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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 11-12 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and 112b rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/15/2025.
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 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima (US 20250009446 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20060006749 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yajima discloses an actuator (see Fig. 3-7; 50) comprising: a motor (53); and a speed reducer (60) that reduces rotation of the motor, wherein the speed reducer has an efficiency of 60% or more and less than 100% (see paragraph [0062], wherein the forward driving efficiency of the high-efficiency planetary speed reducer 60 is, for example, 80%-90% or more), and the motor 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) in which a multiplication of a cogging torque of the motor and a reduction ratio of the speed reducer is equal to or less than an output starting torque of the speed reducer (motor 53 is disclosed as having zero cogging torque, which when multiplied by a reduction ratio is equal to 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). Yajima fails to disclose a motor that includes a rotor and a stator core, the stator core is 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, Sasaki teaches a motor (see Fig. 7) that includes a rotor (130) and a stator core (110), the stator core is a split stator core (110 comprises a plurality of 114), and at least one of an inner peripheral surface and an outer peripheral surface of the stator core includes a machined surface (see paragraph [0140], wherein the side, facing the rotor 130, as the inner peripheral surface of the molded stator, namely, as the tip ends of the teeth 112T (U1-) through 112T (W2-) is machined to improve the roundness of the inner diameter) subjected to additional machining after assembly of the stator core (see paragraph [0140], wherein a stator is formed… as the tip ends of the teeth 112T (U1-) through 112T (W2-) is machined to improve the roundness of the inner diameter; in other words, the stator is formed then the inner diameter (surface) is machined).
Claim 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima (US 20250009446 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20060006749 A1) and Moritani (US 20190160654 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yajima discloses the actuator (50) drives a joint of a cooperative robot (see Fig. 16). Yajima fails to disclose an operation ratio of the actuator is 0% or more and 20% or less, the operation ration 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 ration 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 Yajima 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 along side the robot.
Regarding claim 4, Yajima 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 Yajima 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”.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: a ratio of the number of magnetic poles to the number of slots is 5:6, 7:6, 7:9, 8:9, 10:9, or 11:9 (Sasaki, Fig. 7, wherein 10 poles and 12 slots are disclosed which is a ratio of 5:6).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations a combination of the number of magnetic poles and the number of slots includes 10 poles and 12 slots, 14 poles and 12 slots, 14 poles and 18 slots, 16 poles and 18 slots, 20 poles and 18 slots, 20 poles and 24 slots, 22 poles and 18 slots, 24 poles and 27 slots, 28 poles and 24 slots, 30 poles and 27 slots, 30 poles and 36 slots, or 32 poles and 36 slots (Sasaki, Fig. 7, wherein 10 poles and 12 slots are disclosed).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima (US 20250009446 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20060006749 A1) and Akasako (US 20150048706 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Yajima 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 Yajima 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]).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima (US 20250009446 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20060006749 A1) and Piccoli.
Regarding claim 12, Yajima discloses a control unit (20). Yajima fails to disclose a control unit configured to perform control to feed forward cogging information for canceling a cogging torque of the motor, wherein the cogging information is based on a relationship between the cogging torque and a rotational position of an output shaft of the actuator. However, Piccoli teaches a control unit (see page 3, column 1, first paragraph; wherein a controller is disclosed) configured to perform control to feed forward cogging information for canceling a cogging torque of the motor (see page 3, column 1, first paragraph; wherein a controller can suppress the ripple simply by commanding a torque that subtracts the ripple torque from the desired torque), and the cogging information is based on a relationship between the cogging torque and a rotational position of an output shaft of the actuator (see page 3, column 1, first paragraph; wherein cogging torque is a function of position; see page 3, column 2, second paragraph; wherein cogging torque is visible from the mechanical state, i.e., position and speed of the rotor). Note that page 3, column 1, first paragraph of Piccoli reads “If the torque ripple for a given state of the motor is known, a controller can suppress the ripple simply by commanding a torque that subtracts the ripple torque from the desired torque. Cogging torque is a function of position, so a map of cogging versus position must first be generated. The large number of torque sources, combined with various non-linearities, make the torque ripple map generation challenging. Generating this waveform map is the crux of torque ripple suppression and can be estimated from a number of sources, including commanded position error and accelerations. These values must be measured or converted to units that are useful to the motor driver, typically voltage or current.” More specifically, Piccoli discloses generating a map of cogging versus position that can be estimated from a number of sources, e.g., an output shaft of an actuator.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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