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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “ROTARY ACTUATOR WITH PIECE MOVABLE IN GROOVE WITH ROATION DETECTION SWITCHES”.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US20200344902, “Choi”).
Re claim 1, Choi discloses a rotary actuator, comprising:
a base (figs 6 & 11-14, [0102-0103], includes 120 & 125);
a rotary member 140 supported by the base in a rotatable manner (fig 6 & 8-12, [0102] & [0145-0146]);
an electric motor 170 configured to rotate the rotary member 140 (figs 6, 8 & 10-12, [0102]);
a groove on a facing portion of the base, the facing portion facing the rotary member 140 (figs 6, 11-12, 14 & below, [0135], facing portion of 120; groove formed by structure of 120 for holding 132 & 133 and portion indicated below), the groove extending in a rotation direction of the rotary member 140 (figs 11-12, 14 & below);
a piece 145 on a facing portion of the rotary member 140, the facing portion facing the base (figs 6, 8 & 11-12, facing portion of 140 facing 125, [0119], [0135] & [0137]), the piece 145 being movable in the groove in response to the rotary member 140 rotating relative to the base (figs 11-12, 14 & below); and
rotation detection switches 132, 133 located adjacent to two longitudinal ends of the groove (figs 11-12, 14 & below, [0136-0138], switches send signal to controller to shut of motor), the rotation detection switches being operable by the piece 145 ([0135-0138]).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
535
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 8, Choi discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the rotation detection switches include a first switch 132 located adjacent to a first longitudinal end of the groove (figs 11-12, 14 & above for claim 1) and a second switch 133 located adjacent to a second longitudinal end of the groove (figs 11-12, 14 & above for claim 1), and a position of the first switch 132 relative to the groove and a position of the second switch 133 relative to the groove are adjustable individually (figs 6 & 11-12, since 132 & 133 are separately attached to the groove).
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 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Yang et la. (CN111578105, “Yang”, using machine translation).
Re claim 7, Choi discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the electric motor is configured to control a rotation angle of a rotational shaft 161 (fig 8, since 170 drives 161).
Choi is silent with respect to the electric motor is a stepper motor.
Yang discloses a similar rotary actuator as Choi (figs 1-3) and discloses the electric motor 121 is a stepper motor (pg 6, indicated text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the electric motor of Choi as a stepper motor, as disclosed by Yang, in order to rotate the needed angle and provide low speed starting and stopping, as taught by Yang (pg 6, indicated text).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 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.
The main reason for indicating claim 2 as allowable is the inclusion of the limitation, inter alia, of:
“The rotary actuator according to claim 1, wherein the groove 53 is spiral when the base 20 is viewed in an axial direction, and the piece 54 is movable relative to the rotary member 30 in a radial direction of the rotary member.”
The closest prior art Choi et al. (US20200344902) does not disclose the above limitations.
Choi discloses the groove is an arc segment when the base is viewed in the axial direction (figs 14 & above for claim 1); and the piece 145 moves relative to the rotary member 140 in the circumferential direction (figs 11-12).
The main reason for indicating claim 4 as allowable is the inclusion of the limitation, inter alia, of:
“The rotary actuator according to claim 1, further comprising: contact walls 53a, 53b at two longitudinal ends of the groove 53, the piece 54 being configured to come in contact with the contact walls in response to the rotary member 30 rotating relative to the base 20.”
The closest prior art Choi et al. (US20200344902) does not disclose the above limitations.
Choi discloses contact walls at two longitudinal ends of the groove (figs 14 & above for claim 1, walls for attaching 132 & 133), the piece 145; and a protrusion groove 119 that comes in contact with a limiting protrusion 123 when the rotation detection switches 132, 133 fail to work (figs 13-14, [0158]). Choi does not disclose the piece configured to come in contact with the contact walls in response to the rotary member rotating relative to the base.
The main reason for indicating claim 6 as allowable is the inclusion of the limitation, inter alia, of:
“The rotary actuator according to claim 1, wherein the piece 54 is a spherical member rollable in the groove 53.”
The closest prior art Choi et al. (US20200344902) does not disclose the above limitations.
Choi discloses the piece 145 moves in the groove (figs 11-12, 14 & above for claim 1) but does not disclose the above limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hamada et al. (GB2193088) discloses each groove 17a, 17b has a switch 23a, 23b at a longitudinal end that is contacted by respective pieces 15a, 15b (figs 6-9b).
Nodama (US5243434) discloses groove 15a that has contact walls that contact switch 30a and switches 33, 34 that contact restraining rib ends 7b (figs 1 & 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5715. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5pm 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, Seye Iwarere can be reached on (571)270-5112. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights