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 with traverse of the Group I system subcombination invention, in the reply filed on 5/21/2025, remains acknowledged. The traversal was addressed and the requirement made final in the previous 6/2/2025 Office action. Claims 5-9 and 13-20 remain withdrawn.
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.
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 1-4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Koenig US20180079090 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Koenig US20180079090 and Somasundaram US7621007.
Claim 1. A system comprising: a first link (first of the “arm links”, para.[0077], e.g., one of 1410 or 1420); a second link (second of the “arm links”, para.[0077], e.g., other of 1410 or 1420); a joint (“one or more joint modules may include a safety brake”, para.[0077]) connecting the first link and the second link; and a dual brake assembly (1430, 1440) including a first brake (1440) and a second brake (1430), wherein the first brake is a power-off brake that automatically engages when unpowered (see first sentence of para.0091), wherein braking the dual brake assembly reduces relative motion between the first and second links, wherein the first brake provides a first brake holding strength when engaged, the second brake provides a second brake holding strength when engaged, and the second brake holding strength is different from the first brake holding strength (see para.[0090] and [0091]); and an actuator (1414, 1416) coupled to the first link, wherein the actuator is configured to control relative movement between the first link and the second link; wherein: the first brake is an actuator brake (1440) coupled to the actuator (see fig.14C), wherein the actuator brake is configured to provide braking to the actuator; and the second brake is a joint brake (1430) coupled to the first link and coupled to the second link (see fig.14C), wherein the joint brake is configured to control relative movement between the first link and the second link. Note that the term “coupled” does not require direct contact such that the prior art elements comprised by the prior art robot are coupled thereto and to each other, at least indirectly, within the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim language. The claim 1 limitation “wherein the second brake is a power-on brake that automatically disengages when unpowered and does not provide braking when disengaged” is suggested by the art in any one or more of the following ways:
Koenig para. [0091] discloses “In the event of a power failure… If the rotor needs to be movable… (e.g., for manually reposing the robotic arm, backdriving, etc.)… ratchet brake assembly 1430 may disengage from the stopped rotor (e.g., deactivating and re-engaging its magnetic latch)”. Accordingly, the second brake (1430) can disengage and not provide braking when two conditions occur, i.e., power failure/off and deactivation of the magnetic latch, noting that disengagement inherently results in not providing braking. This meets the limitation “automatically disengages when unpowered and does not provide braking when disengaged” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation since “automatically” does not necessarily forbid multi-condition automation. Note that applicant’s specification expressly describes “automatically” with reference to other than only a power-off condition (i.e., a command generated by a controller in para.0115 -0117 of applicant’s specification) such that “automatically” can and must reasonably be interpreted broadly enough to allow for multiple conditions other than only power-off; and/or
Alternatively, since the limitation does not specify any particular mechanism or controller to cause the automatic engagement/disengagement, Koenig para.[0078] discloses the limitation by stating “the safety brake may be disengaged such as with a button or handle” Note that the claim does not expressly/negatively forbid any manual manipulation in addition to the claimed automatic engagement/disengagement, and further note that even though the button/handle would likely require some initial manual manipulation the disengagement that follows is obviously automatically carried out, thereby meeting the claim; and/or
Alternatively, 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 Koenig second brake (1430) to achieve its disclosed [para.0091] disengaged state upon losing power through automatic control from a PCB microprocessor since Koenig para.[0095] teaches an embodiment utilizing a PCB microprocessor to control brakes between brake-on and brake-off states, and one of ordinary skill would recognize such automatic processor control for the embodiment of [para.0091] to be quicker and more precise than without. See MPEP 2144.04 (III) which states “broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art”; and/or
Alternatively, 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 Koenig to have the above noted limitation since Somasundaram teaches that it was extremely well known for a duel brake system (power-off brake 540; power-on brake 545) to have the second brake thereof be a power-on brake (power-on brake 545) that automatically disengages when unpowered and does not provide braking when disengaged for the benefit of increasing safety and ease of adjustment (col.7, l.51 – col.8, l.59).
Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the second brake (1430) holding strength is greater than the first brake (1440) holding strength (see para.[0090] and [0091]).
Claim 3. The system of claim 1 wherein the first brake holding strength allows manual articulation of the first link relative to the second link by manual force applied by an operator (see para.[0090] and [0091]).
Claim 4. The system of claim 1, wherein: the first brake comprises an actuator brake; and the second brake comprises a joint brake (in that the brakes are actuated and break relative motion at joints). Note that 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).
Claim 10. The system of claim 1, wherein: the first brake comprises a housing (one of 1412 or 1422); the second brake comprises a housing (another of 1412 or 1422); the housing of the first brake is mounted on the first link and the first brake is coupled to the second link; and the housing of the second brake is mounted on the first link and the second brake is coupled to the second link.
Claim 11. The system of claim 1, further comprising: a transmission assembly (see para. [0071], which states “the actuator assemblies may include a gearbox coupled to the motor output, such as a harmonic drive, planetary gearbox, cycloidal drive, etc. to increase overall torque output”) coupled to the actuator and to the second link; wherein: the actuator is mounted on the first link the first brake is coupled to the actuator; and the second brake is mounted on the first link and is coupled to the second link.
Claim 12. The system of claim 1, further comprising: a transmission assembly (see para. [0071], which states “the actuator assemblies may include a gearbox coupled to the motor output, such as a harmonic drive, planetary gearbox, cycloidal drive, etc. to increase overall torque output”) mounted on the first link and coupled to the second link; wherein: the actuator is connected to the transmission assembly; the first brake is coupled to the actuator; and the second brake is mounted on the first link and is coupled to the second link.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The art of record does not suggest the totality of limitations, does not provide any teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify toward the entirety of applicant's claims, nor was there any readily apparent cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art to obtain the entirety of applicant’s claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 1 overcomes Koenig. This is not persuasive. the prior art continues to suggest claim 1 as is detailed in the reworded rejection above.
Regarding applicant’s arguments regarding power-on/power-off, note that Koenig [0090-0091] discloses that both brakes 1430 and 1140 operate in brake on mode when unpowered such that the limitation “wherein the second brake is a power-on brake that automatically disengages when unpowered and does not provide braking when disengaged” is not disclosed by Koenig. This is NOT persuasive. While Koenig discloses that both brakes can be engaged when unpowered, such is not required at all possible unpowered scenarios. Koenig also discloses that brake 1430 can be disengaged when unpowered to not provide braking when disengaged. More particularly, Koenig suggests the argued limitation in any one or more of the following ways:
Koenig para. [0091] discloses “In the event of a power failure… If the rotor needs to be movable… (e.g., for manually reposing the robotic arm, backdriving, etc.)… ratchet brake assembly 1430 may disengage from the stopped rotor (e.g., deactivating and re-engaging its magnetic latch)”. Accordingly, the second brake (1430) can disengage and not provide braking when two conditions occur, i.e., power failure/off and deactivation of the magnetic latch, noting that disengagement inherently results in not providing braking. This meets the limitation “automatically disengages when unpowered and does not provide braking when disengaged” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation since “automatically” does not necessarily forbid multi-condition automation. Note that applicant’s specification expressly describes “automatically” with reference to other than only a power-off condition (i.e., a command generated by a controller in para.0115 -0117 of applicant’s specification) such that “automatically” can and must reasonably be interpreted broadly enough to allow for multiple conditions other than only power-off; and/or
Alternatively, since the limitation does not specify any particular mechanism or controller to cause the automatic engagement/disengagement, Koenig para.[0078] discloses the limitation by stating “the safety brake may be disengaged such as with a button or handle” Note that the claim does not expressly/negatively forbid any manual manipulation in addition to the claimed automatic engagement/disengagement, and further note that even though the button/handle would likely require some initial manual manipulation the disengagement that follows is obviously automatically carried out, thereby meeting the claim; and/or
Alternatively, 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 Koenig second brake (1430) to achieve its disclosed [para.0091] disengaged state upon losing power through automatic control from a PCB microprocessor since Koenig para.[0095] teaches an embodiment utilizing a PCB microprocessor to control brakes between brake-on and brake-off states, and one of ordinary skill would recognize such automatic processor control for the embodiment of [para.0091] to be quicker and more precise than without. See MPEP 2144.04 (III) which states “broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art”
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 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 mailing 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