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 .
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 16-19 are pending; claim 8 is canceled; and claims 14-15 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “safety unit” in claims 11 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5, and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 2: “the inner space” should be changed to read “an inner space.”
Claim 2 line 3: “the interface” should be changed to read “an interface.”
Claim 5 line 1: “... according to claim 1wherein ...” should be changed to read “... according to claim 1, wherein ...”)
Claim 16 recites “An for a robot according to claim 1.” This appears to be “An actuator for the robot according to claim 1” based on the claims filed 09/06/2024.
Claim 17 line 3: “the torso” should be changed to read “a torso.”
Claim 17 line 4: “the at least one leg” should be changed to read “
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites the limitation “Use of a legged robot,” which does not place the claim under one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See also MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “The legged robot according to claim 2, comprising the cable gland to connect a wire from the actuator or the dynamic joint or any of the other sections of the actuator to a robot component within the cavity, comprising.” It is unclear whether the second recitation of “comprising” (underlined above) refers to the cable gland comprising or the legged robot comprising. In another word, it is unclear whether the subsequent limitations are parts of the legged robot or parts of the cable gland. Therefore, this limitation renders the claim unclear and indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “in particular if
p
d
≤
500, very particular if
p
d
≤
50.” It is unclear whether both of these conditions need to be met or only one of the two conditions needs to be met. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. Therefore, this limitation renders the claim unclear and indefinite. Examiner suggestion: “in particular if
p
d
≤
500, very particular if
p
d
≤
50” can be changed to read ““in particular if
p
d
≤
500 or if
p
d
≤
50.”
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “in particular if
p
d
≤
500, in particular if
p
d
≤
50.” It is unclear whether both of these conditions need to be met or only one of the two conditions needs to be met. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. Therefore, this limitation renders the claim unclear and indefinite. Examiner suggestion: “in particular if
p
d
≤
500, in particular if
p
d
≤
50” can be changed to read ““in particular if
p
d
≤
500 or if
p
d
≤
50.”
Claim 19 recites the limitation “use of a legged robot according to claim 1 for performing tasks in an explosive environment.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced, MPEP2173.05(q).
Claim 18 is rejected for being dependent upon rejected claim 17.
Claim limitation “safety unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any sufficient structure to perform the claimed function of the interpreted limitation, and no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenneally et al. (US 2022/0001531 A1), in view of Mares et al. (US 6,392,322 B1), and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2013/0140929 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kenneally teaches:
A legged robot (Fig. 1; [0019] “robotic system 500”), in particular a quadruped robot (Fig. 1 shows four leg subassemblies 2, [0024] “one or more Leg Subassemblies 2”), comprising;
a torso (Fig. 1; [0019] “Frame 1”) comprising a cavity defining the inner space within the robot torso (Fig. 1 shows a cavity that is formed by computing box 3, energy box 4, and sensor panel 5; Fig. 2 shows a cavity of Frame 1) and enclosing at least one robot component (Fig. 1; [0019] “Robotic System 500 may have Frame 1 capable of securing and interfacing with Leg Subassembly 2, Computing Box 3, Energy Box 4, and other components.”),
at least one leg (Fig. 1; [0024] “one or more Leg Subassemblies 2”) with at least one actuator ([0035] “FIG. 3 is a view of the Leg Subassembly 2 according to an aspect of the present disclosure. Leg Subassembly 2 may contain Pod 15 which may contain motor control electronics as well as a subset of motors, mechanical reductions, transmissions, and encoders in a secure and isolated environment.”) ..., and
electrically connect a wire from the actuator to one or more of the robot components in the cavity ([0050] “Pod 15 may include a motor controller (not shown) that communicates with Computing Box 3 ... As a result of the operation of the motor controller at Pod 15 , there may be a reduced number of wires from Computing Box 3 to Pod 15 , such as, in one non-limiting example, two power wires plus four signal wires.”),
wherein an absolute pressure pc within the cavity is higher than an ambient pressure pa ([0004] “ Furthermore, it may be desirable to have sealed sub-assemblies individually injected with inert gas to create positive pressure to block external flammable gases, dust and particulate from entering into the sub-assemblies”).
Kenneally does not specifically teach a gas tight cable gland to connect the wire, the actuator comprising an explosion proof housing, wherein the explosion proof housing of the actuator comprises at least one flame proof gap.
However, Mares teaches:
an actuator (Fig. 1; Col. 4 line 11 “actuator assembly 10”) comprising an explosion proof housing (Fig. 1; Col. 4 lines 28-36 “In order to impart successful explosion-proof characteristics, a housing 20 of actuator assembly 10 incorporates flame paths such as flame paths 50 (see FIGS. 7-12 for additional flame paths 48-49 and 51-54) which allow for safe passage of hot gasses and explosive energy from within housing 20 ...”), wherein the explosion proof housing of the actuator comprises at least one flame proof gap (Col. 4 lines 28-36 “flame paths 50 (see FIGS. 7-12 for additional flame paths 48-49 and 51-54) which allow for safe passage of hot gasses and explosive energy from within housing 20 ...”; Col. 4 lines 58-67 “Each flame path comprises a slight design gap provided between mating parts of housing 20. Such gaps enable release of heat and energy from housing 20 during an internal explosion, while containing the explosion therein and preventing transmission of flames outside of housing 20 ...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally to include an actuator having an explosion proof housing, wherein the explosion proof housing of the actuator comprises at least one flame proof gap, as taught by Mares, in order to allow for safe passage of hot gasses and explosive energy to be transferred into a chamber within the housing so as not to ignite explosive gasses contained inside the chamber and outside the actuator, as stated by Mares in Col. 4 lines 28-36.
Mares does not specifically teach a gas tight cable gland.
However, Lee teaches:
a gas tight cable gland to electrically connect a wire ([0010] “According to another embodiment of the present invention, the ends of the terminal cables may be fixed using explosion-proof cable glands in order to maintain the body and the terminal box in a sealed state.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares, to include a gas tight cable gland to electrically connect a wire, as taught by Lee, in order to maintain the actuator and the one or more components in a sealed state, as suggested by Lee in [0010].
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Kenneally in view of Mares and Lee have been discussed above with respect to claim 1. Neither Kenneally nor Lee specifically teaches wherein the actuator comprises a dynamic joint with a moving section and a static section, with the at least one flame proof gap arranged at the interface of the moving section and the static section.
However, Mares teaches:
wherein the actuator comprises a dynamic joint with a moving section (Figs. 12-13; Col. 6 lines 48-51 “... an actuator rod 34 extends from housing 20 of linear actuator assembly 10. Actuator rod 34 is driven for accurate axial displacement from housing 20 through a rod end bearing 36 ...”) and a static section (Fig. 12; Col. 8 lines 9-17 “a rod end bearing 92 that is rigidly fixed to housing 20 ...”), with the at least one flame proof gap arranged at the interface of the moving section and the static section (Fig. 12; Col. 9 lines 16-20 “... flame path 53 comprises a sliding joint that extends between actuator rod 34 and rod end bearing 92 with at least 1” in uninterrupted length... Flame path 54 comprises a spigot joint that extends between actuator/motor casing 60 and rod end bearing 92 ...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares and Lee, to configure the actuator having a dynamic joint with a moving section and a static section, with the at least one flame proof gap arranged at the interface of the moving section and the static section, as taught by Mares, in order to allow for safe passage of hot gasses and explosive energy to be transferred into a chamber within the housing so as not to ignite explosive gasses contained inside the chamber and outside the actuator, as stated by Mares in Col. 4 lines 28-36.
Regarding claim 3, Kenneally does not specifically teach wherein the actuator comprises within the explosion proof housing the following sections arranged along a longitudinal axis: the dynamic joint with a moving shaft as the moving section and an output flange as the static section, a gear housing, a stator housing, and a back cap, wherein between each section there is arranged at least one flame proof gap [[(105)]].
However, Mares teaches:
wherein the actuator comprises within the explosion proof housing the following sections arranged along a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1):
the dynamic joint with a moving shaft as the moving section (Figs. 12-13; Col. 6 lines 48-51 “... an actuator rod 34 extends from housing 20 of linear actuator assembly 10. Actuator rod 34 is driven for accurate axial displacement from housing 20 through a rod end bearing 36 ...”) and an output flange as the static section (Fig. 12; Col. 8 lines 9-17 “a rod end bearing 92 that is rigidly fixed to housing 20 ...”),
a gear housing (Figs. 1 and 2; Col. 6 lines 39-47 “actuator/motor housing subassembly 40”),
a stator housing (Figs. 4 and 5; Col. 5 lines 43-51 “actuator/motor housing subassembly 38”), and
a back cap (Fig. 2; Col. 6 lines 39-47 “motor cover 42”),
wherein between each section there is arranged at least one flame proof gap [[(105)]] (Col. 4 lines 30-32 “flame paths 50 (see FIGS. 7-12 for additional flame paths 48-49 and 51-54) which allow for safe passage of hot gases and explosive energy”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares and Lee, to include the dynamic joint with a moving shaft as the moving section and an output flange as the static section, a gear housing, a stator housing, and a back cap, wherein between each section there is arranged at least one flame proof gap, as taught by Mares, in order to allow for safe passage of hot gasses and explosive energy to be transferred into a chamber within the housing so as not to ignite explosive gasses contained inside the chamber and outside the actuator, as stated by Mares in Col. 4 lines 28-36.
