the He encoder includes the features of the encoder recited in Claim 21. Thus, in view of the He teaching, the Office further finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify the joint module disclosed by Zhao, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that a difference between the first distance and the second distance is 0.1 mm to 1 mm, in order to more fully utilize a narrow space within the joint module.
Claim 22: As described above in the rejection of Claim 18, the He encoder includes the features of the encoder recited in Claim 22. Thus, in view of the He teaching, the Office further finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify the joint module disclosed by Zhao, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the encoder further comprises a connecting seat, the connecting seat comprises a connecting cylinder and a connecting ring, the connecting cylinder is connected to one end of the output shaft far away from the output cover, the connecting ring is connected to a free end of the connecting cylinder, and the first code disk is mounted on the connecting ring, in order to more fully utilize a narrow space within the joint module.
Claim 23: As described above in the rejection of Claim 18, the He encoder includes the features of the encoder recited in Claim 23. Thus, in view of the He teaching, the Office further finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify the joint module disclosed by Zhao, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the encoder further comprises a support ring, the support ring is connected to an end of the motor rotor close to the encoder, and the second code disk is mounted on the support ring, in order to more fully utilize a narrow space within the joint module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's 03/17/2026 arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Office provided a more annotated version of FIG. 6 which addresses the three arguments Applicant presented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-17 and 24-26, as best understood, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten to overcome the pending clarity issues under 35 U.S.C. 112.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Chinese Patent Publication No. 208117853 U to Zhao and Chinese Patent Publication No. 218837821 U to He et al. are the closest prior art.
Claim 2: Zhao discloses the joint module according to claim 1, wherein the joint body comprises a motor assembly 402. Zhao does not expressly disclose wherein the joint body comprises a speed reducer; nevertheless, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to provide a speed reducer between the motor assembly 402 and the subsequent link 102, in order to increase torque to the link 102 and reduce speed of the motor 402. A rotating shaft is shown in FIG. 6 (this shaft is also annotated in the European search opinion). This rotating shaft is understood to be an output shaft of a speed reducer; as shown in FIG. 6, the output shaft satisfies the limitation of Claim 1 relating to the spatial relationship between the “middle part of the projection of the output cover” and the “peripheral edge of the input sleeve.”
Guan teaches a similar joint module. The joint module of Guan comprises a speed reducer 40 connected to a motor assembly 51, 52 in an axial direction. Guan also teaches a protecting cover 700, the protecting cover is detachably covered at an end of a joint mounting portion far away from an output cover. Guan does not teach or suggest wherein “a projection of the protecting cover on the input sleeve does not protrude from the peripheral edge of the input sleeve.”
The Office finds that the claim feature of “a projection of the protecting cover on the input sleeve does not protrude from the peripheral edge of the input sleeve,” as recited in Claim 2, when considered in light of other existing claimed features and based upon the prior art of record, renders the claims novel and non-obvious.
Claim 4: Zhao does not disclose or suggest the claimed “step portion” and “second sealing ring.”
Claim 9, as best understood: The closest art does not disclose or suggest the structural elements of the “guide section” recited therein, including the “first connecting hole,” “clearance groove,” “fastening gasket,” and “first via hole.”
Claim 24: The Office does not find that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to modify the closest art in order to attain the “brake assembly” recited in Claim 24.
Conclusion
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 RANDELL J KRUG whose telephone number is (313) 446-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00-14:00 AZ time.
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 on 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.
/RANDELL J KRUG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618