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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Nishikawa, Nakashima, and Staab do not disclosed newly amended claim 1, which now includes the limitations from claims 3 and 4.
Applicant first argues that Nishikawa teaches away from having a heat insulating material to limit heat dissipation. However, as shown below, Staab clearly teaches this for at least the benefit of allowing the servomotor to be deployed in a cold environment. This is something that Nishikawa does not consider and thus, is an improvement over the design of Nishikawa. As stated below, the claim does not make any mention of the insulating material in relation to the location of the encoder.
Applicant further argues that the skilled artisan would not find it obvious to modify Nishikawa to have the encoder above the stator, as disclosed by Nakashima, because “(i) a stator in contact with a heat transmission member that is in turn in contact with a robot structural body, (ii) a heat insulating material limiting heat dissipation from the heat transmission member to the air, and (iii) the heat transmission member not being in contact with the encoder, which is above the stator”. However, regarding (i), this is disclosed by Nishikawa, as shown below, regarding (ii) as stated above, Staab clearly teaches this, and regarding (iii) the combination of Nishikawa and Nakashima disclose this.
Applicant’s arguments continue to state that the instant invention requires the heat insulating material to limit heat dissipation to the encoder because the location of the encoder being above the stator requires the heat exposed to the encoder to be limited. However, this is not recited in claim 1. All claim 1 requires is limiting heat dissipation to the surrounding air. The breadth of this limitation allows Staab to teach this, as Staab explicitly teaches a benefit of having insulation limiting dissipation to the surrounding air. New claim 9 somewhat touches upon this idea, but it is claiming the negative. It is suggested for Applicant to pursue this with more of an explicitly positive limitation stating the location of the stator, insulation, and encoder and their relationship with one another.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (JP 2020-015146 A, English translation attached), in view of Nakashima et al. (“Nakashima”; US 5,006,035) and Staab et al. (“Staab”; US 2013/0268117).
Regarding claim 1: Nishikawa discloses a cooling structure for a servomotor (1, Fig. 6), the cooling structure cooling the servomotor fixed to a robot structural body (103), wherein
the servomotor comprises a drive unit that comprises a rotor (inherently connected to 1a) and a stator (inherently radially outside of 1a), and an encoder (11) that detects rotation of the rotor,
the cooling structure comprises a heat transmission member (4, Fig. 5) fixed in a state of being in contact with an outer surface of the stator (via 4c) and a surface of the robot structural body (via 4a), the heat transmission member transmitting heat from the stator to the robot structural body (at 7),
the heat transmission member is not in contact with an outer surface of the encoder (as shown in Fig. 6), and
the servomotor is fixed to the robot structural body (inherent).
Nishikawa does not explicitly disclose a heat insulating material that limits heat dissipation from the heat transmission member to surrounding air and a posture in which the encoder is placed above the stator.
However, Staab discloses a heat insulating material that limits heat dissipation from the heat transmission member to surrounding air (paragraph 0040).
And, Nakashima discloses the servomotor (Mθ) is fixed to the robot structural body (16a) in a posture in which the encoder (ECθ) is placed above the stator (part of the motor, as shown in the figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat dissipation member of Nakashima to include the heat insulating material in order to insulate the servomotor against the environment (paragraph 0040) and to modify the encoder of Nishikawa to be above the stator, as disclosed by Nakashima in order to allow for easier access.
Regarding claim 2: Nishikawa discloses the heat transmission member is arranged at a position so as to cover the outer surface of the stator and not to cover the outer surface of the encoder (as 4 is arranged along the outer surface of the servomotor 1 in Fig. 6 and the encoder is below).
Regarding claim 5: Nishikawa discloses the heat transmission member comprises a flat plate member (4b, the side along 4a is flat) that is brought into close contact with the outer surface of the stator and the surface of the robot structural body (as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6: Nishikawa discloses the heat transmission member is provided with a filler (4c) that promotes adhesion between the flat plate member and the outer surface of the stator or between the flat plate member and the surface of the robot structural body (4th full paragraph of page 6 of the translation, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, grease “promotes” adhesion as it brings 4b and the outer surface of the state together without a gap).
Regarding claim 7: Nishikawa discloses the heat transmission member is in close contact with each of two or more outer surfaces of the stator (Fig. 5, 4 surrounds at least 3 sides of the stator).
Regarding claim 8: Nishikawa discloses the robot comprising the cooling structure for the servomotor according to claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 9: Nishikawa discloses no heat transfer path is formed between the heat transmission member (4) and the encoder (11, Fig. 3 shows no connection between 4 and 11).
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 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 SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights