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 Objections
Claim13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “wherein apparatus is separable…” which is grammatically awkward. An appropriate correction would be - -where the apparatus is separable…- -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14-15 and 21 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.
Claim 14 recites “the apparatus is a helical worm gear” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, claim 13, from which claim 14 depends, recites that the apparatus comprises a worm wheel configured to interface with a worm screw and a probe body. It is unclear how a helical worm gear includes a probe body and another worm wheel, and how these components interface with the helical worm gear.
Claim 15 recites “the apparatus is a keyed worm gear” and is unclear for the same reasons given for claim 14 above.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the helical worm gear is separable into a first half and a second half” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, claim 1 already defines a first and second half of the helical worm gear, and it is unclear how many halves the helical worm gear is required to be split into.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 recites “the helical worm gear is separable into a first half and a second half” which does not further limit claims 1, 8 and 9 from which it depends, as claim 1 recites “the helical worm gear is separable into a first and a second half”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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(s) 1, 3-5, 8-12 and 21, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espy (USPN 4,920,814) in view of Kume (USPN 4,763,539) and Frank (USPN 11,219,992).
Espy discloses a system comprising: a probe body (20) including a linear shaped portion (see Figs. 1-4), the linear shaped portion including a helical rack (26); a translation actuator (30/14) configured to linearly translate the probe body; and a yaw rotation actuator (other 30/16) configured to rotate the probe body, wherein the translation actuator includes: a helical worm gear (14) configured to interface with the helical rack such that rotation of the helical worm gear causes linear translation of the probe body; a worm screw (30) configured to interface with the helical worm gear such that rotation of the worm screw causes rotation of the helical worm gear; and a motor (not shown, described in column 3, lines 65-66) configured to rotate the worm screw, wherein the helical worm gear includes: a threaded portion (column 2, lines 47-48) configured to interface with the helical rack; and a worm wheel (14 is a worm wheel) configured to interface with the worm screw, wherein the yaw rotation actuator includes: a keyed worm gear (16 is considered a keyed worm gear, see Fig. 3 recess 28 is shaped to lock 20/26 and 16 in rotation, see Column 3, lines 23-27) configured to interface with the helical rack such that rotation of the keyed worm gear causes rotation of the probe body; a worm screw (other of 30 that meshes with 16) configured to interface with the keyed worm gear such that rotation of the worm screw causes rotation of the keyed worm gear; and a motor (not shown, described in Column 3, lines 65-66) configured to rotate the worm screw, wherein the keyed worm gear includes: a keyed portion (portion of recess 28 that conforms to the shape of the rack teeth) configured to interface with the helical rack; and a worm wheel (16 is a worm wheel) configured to interface with the worm screw, wherein the translation actuator and the yaw rotation actuator are disposed in a stacked arrangement (see Fig. 1), wherein: the translation actuator includes a helical worm gear configured to interface with the helical rack; and the yaw rotation actuator includes a keyed worm gear configured to interface with the helical rack, wherein the helical worm gear and the keyed worm gear are configured such that rotation of the helical worm gear at a speed greater than zero revolutions per minute (RPM) and simultaneous rotation of the keyed worm gear at a speed of zero RPM causes linear translation of the probe body (Column 2, lines 59-62), wherein the helical worm gear and the keyed worm gear are configured such that simultaneous rotation of the helical worm gear and the keyed worm gear at a same speed greater than zero RPM in a same rotational direction causes rotation of the probe body (Column 3, line 27, gear 16 and probe body 20 rotate together, so when both gears are rotated at the same speed, probe body 20 would necessarily rotate), and wherein the helical worm gear and the keyed worm gear are configured such that rotation of the keyed worm gear at a first speed greater than zero RPM and simultaneous rotation of the helical worm gear at a second speed different from the first speed causes linear translation and rotation of the probe body (Column 2, lines 48-50 – when 14 rotates, 20 is translated, column 3, line 27, when 16 rotates, 20 is rotated).
Espy does not disclose that the probe body is hollow.
Kume discloses a hollow (at 6) probe body (1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the probe body of Espy to be hollow, in order to reduce the weight of the actuated portion of the device.
The combination of Espy and Kume do not disclose that the helical worm gear is separable into a first half and a second half.
Frank discloses a worm gear (162) that is separable into a first half (162a) and a second half (162b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the helical worm gear (14) of Espy of the combination of Espy and Kume to be split into to halves, in order to facilitate assembly of the device.
Additionally, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espy (USPN 4,920,814) in view of Frank (USPN 11,219,992).
Espy discloses an apparatus comprising: a worm wheel (16) configured to interface with a worm screw (30) such that rotation of the worm screw causes rotation of the apparatus; and a probe body positioning interface (internal bores of 14 or 16) disposed within an axis of rotation of the apparatus, wherein: the apparatus includes a separable first (30/14) and second half (30/16); and the probe body positioning interface is a threaded portion (internal threads of 14) configured to interface with a helical rack (26) of a probe body (20) such that rotation of the apparatus causes translation of the probe body, wherein: the apparatus includes a separable first (30/14) and second half (30/16); and the probe body positioning interface is a keyed portion (28) configured to interface with a helical rack (26) of a probe body (2) such that rotation of the apparatus causes rotation of the probe body.
Espy does not disclose that the helical worm gear is separable into a first and second half, the first half of the apparatus comprising a first half of the worm wheel and a first half of the probe body positioning interface, and the second half of the apparatus comprising a second half of the worm wheel and a second half of the probe body positioning interface.
Frank discloses a worm gear (162) that is separable into a first half (162a) and a second half (162b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the helical worm gear (14) of Espy to be split into to halves, resulting in the splitting of the inner bore and the associated probe body positioning interface, in order to facilitate assembly of the device.
Additionally, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espy (USPN 4,920,814), Kume (USPN 4,763,539) and Frank (USPN 11,219,992) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP0441060A2 (hereinafter D1).
Espy, Kume and Frank disclose the claimed invention, including its possible intended use in the area of robotics (Espy - see Column 4, lines 6-7), but fails to specifically disclose that the probe body includes at least one of an aero probe, a laser diode, an imaging sensor, a manipulator/grabber, or a fiber optic filament.
The use of probes, laser diodes, imaging sensors, manipulators/grabbers and fiber optic filaments in the field of robotics is old and well known in the art.
D1 discloses a manipulator/grabber (10) for a robot (Column 1, lines 18-20) that includes fiber optic filaments (44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the robot of the combination of Espy, Kume and Frank to have a manipulator/grabber, in order to allow the actuator of Espy to accurately move and position objects with the desired amount of force.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espy (USPN 4,920,814), Kume (USPN 4,763,539) and Frank (USPN 11,219,992), as applied to claim 1 above, or Espy (USPN 4,920,814) in view of Frank (USPN 11,219,992) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of KR10-2023-0027495 (hereinafter D2).
Espy, Kume and Frank disclose the claimed invention, except for wherein at least one of the translation actuator or the yaw rotation actuator includes an O-ring face seal configured to seal a mounting surface of the actuator to a different mounting surface or further comprising: at least one O-ring piston seal disposed concentrically with the worm wheel.
O-rings are old and well known in the art of actuators to seal portions of the actuator against loss of lubricant or wear particles to the environment, or from contaminants from the environment entering the actuator.
D2 discloses an O-ring (86) that is configured to seal a mounting surface (bottom of worm wheel 75) of the actuator to a different mounting surface (top of element 73) and the O-ring is disposed concentrically with the worm wheel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the actuator of the combination of Espy, Kume and Frank to utilize O-ring seals, in order to seal the internal components of the actuator from the environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered, however, are moot in view of the foregoing new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
However, with specific reference to Applicants arguments to the combination of Espy and Kume, the Kume reference was only relied upon to teach the hollow probe body and was not required to teach the limitations argued by Applicant. Additionally, there is no requirement that the motivation for a combination of prior art be explicitly disclosed in the prior art references. In the instant case, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the probe body would be lighter if made hollow and would also recognize the advantage of such a modification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKE COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 PM.
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) 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.
JAKE COOK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/Jake Cook/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights