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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-6 and 11-14 remain pending in the application.
Claims 2 and 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08/28/2025.
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, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson (US 9205556 B1) in view of HarmonicDrive.
Regarding claim 1, Magnusson discloses an actuator (see Fig. 5; 500) comprising: a motor (502) that includes a rotor and a stator including a stator core (see column 1 lines 16-18, wherein “In an electric motor, cogging torque is defined as the torque that results from the interaction between the permanent magnets of the rotor and the geometry of the stator slots”), the motor generates a cogging torque (see Fig. 4, wherein 0.01 Nm of cogging torque is produced at 1.6 rad). Magnusson fails to disclose a speed reducer that reduces rotation of the motor, wherein the speed reducer has an efficiency of 60% or more and less than 100%. However, HarmonicDrive teaches a speed reducer (see page 147; CSG-45-50) that reduces rotation of the motor, wherein the speed reducer has an efficiency of 60% or more and less than 100% (see page 153, wherein a ratio 50 speed reducer has an efficiency of 60-80% at 1000rpm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Magnusson with a CSG-45-50 speed reducer, as taught by HarmonicDrive, to provide high torque capacity, high torsional stiffness and high positional accuracy (see page 146, Features). As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: a multiplication of the cogging torque of the motor and a reduction ratio of the speed reducer (50:1) is equal to or less than an output starting torque of the speed reducer (see page 151, wherein the starting torque of CSG-45-50 is 85 Ncm, which is 0.85 Nm; more specifically, 0.01 Nm * 50 = 0.5 Nm, and 0.5 Nm is ≤ 0.85 Nm).
Regarding claim 12, Magnusson discloses a control unit (see Fig. 5; 508) configured to perform 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”), wherein the cogging information is based on a relationship between the cogging torque and a rotational position of an output shaft of the actuator (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)”).
Regarding claim 14, Magnusson discloses a detection unit (520) including a strain gauge (see column 8 lines 36-37, wherein the load sensor 520 may be arranged as a strain gauge) configured to detect a load acting on an output shaft of the actuator (500) and a torque conversion unit configured to convert a detection result of the strain gauge into a 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”); a storage unit configured to store cogging information for canceling a cogging torque of the motor (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”); and a control unit (508) configured to control a drive current supplied to the motor, wherein the cogging information is data acquired in advance from a relationship between the cogging torque appearing on the output shaft of the actuator and a rotational position of the output shaft, 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 shaft (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 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson (US 9205556 B1) in view of HarmonicDrive and Moritani (US 20190160654 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Magnusson discloses the actuator (500) 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 4, 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 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson (US 9205556 B1) in view of HarmonicDrive, Moritani (US 20190160654 A1) and Sasaki (US 20060006749 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Magnusson fails to disclose 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. However, Sasaki teaches 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 (see Fig. 7, wherein 10 poles and 12 slots are disclosed which is a 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 ratio of magnetic poles to the number of slots, as taught by Sasaki, so that the motor cogging torque can be kept at a very low level, which will minimize the torque pulsation and provide smoother operation (see paragraph [0099]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of claim 5 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 Magnusson (US 9205556 B1) in view of HarmonicDrive and Akasako (US 20150048706 A1).
Regarding claim 11, 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]).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson (US 9205556 B1) in view of HarmonicDrive and Sasaki (US 20060006749 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Magnusson fails to disclose the stator core is a split stator core, and each of an inner peripheral surface and an outer peripheral surface of the stator core includes a machined surface subjected to additional machining after assembly of the stator core. However, Sasaki teaches the stator core is a split stator core (see Fig. 7; 110 comprises a plurality of 114), and an inner 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). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Magnusson with a machined surface, as taught by Sasaki, to reduce cogging torque (see paragraph [0140]). Magnusson in view of Sasaki fails to disclose each of an inner peripheral surface and an outer peripheral surface of the stator core includes a machined surface subjected to additional machining after assembly of the stator core. However, it has been held that a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this instance, machining both surfaces would produce the expected result of smoother surfaces which reduces cogging torque.
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