DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14, 16 and 21-25 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “an internal circumference of the external seal is larger at the seal external surface than behind the seal external surface”. It is unclear what is required by the claim limitation, and what is required to be “behind”.
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, 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 1-2, 4-10, 14, 16 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashiro (US 20190105786 A1) in view of Klingler (US 5836219 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashiro discloses an industrial robot (see Fig. 1; 1) comprising: a base structure (see Fig. 4; 3) having an opening (17); a lid (18) configured to fit in the opening (see Fig. 3). Yamashiro fails to disclose a static external seal bridging a gap between the base structure and the lid when the lid is fitted in the opening, the external seal being disposed entirely within the gap; wherein the external seal forms within the gap a closed path entirely visible from a single perspective. However, Klingler teaches a static external seal (see Fig. 7; 5.1) bridging a gap between the base structure (2) and the lid (4) when the lid is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 2; opening in 2), the external seal being disposed entirely within the gap (see Fig. 7, wherein 5.1 is disposed entirely within the gap between the base structure 2 and the lid 4); wherein the external seal forms within the gap a closed path entirely visible from a single perspective (see Fig. 3 and 7; wherein when seal 5.1 is formed within the gap, a closed path is entirely visible from a single perspective). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Yamashiro with an external static seal, as taught by Klingler, to ensure a moisture-tight closure between a case and a cover (see column 1 lines 29-31); and to help join the lid and base structure to prevent leakage, contain pressure and/or exclude contamination
Regarding claim 2, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the base structure (Yamashiro, 3) comprises a base external surface (Yamashiro, external surface of 3), wherein the lid (Yamashiro, 18) includes a lid external surface (Yamashiro, external surface of 18), and wherein the base external surface and the lid external surface are substantially flush with each other immediately adjacent to the external seal when the lid is fitted in the opening (Klingler, Fig. 7, external surface of 2 and the external surface of 4 are flush, i.e., completely level or even with another surface).
Regarding claim 4, Yamashiro discloses the opening (17) defines a depth direction (see Fig. 3; downward direction in the figure).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashiro discloses the lid external surface (external surface of 18) is substantially transverse to the depth direction (vertical direction in Fig. 3) when the lid is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the external seal (Klingler, 5.1) is compressed in a direction (Klingler, Fig. 7, horizontal direction in the figure) parallel with the depth direction (Yamashiro, Fig. 3, vertical direction in the figure) when the lid (Yamashiro, 18) is fitted in the opening (Yamashiro, 17).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the external seal (Klingler, 5.1) is compressed in a direction (Klingler, Fig. 7, vertical direction in the figure) transverse to the depth direction (Yamashiro, Fig. 3, vertical direction in the figure) when the lid (Yamashiro, 18) is fitted in the opening (Yamashiro, 17).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the lid (Yamashiro, 18) comprises a lid groove (Klingler, Fig. 5, groove between 4.1 and 4.12) for receiving the external seal (Klingler, 5.1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the lid (Klingler, 4) includes a lid external surface (Klinger, Fig. 7, external surface of 4 (right side surface in the figure)), and wherein the lid groove (Klingler, Fig. 5, groove between 4.1 and 4.12) faces in a direction away from a position of the lid external surface (Klingler, Fig. 7, wherein the groove between 4.1 and 4.12 faces away from the external surface of 4).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the base structure (Klingler, 2) comprises a base groove (Klingler, Fig. 7, 2.2) for receiving the external seal (Klingler, 5.1).
Regarding claim 14, Yamashiro discloses the industrial robot (1) comprises a plurality of links (see Fig. 1) interconnected by a plurality of joints, and wherein the base structure (3) is fixed to one of the links (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the lid (Klingler, 4) includes a lid external surface (Klingler, external surface of 4), and wherein the base groove (Klingler, Fig. 7, 2.2) faces in a direction towards a position of the lid external surface when the lid is fitted in the opening (Klingler, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 21, Yamashiro discloses the lid (18) includes a lid external surface (external surface of 18) which is entirely flat (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 22, Yamashiro discloses the base structure (2) includes a base groove (2.2) formed in the gap and configured to receive the external seal (5.1); the lid (4) includes a lid groove (groove between 4.1 and 4.12) formed in the gap and configured to receive the external seal (see Fig. 7); and the base groove and the lid groove are configured to compress the external seal in both an axial direction and a radial direction with respect to a central axis of the opening (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 23, Yamashiro discloses the base groove (2.2) and the face groove (groove between 4.1 and 4.12) are both concave (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 24, Yamashiro discloses the base groove (2.2) and the face groove (groove between 4.1 and 4.12) face each other (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 25, Yamashiro discloses the external seal (5.1) comprises a seal external surface (outer circumferential surface of 5.1); an internal circumference of the external seal (see Fig. 5; left side vertical face of 5.1) is larger at the seal external surface than behind the seal external surface (see Fig. 5, wherein the left side vertical face of 5.1 is larger at the connection with the outer circumference of 5.1 than behind the seal, e.g., below the seal in the figure).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashiro (US 20190105786 A1) in view of Klingler (US 5836219 A) and Li (US 20220161448 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yamashiro in view of Klingler fail to disclose the external seal comprises a seal external surface that is substantially flush with the base external surface and the lid external surface when the lid is fitted in the opening. However, Li teaches the external seal (see Fig. 3; 20) comprises a seal external surface (external surface of 20) that is substantially flush with a first external surface (externals surface of 220) and a second external surface (external surface of 240). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Yamashiro in view of Klingler with an external seal that is substantially flush with adjacent external surfaces, as taught by Li, to eliminate any uneven surface which can snag any cables, wires, operator clothing, etc., in the working environment and can lead to damage of the robot; and to eliminate an uneven surfaces in which dust and/or debris can accumulate during operation which can reduce downtime and/or cleaning time. As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: a seal external surface (Klingler, external surface of 5.1) that is substantially flush with the base external surface (Yamashiro, external surface of 3) and the lid external surface (Yamashiro, external surface of 18) when the lid is fitted in the opening (Yamashiro, Fig. 3).
Claim 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashiro (US 20190105786 A1) in view of Klingler (US 5836219 A) and Tondar (DE 19642263 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Yamashiro fails to disclose a secondary seal configured to seal between the base structure and the lid when the lid is fitted in the opening. However, Tondar teaches a secondary seal (see Fig. 1-3; 9) configured to seal between the base structure (4) and the lid (12) when the lid is fitted in the opening (3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Yamashiro with a secondary seal, as taught by Tondar, to provide a seal without gaps and dead spaces that prevents the intrusion of unwanted substances (see attached English translation, page 1, paragraphs 2-3).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of claim 11 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the opening (Tondar, 3) defines a depth direction (Tondar, Fig. 3, horizontal direction in the figure), and wherein the secondary seal (Tondar, 9) is compressed in a direction transverse to the depth direction when the lid is fitted in the opening (Tondar, Fig. 3, wherein 9 is compressed in the vertical direction via 4).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of claim 11 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the lid (Tondar, 12) comprises a secondary groove (Tondar, groove between 10 and 12), and wherein the secondary seal (9) is seated in the secondary groove (Tondar, Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Klingler fails to disclose “the external seal being disposed entirely within the gap”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Column 4 lines 37-45 of Klingler read “a static sealing edge has a wedge-shaped cross-section widening with increasing depth of insertion between said peripheral web and a side wall of said peripheral channel-shaped groove…said static sealing edge is underhung, at its front insertion end, by a guide edge of said peripheral web and is set back radially at its rear insertion end by means of a shoulder”. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the seal (5.1) of Klingler is wedge shaped and is limited by the shoulder (5.2), which is entirely within the gap between the base structure (2) and the lid (4). Therefore, Klingler discloses “the external seal being disposed entirely within the gap”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the written description of Yamashiro does not disclose a gap between the first arm 3 and the cover 18, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, MPEP 2125(I) states “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979)”. In this instance, Fig. 3 of Yamashiro (shown below) clearly shows a gap between the base structure and the lid. Therefore, Yamashiro discloses a gap between the first arm 3 and the cover 18.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the elastic gasket layer as taught by Klingler does not equate to an external seal as provided in the present application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as noted by Applicant, claim 1 requires “the external seal forms within the gap a closed path entirely visible from a single perspective”. However, there are no requirements on where the perspective is taken from, or what the limitation “external” is referring to. Therefore, the combination of Yamashiro and Klingler disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Klingler is non-analogous art, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Page 2 lines 12-14 of the instant application read “One object of the invention is to provide an improved industrial robot comprising an external seal configured to seal between a base structure and a cover when the cover is fitted in an opening”. Additionally, column 1 lines 29-31 of Klingler read “According to a first object of the present invention, a moisture-tight closure between the gear case and the gear case cover should continue to be insured”. Both the instant application and Klingler explicitly state the purpose of providing a seal between a base and cover. Therefore, the prior art of Klingler is reasonable pertinent to the problem addressed by the instant application and is considered analogous art.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Yamashiro fails to disclose the limitations of claims 22-25, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen from the rejection of claims 22-25, Yamashiro discloses a base groove and a lid groove, which are concave and face each other.
Given at least the arguments presented above, Yamashiro in view of Klingler disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and claims 22-25.
PNG
media_image1.png
454
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1 - US 20190105786 A1 Fig. 3 Partial
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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 at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618