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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13, and 14, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 15-20 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the outer contour of the inner arc" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the outer contour of the outer arc" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 19 line 2, it is unclear if the recitation “a square mount” is intended to reference the previously recited square mount (cl. 13 line 3), or another square mount.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-12, 15, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,556,920 to Knoll et al.
Re-claim 1, Knoll et al. disclose a plane torsion spring, for a series-elastic actuator, having an inner fastening point 217, at least two outer fastening points 217 and at least two spring arms 220a/220b, each connects the inner fastening point to one of the outer fastening points in a spring-elastic manner, the spring arms have a similar contour and extending symmetrically, preferably point-symmetrically, with respect to the inner fastening point, the spring arms have an S-shaped profile.
Re-claim 2, the torsion spring has two arms 220a and 220b.
Re-claims 3 and 18, a straight line extends through an outer fastening point and a center point of the torsion spring, the S-shaped spring arms each have an inner arc adjacent the inner fastening point and an outer arc adjacent the outer fastening point, the length of a distance of an outer contour of the inner arc relative to the torsion spring centerline and the length of a distance of an outer contour of the outer arc relative to the torsion spring centerline differ by less than 20% and less than 10%. As seen in the figure below the distances are substantially equal.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 7, spring sections that have a similar radial distance to the center as the outer fastening points have a smaller width, the area with the smallest width is at the smallest radial distance to the outer fastening point. See above figure, the spring section is interpreted as that section adjacent the W cross section.
Re-claim 8, the method of manufacture is not patentably distinct from the prior art, see MPEP 2113.
Re-claim 9, Knoll et al. disclose the spring made from metal, such as titanium, which can be formed as an amorphous metal as desired.
Re-claim 10, the S-shaped spring arms have a varying thickness between the fastening points, see column 2 lines 4-5 (… the arms and the central portion have a non-unitary height).
Re-claim 11, the S-shaped arms can be provided with indentations (such as voids or holes, see column 5 lines 26-28).
Re-claim 12, the S-shaped arms can be provided with a bulge (see figure 2D and top and bottom extensions interpreted as bulges).
Re-claim 15, the spring is part of a series-elastic actuator having an electric drive (see figure 3B and column 6 lines 4-23).
Re-claim 16, the inner fastening point is fixedly coupled to the electric drive and the outer fastening points are rotatably coupled to an actuated element (see figure 3B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoll et al. in view of US 4,145,936 to Vincent et al.
Re-claims 13 and 19, Knoll et al. fail to teach the inner fastening point having an angular receptacle that includes a square mount rounded at the corners.
Vincent et al. teach an inner fastening point (see figure 3) having an angular receptacle. It is further obvious that rounding the corners is within skill of those skilled in the art, as this would provide the inner fastening point shaped to the output motor/gear as desired. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have shaped the inner fastening point of Knoll et al. as an angular receptacle with rounded corners as shown and taught in Vincent et al., as a matter of design choice.
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoll et al. in view of US 6,983,924 to Howell et al.
Re-claim 17, Knoll et al. fail to teach a manufacturing method comprising the steps of providing an injection mold for the spring, injecting a suitable material for molding the spring, cooling the injection mold, removing the spring and machining the spring surface. Knoll et al. does show a planar spring having smooth upper and lower surfaces, consistent with a machining process.
Howell et al. teach the use of injection mold apparatus for producing planar springs (see column 4 lines 59-67 to column 5 lines 1-5). It stands to reason that upon successful injection mold of the planar spring, that the injection mold would be cooled, then removed from the mold. Upon which the surface of the injection mold spring would be machined to remove unwanted material, as this would allow the spring to perform as intended without interference from surface residue. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the manufactured the planar spring of Knoll et al. using injection mold techniques as suggested by Howell et al., and to have further finished the surface of the planar spring by removing excess residue and rounded the edges, thus providing the planar spring in the best possible condition for use.
Re-claim 20, Knoll et al. disclose the spring made from metal, such as titanium, which can be formed as an amorphous metal as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ziegler and Jang each teach a torsion spring with radially extended arms.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi, can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
June 10, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights