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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10 and 12-14 remain pending in the application. Applicant' s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(a) and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 01/29/2026.
Claims 3 and 6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/02/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Magnusson (US 9205556 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Magnusson discloses an actuator (see Fig. 6; 600) comprising: a motor (see Fig. 5; 502. Note column 9 lines 1-4 read “In one embodiment, the motor 502 may be installed in a robot actuator that includes multiple timing belt transmissions that drive a joint of a robotic link. By way of example, FIG. 6 illustrates an example torque controlled actuator 600”); and a speed reducer (see Fig. 5; 514 and see Fig. 6; 602, 604, 606) that reduces rotation of the motor (see Fig. 6, wherein timing belt stages 602, 604, 606 have a small driving pulley and a large driven pulley which results in a reduction in speed from the motor to the output), wherein the speed reducer has an efficiency of 60% or more and less than 100% (see column 11 lines 15-18, wherein “overall efficiency of the torque controlled actuator 600 may be approximately 0.95.sup.N, where N is a number of timing belt stages. For an example three stage system, this may result in about an 85% efficient transmission”), the actuator includes a control unit (see Fig. 5; 508) that performs feedforward-control to feed forward cogging information for canceling a cogging torque of the motor (see column 8, lines 41-50, wherein “when an electric motor is installed in a robot actuator having a transmission, the transmission may also introduce cogging torque due to its construction. The measurement algorithm 512…may be employed in the example system 500 to determine a cogging torque profile 518. The determined cogging torque profile 518 may then be used to cancel the cogging torque during runtime”), the cogging information is based on a relationship between the cogging torque and a rotational position of an output member of the speed reducer (see column 8 lines 51-66, wherein “the load sensor 520 may be used to achieve a higher resolution cancelation of the cogging torque when a transmission is present. In practice, the transmission 514 may also introduce cogging torque. Advantageously, having an output measurement “F” from the load sensor 520 provides an error signal that may be used to develop a more robust cogging torque profile 518. In one example, a computing device may map the measured force to an equivalent current required to achieve the force using a motor transmission model. For instance, a map that indicates force as a function of current and position may be determined. Inverting the mapping may reveal the current as a function of position and force: I=InverseForce(Q,F). Ultimately, the cogging torque as a function and position and the desired force may then be found using the equation: Ic=InverseForce(Q,Fdesired)”), the actuator further comprises a detection unit (see Fig. 5; 520, see Fig. 6; 620) configured to detect a force acting on the output member of the speed reducer (606, 626; see column 10 lines 7-10, wherein “The third timing belt stage 606 drives an output hub 626 to which an actuator load is attached. Output torque is measured by sensing tension in the timing belt of the third timing belt stage 606”), and the control unit performs feedback-control to feed back a detection torque detected by the detection unit, in addition to the feedforward-control (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Magnusson discloses the detection unit (620) includes a strain gauge configured to detect the force acting on the output member of the speed reducer (see column 9 lines 52-55, wherein “A strain gauge 620 is provided on the load cell 618 to determine a tension of the timing belt of the third timing belt stage 606 based on force applied by the timing belt of the third timing belt stage 606 to the belt idler 616b”) and a torque conversion unit configured to convert a detection result of the strain gauge into the detection torque (see column 10 lines 19-26, wherein “The torque controlled actuator 600 also includes or couples to a control bus 630 and one or more processors 632, and the strain gauge 620 outputs the tension of the timing belt of the third timing belt stage 606 to the control bus 630. The processor(s) 632 are coupled to the control bus 630 for determining output torque of the torque controlled actuator based on the tension of the timing belt of the third timing belt stage 606 stage”).
Regarding claim 13, Magnusson discloses a storage unit configured to store the cogging information, wherein the cogging information is data acquired in advance based on the relationship between the cogging torque appearing on the output member and the rotational position of the output member (see column 11 lines 44-54, wherein “The computing device may then determine a reference cogging torque profile 706 corresponding to the electric motor. In practice, the computing device may determine a unique identifier corresponding to the electric motor (e.g., a serial number), and retrieve the reference cogging torque profile 706 corresponding to the particular electric motor from a database of reference cogging torque profiles using the unique identifier. In one example, the database may be a database in a remote server. Alternatively, the reference cogging torque profile 706 may be retrieved from a memory of the robotic device”).
Regarding claim 14, Magnusson discloses the control unit (508) controls a drive current supplied to the motor (502), and the control unit controls the drive current based on a result obtained by adding the cogging information to a comparison result between a torque command and the detection torque, the torque command being provided based on a comparison between a rotation angle command and a rotation angle of the output member (see column 4 line to column 5 line 6, wherein “the amplifier 106 may report the position “Q” and the current “I” to the computing device 108. The computing device 108 may execute instructions to perform functions as described herein. By way of example, the computing device 108 may execute a measurement algorithm 112 that uses reported positions and currents to compute the cogging torque as a function of motor position, “Ic(Q)”. The computing device 108 may also formulate the determined cogging torques into a cogging torque profile 114. In one instance, the cogging torque profile 114 may be a lookup table that specifies the cogging torque “Ic” for a position “Q” over a range of positions of the motor 102”, and see column 8 lines 41-66, wherein “As discussed above, when an electric motor is installed in a robot actuator having a transmission, the transmission may also introduce cogging torque due to its construction. The measurement algorithm 512, which may be the same measurement algorithm as the measurement algorithm 112 of FIG. 1, may be employed in the example system 500 to determine a cogging torque profile 518. The determined cogging torque profile 518 may then be used to cancel the cogging torque during runtime, as described with respect to FIGS. 1-3. In one implementation, the load sensor 520 may be used to achieve a higher resolution cancelation of the cogging torque when a transmission is present. In practice, the transmission 514 may also introduce cogging torque. Advantageously, having an output measurement “F” from the load sensor 520 provides an error signal that may be used to develop a more robust cogging torque profile 518. In one example, a computing device may map the measured force to an equivalent current required to achieve the force using a motor transmission model. For instance, a map that indicates force as a function of current and position may be determined. Inverting the mapping may reveal the current as a function of position and force: I=InverseForce(Q,F). Ultimately, the cogging torque as a function and position and the desired force may then be found using the equation: Ic=InverseForce(Q,Fdesired)”).
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 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson (US 9205556 B1) in view of Yajima (US 20250009446 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Magnusson fails to disclose the motor is a low-cogging motor. However, Yajima teaches the motor (53) is a low-cogging motor (see paragraph [0064], wherein it is preferable that cogging torque of the motor 53 is low or there is no cogging torque). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Magnusson with a motor with low or no cogging torque, as taught by Yajima, to eliminate cogging torque which prevents smooth rotation of the rotor and causes speed ripple, vibration or jerkiness (see column 1 lines 17-27 of Magnusson which discusses the effects of cogging torque of a motor). As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: a multiplication of the cogging torque and a reduction ratio of the speed reducer is equal to or less than an output starting torque of the speed reducer (motor 53 of Yajima is disclosed as having low or zero cogging torque, which when multiplied by a reduction ratio is substantially zero. A reduction gear having a starting torque that is zero is not possible in the real world, therefore the speed reducer has a starting torque which is a positive non-zero number. Since zero is less than a positive non-zero number, Yajima inherently discloses a low-cogging motor in which a multiplication of a cogging torque and a reduction ratio is equal to or less than an output starting torque of the speed reducer). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to provide the particular claimed cogging torque, reduction ratio and output starting torque, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). First, it is well known in the art that the cogging torque can be changed by rotor/stator skewing, rotor tooth notching, the design of the motor itself or by electronic compensation through drive electronics. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cogging torque can be adjusted to fit the particular need of the motor, i.e., a result effective variable. Second, it is well known in the art that reduction ratios of speed reducers come in a wide variety and can be selected based on the need of application. Selecting a specific reduction ratio of a speed reducer, i.e., a result effective variable, only requires routine skill in the art. Third, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the starting torque of a speed reducer can vary widely based on many factors, such as materials, types of gears, lubrication, etc. As such, the starting torque of a speed reducer can be selected based on the need of the application and therefore is considered a result effective variable. The limitations of claim 2 which are not explicitly disclosed by Magnusson in view of Yajima are considered obvious, because one having ordinary skill in the art can select a motor and speed reducer with the desired cogging torque, reduction ratio and starting torque so that a multiplication of a cogging torque and a reduction ratio is equal to or less than an output starting torque of the speed reducer.
Claim 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson (US 9205556 B1) in view of Yajima (US 20250009446 A1) and Moritani (US 20190160654 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Magnusson discloses the actuator (600) drives a joint of a cooperative robot (see column 9 lines 1-2 wherein a robot is disclosed). Magnusson fails to disclose an operation ratio of the actuator is 0% or more and 20% or less, the operation ratio of the actuator being a ratio of an operation time of the actuator to an operation time of the cooperative robot in which the actuator is incorporated. However, Moritani teaches an operation ratio of the actuator is 0% or more and 20% or less (see paragraph [0004], wherein an operation ratio is 20% ED or less is disclosed), the operation ratio of the actuator being a ratio of an operation time of the actuator to an operation time of the cooperative robot in which the actuator is incorporated (see paragraph [0045], wherein the operation ratio means a ratio of an operation time TJ of the gear motor 1 with respect to an operation time TR of the cooperating robot 100 into which the gear motor 1 is incorporated). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Magnusson with an operation ratio of 20% ED or less, as taught by Moritani, to prevent overheating of the motor by allowing time to cool and to reduce the movement time of the robot which reduces the chance of contact with a human working alongside the robot.
Regarding claim 10, Magnusson fails to disclose the motor is a low-cogging motor. However, Yajima teaches the motor (53) is a low-cogging motor (see paragraph [0064], wherein it is preferable that cogging torque of the motor 53 is low or there is no cogging torque). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Magnusson with a motor with low or no cogging torque, as taught by Yajima, to eliminate cogging torque which prevents smooth rotation of the rotor and causes speed ripple, vibration or jerkiness (see column 1 lines 17-27 of Magnusson which discusses the effects of cogging torque of a motor). Magnusson fails to disclose a ratio of a number of magnetic poles of a rotor to a number of slots of a stator core is 5:6, 7:6, 8:9, 10:9 or 11:9. However, Moritani teaches a ratio of a number of magnetic poles of a rotor to a number of slots of a stator core is 5:6, 7:6, 8:9, 10:9 or 11:9. (see Fig. 2, wherein 10 poles and 12 slots are disclosed, i.e., a simplified ratio of 5:6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Magnusson with the motor of Moritani, to provide a motor that is suitable for driving a joint portion of a cooperating robot (see paragraph [0012]); to provide a motor that has both weight saving and torque characteristics (see paragraph [0018]); to provide a motor that that has a smaller volume allowing for use in smaller robots (see paragraph [0024]); and to provide a motor that suppresses a decrease in durability (see paragraph [0025]).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson (US 9205556 B1) in view of Moritani (US 20190160654 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Magnusson fails to disclose the motor is structured to suppress a cogging torque generated at an order lower than an order of a least common multiple of a number of magnetic poles and a number of slots of the motor. However, Moritani teaches the motor (see Fig. 2) is structured to suppress a cogging torque generated at an order lower than an order of a least common multiple of a number of magnetic poles and a number of slots of the motor (see Fig. 2, wherein 10 poles and 12 slots are disclosed). Note that 10 poles and 12 slots results in a fractional slot motor, and according to paragraph [0053] of the instant application, can suppress cogging of an order lower. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Magnusson with the motor of Moritani, to provide a motor that is suitable for driving a joint portion of a cooperating robot (see paragraph [0012]; to provide a motor that has both weight saving and torque characteristics (see paragraph [0018]); to provide a motor that that has a smaller volume allowing for use in smaller robots (see paragraph [0024]); and to provide a motor that suppresses a decrease in durability (see paragraph [0025]). Additionally, note that ““[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) “ and “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” First, Applicant explicitly states in paragraph [0052] of the instant application that “the present inventor has found that backdrivability of an actuator can be improved by combining a motor having a configuration (hereinafter, sometimes referred to as a “reduction configuration”) for suppressing a cogging torque (hereinafter, sometimes simply referred to as “cogging”) of an order lower than an order of a least common multiple of the number of magnetic poles and the number of slots with a high-efficiency speed reducer”. In other words, Applicant has combined two known elements, i.e., a configuration for reducing cogging torque with a high-efficiency speed reducer, and is claiming a new function, i.e., increased backdrivability. As such, something which is old does not become patentable upon the discovery of a new property. Second, the structural requirements of claim 4 are disclosed by the prior art, i.e., a motor with a configuration for suppressing cogging and a speed reducer with an efficiency of 60% or more, and therefore inherently “suppress a cogging torque of an order lower than an order of a least common multiple of the number of magnetic poles and the number of slots of the motor”.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson (US 9205556 B1) in view of Oka (US 20120080976 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Magnusson fails to disclose the motor includes a split stator core, and at least one of an inner peripheral surface and an outer peripheral surface of the stator core includes a machined surface. However, Oka teaches the motor includes a split stator core (see Fig. 1), and at least one of an inner peripheral surface and an outer peripheral surface of the stator core includes a machined surface (see Fig. 10, wherein each split core 2 has an inner surface 4; see paragraph [0039], wherein insulating film 4 has already been machined). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Magnusson with a split core having a machined surface, as taught by Oka, to provide manufacturing and costs benefits such as easier and more precise winding, reduced production costs, simplified repairs and greater design flexibility and being more compact; and to provide performance benefits such as higher efficiency, higher torque density, reduced heat, lower noise and vibration, and lower losses.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson (US 9205556 B1) in view of Akasako (US 20150048706 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Magnusson fails to disclose the motor includes a rotor core which includes a plurality of magnet disposition surfaces on which magnets are disposed, the magnet disposition surfaces being provided in a circumferential direction of the rotor core, and each of the magnets is disposed closer to one side in the circumferential direction. However, Akasako teaches the motor includes a rotor core (see Fig. 1-2; 10) which includes a plurality of magnet disposition surfaces (16) on which magnets (12) are disposed, the magnet disposition surfaces being provided in a circumferential direction of the rotor core, and each of the magnets is disposed closer to one side in the circumferential direction (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Magnusson with a rotor core and magnets, as taught by Akasako, to provide a synchronous electric motor having a structure for reducing the cogging torque generated by the positioning error of the permanent magnet (see paragraph [0012]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections that were necessitated by an amendment.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights