DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Shenzhen (CN 112886737).
The current application is related to PCT/US2023/062955 and the current claims are substantially similar in scope to the PCT claims. The examiner adopts, and incorporates herein by reference, the explanations of the closest prior art as set forth in the PCT (see the copy of the PCT/ISA/237 filed in this current application on 08/16/2024).1
Further, Shenzhen discloses the following limitations:
Regarding claim 13, the planet carrier (175) is coupled to the mechanical ground (10, including 13) by at least one bearing (20).
Regarding claim 14, the motor (15, 16), gearbox (including 17), and planet carrier (175) are circumferentially surrounded (fig. 1) by the mechanical ground (10).
Regarding claims 16-20, a sensor (Hall sensor) configured to detect commutation of the motor; wherein the sensor (21) comprises an incremental rotary encoder; wherein the sensor comprises: a ring magnet (21) mounted to the motor (16); and a read head (22) coupled (i.e., directly or indirectly) to the mechanical ground (10) and configured to detect a magnetic field generated by the ring magnet; a sensor (21) configured to detect an amount of output of the robotic actuator; wherein the sensor (21) comprises a magnet (21) coupled to a distal end of a shaft (121), wherein a proximal end of the shaft is coupled to the actuator output (19); and a read head (22) coupled to the mechanical ground and configured to detect a magnetic field generated by the magnet; wherein the read head (22) is configured to generate a signal indicating angular displacement of the magnet relative to the mechanical ground.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenzhen (CN 112886737).
The prior art does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 2-10. However, it has been held to be well-within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to resize a device according to design specifications. The claimed design constraints do not appear to change the general function of the claimed device, and applying the design constraints, as claimed, to the device of the prior art would not change the general function in any way. Therefore, since the only difference between the structure of the prior art and that of the claimed device is a recitation of relative design constraints, and since the claimed device having the relative design constraints would not function differently than the device of the prior art, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device of the prior art. 2
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the prior art fails to show, inter alia, “a rotor circumferentially surrounded by the stator” (Remarks, page 5, last paragraph), and specifically characterizes the prior art as having a “stator unit 15 … surrounded by the rotor unit 16” (Remarks, page 6, first paragraph). This is not persuasive, and the characterization of the prior art is in dispute. It is not disputed that the prior art discloses a stator 15 and rotor 16, where rotor 16 comprises a rotor iron ring 160 and rotor magnet 161. However, figure 3 clearly shows the rotor 16 circumferentially surrounding the rotor 15, not the arrangement as argued by applicant. Examiner has annotated a portion of figure 3 below to highlight the claimed arrangement.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 See MPEP 1893.03(e)(II) which permits the examiner to adopt any portion or all of any report on patentability of the IPEA or ISA that would be relevant to U.S. practice, e.g., explanations of prior art, etc.
2 MPEP 2144.04(IV): In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Prosecution Insights