Regarding claim 4, Kenneally further teaches:
wherein the actuator is directly adjacent to the outside of the torso (Figs. 1 and 3; [0035] “Leg Subassembly 2 may also include Interface Bracket 16 which may enable coupling to Frame 1 through one or more of Alignment Guide 12 and Alignment Fastener 13. Pod 15 may have an electrical connection to Interface Bracket 16 such that electrical power and/or electronic signals may be received and directed to the components within Pod 15 thus supplying power and control to the components of Pod 15.”).
Regarding claim 7, Kenneally further teaches:
wherein the at least one robot component is a LIDAR (Fig. 1; [0020] “sensor panel 5”; [0021] “Non-limiting examples of sensor components may include ... distance sensors such as laser range sensors including LIDAR ...”), a sensor element (Fig. 1; [0020] “Sensor Panel 5”), an electronic component (Figs. 1 and 5; [0040] “Computing Box 3 may contain a Protective Housing 23 wherein electrical, computing, and control components are stored.”), a battery (Fig. 1; [0037] “Energy Box 4 may have a Protective Housing 19 wherein electrical and computing components are stored including, but not limited to, chemical batteries, capacitors, fuel cells, internal engines, as well as all necessary computing and control systems.”), and/or a camera ([0021] “Non-limiting examples of sensor components may include light sensors such as cameras”).
Regarding claim 10, Kenneally further teaches:
wherein at least one electrical component of the at least one actuator is electrically connected to one or more electrical components and/or a battery of the torso ([0035] “Pod 15 may have an electrical connection to Interface Bracket 16 such that electrical power and/or electronic signals may be received and directed to the components within Pod 15 thus supplying power and control to the components of Pod 15.”; [0043] “Frame 1 may route power and electrical signals from Energy Box 4 and Computing Box 3 to Alignment Fastener 13, which may then transmit power and electrical signals to Interface Bracket 16 through the peg and to Leg Subassembly 2.”), in particular by means of a wire ([0050] “As a result of the operation of the motor controller at Pod 15, there may be a reduced number of wires from Computing Box 3 to Pod 15, such as, in one non-limiting example, two power wires plus four signal wires.”).
Neither Kenneally nor Mares specifically teaches the wire passes the cable gland.
However, Lee teaches:
a wire passes a cable gland ([0010] “the ends of the terminal cables may be fixed using explosion-proof cable glands in order to maintain the body and the terminal box in a sealed state.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire of Kenneally, in view of Mares, to pass the wire through a cable gland, as taught by Lee, in order to maintain the actuator and the one or more components in a sealed state, as suggested by Lee in [0010].
Regarding claim 16, Kenneally further teaches:
An actuator for a robot according to claim 1 ([0035] “FIG. 3 is a view of the Leg Subassembly 2 according to an aspect of the present disclosure. Leg Subassembly 2 may contain Pod 15 which may contain motor control electronics as well as a subset of motors, mechanical reductions, transmissions, and encoders in a secure and isolated environment.”).
Regarding claim 19, Kenneally further teaches:
Use of a legged robot according to claim 1 for performing tasks in an explosive environment ([0004] “allowing them to be used in environments such as coal mines, gas manufacturing plants and refineries where equipment must be intrinsically safe for operation.”).
Claims 5, 11-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenneally et al. (US 2022/0001531 A1), in view of Mares et al. (US 6,392,322 B1), and Lee et al. (US 2013/0140929 A1), and further in view of Onishi (JP 2015036172 A).
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of Kenneally in view of Mares and Lee have been discussed above with respect to claim 1. Kenneally, Mares, and Lee do not specifically teach wherein a differential pressure pd = pc – pa is pd ≥ 500Pa, in particular, wherein the robot comprises a differential pressure sensor unit [[(111)]] to measure the differential pressure pa.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Onishi teaches:
wherein a differential pressure Pd = pc – pa is pd ≥ 500Pa ([0040] “ The absolute pressure detector 74 defines the pressure outside the frame 11 as one atmospheric pressure, and detects the absolute pressure in the frame 1 corresponding thereto.”; [0041] “the protection monitoring unit 72 controls the opening and closing of the solenoid valves 36 and 44 so that the pressure inside the frame 11 is maintained higher than the predetermined pressure.”; [0044] “Thus, in the industrial robot according to the second embodiment, the protection monitoring device 71 operates the air supply device 31 so that the absolute pressure in the frame 11 becomes higher than 1 atm”), in particular, wherein the robot comprises a differential pressure sensor unit [[(111)]] to measure the differential pressure pd ([0033] “while the protection monitoring unit 52 maintains the pressure in the frame 11 at a predetermined value higher than the external pressure.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares and Lee, to include a differential pressure sensor unit to measure the differential pressure pd, as taught by Onishi, in order to activate safety measures when the differential pressure falls below a predetermined value.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares, Lee, and Onishi, to include a differential pressure Pd = pc – pa is pd ≥ 500Pa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, the teachings of Kenneally in view of Mares and Lee have been discussed above with respect to claim 1. Kenneally, Mares, and Lee do not specifically teach a safety unit to recognize the differential pressure pd, wherein in an intended use of the legged robot, the safety unit is adapted to monitor the differential pressure pa and to start running a safety measure if the differential pressure pd is below a predefined pressure value, in particular if pd ≤ 500Pa, very particular if pd ≤ 50Pa.
However, Onishi teaches:
a safety unit to recognize the differential pressure pd ([0027] “The protection monitoring unit 52 can open and close the solenoid valves 36 and 44 in accordance with the pressure detected by the pressure detector 55. That is, the protection monitoring unit 52 controls the opening and closing of the solenoid valves 36 and 44 so that the pressure inside the frame 11 is maintained higher than the predetermined pressure.”),
wherein in an intended use of the legged robot, the safety unit is adapted to monitor the differential pressure pa and to start running a safety measure if the differential pressure pd is below a predefined pressure value ([0034] “Therefore, the pressure detector 55 outputs a signal to the protection monitoring unit 52 via the intrinsic safety barrier relay 53 when the air pressure in the frame 11 becomes lower than a predetermined value. The protection monitoring unit 52 operates the interlock breaker 56 to stop the power supply from the battery 23 to the electric component 21, the robot control device 22, the transmitter / receiver 24, and the motor 14, and issues an emergency warning and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares and Lee, to include a safety unit to recognize the differential pressure pd, wherein in an intended use of the legged robot, the safety unit is adapted to monitor the differential pressure pa and to start running a safety measure if the differential pressure pd is below a predefined pressure value, as taught by Onishi, in order to prevent infiltration of flammable gas into the inside of the robot and improve safety and workability of various operations, as suggested by Onishi in [0008].
Onishi does not specifically teach in particular if pd ≤ 500Pa, very particular if pd ≤ 50Pa. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares, Lee, and Onishi, to determine if pd ≤ 500Pa or pd ≤ 50Pa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, the teachings of Kenneally in view of Mares, Lee, and Onishi have been discussed above with respect to claim 10. Kenneally, Mares, and Lee do not specifically teach wherein the safety measure is:
a shutdown of the robot, in particular if pd ≤ 50Pa,
a return of the robot to a safety zone, in particular if pd ≤ 500Pa, or
a return of the robot to a docking station.
However, Onishi teaches:
wherein the safety measure is:
a shutdown of the robot, in particular if pd ≤ 1atm ([0007] “a protection monitoring device for stopping power supply from the battery to the electric component and the control device when the pressure inside the frame drops to a predetermined atmospheric pressure or lower; [0034] “Therefore, the pressure detector 55 outputs a signal to the protection monitoring unit 52 via the intrinsic safety barrier relay 53 when the air pressure in the frame 11 becomes lower than a predetermined value. The protection monitoring unit 52 operates the interlock breaker 56 to stop the power supply from the battery 23 to the electric component 21, the robot control device 22, the transmitter / receiver 24, and the motor 14, and issues an emergency warning and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares and Lee and Onishi, to include shut down the robot if pd is less than a predetermined value , as taught by Onishi, in order to prevent infiltration of flammable gas into the inside of the robot and improve safety and workability of various operations, as suggested by Onishi in [0008].
Onishi does not specifically teach in particular if pd ≤ 50Pa. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares, Lee, and Onishi, to determine if pd ≤ 50Pa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, the teachings of Kenneally in view of Mares and Lee have been discussed above with respect to claim 1. Kenneally, Mares, and Lee do not specifically teach a gas cartridge adapted to control the cavity pressure pc, in particular adapted to fill the cavity with gas from the cartridge if the differential pressure is pd ≤ 500Pa.
However, Onishi teaches:
a gas cartridge (Fig. 1; [0024] “air tank 32”) adapted to control the cavity pressure pc ([0036] “the air supply device 31 supplies air into the frame 11 to keep the inside higher than a predetermined pressure”; [0048] “Further, although air is used as air in the above-described embodiment, nitrogen gas, an inert gas, or the like may be used”), in particular adapted to fill the cavity with gas ([0048] “Further, although air is used as air in the above-described embodiment, nitrogen gas, an inert gas, or the like may be used”) from the cartridge if the differential pressure is pd ≤ 1 atm ([0040] “The absolute pressure detector 74 defines the pressure outside the frame 11 as one atmospheric pressure, and detects the absolute pressure in the frame 1 corresponding thereto.”; [0041] “The protection monitoring unit 72 can open and close the solenoid valves 36 and 44 in accordance with the pressure detected by the absolute pressure detector 74. That is, the protection monitoring unit 72 controls the opening and closing of the solenoid valves 36 and 44 so that the pressure inside the frame 11 is maintained higher than the predetermined pressure.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares and Lee, to include a gas cartridge adapted to control the cavity pressure pc, in particular adapted to fill the cavity with gas from the cartridge if the differential pressure pd is less than a predetermined value, as taught by Onishi, in order to prevent infiltration of flammable gas into the inside of the robot and improve safety and workability of various operations, as suggested by Onishi in [0008].
Onishi does not specifically teach in particular if pd ≤ 500Pa. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares, Lee, and Onishi, to determine if pd ≤ 500Pa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, Keanneally teaches:
A method to provide an explosion proof legged robot (Fig. 1; [0019] “robotic system 500”), wherein the legged robot comprises:
the torso (Fig. 1; [0019] “Frame 1”), and
the at least one leg (Fig. 1; [0024] “one or more Leg Subassemblies 2”) with at least one actuator (Fig. 1; [0024] “one or more Leg Subassemblies 2”) with at least one actuator ([0035] “FIG. 3 is a view of the Leg Subassembly 2 according to an aspect of the present disclosure. Leg Subassembly 2 may contain Pod 15 which may contain motor control electronics as well as a subset of motors, mechanical reductions, transmissions, and encoders in a secure and isolated environment.”).
Kenneally does not specifically teach the actuator comprising an explosion proof housing, wherein the explosion proof housing of the actuator comprises at least one flame proof gap, a pressure sensor unit adapted to measure a differential pressure pd between a cavity pressure pc and an ambient pressure pa, wherein pc > pa, a safety unit adapted to recognize the differential pressure pd, the method comprises the steps of: measuring the differential pressure pd by means of the safety unit, and starting to run a safety measure if the differential pressure pd is below a predefined pressure value, in particular if pd ≤ 500P, in particular if pd ≤ 50Pa.
However, Mares teaches:
an actuator (Fig. 1; Col. 4 line 11 “actuator assembly 10”) comprising an explosion proof housing (Fig. 1; Col. 4 lines 28-36 “In order to impart successful explosion-proof characteristics, a housing 20 of actuator assembly 10 incorporates flame paths such as flame paths 50 (see FIGS. 7-12 for additional flame paths 48-49 and 51-54) which allow for safe passage of hot gasses and explosive energy from within housing 20 ...”), wherein the explosion proof housing of the actuator comprises at least one flame proof gap (Col. 4 lines 28-36 “flame paths 50 (see FIGS. 7-12 for additional flame paths 48-49 and 51-54) which allow for safe passage of hot gasses and explosive energy from within housing 20 ...”; Col. 4 lines 58-67 “Each flame path comprises a slight design gap provided between mating parts of housing 20. Such gaps enable release of heat and energy from housing 20 during an internal explosion, while containing the explosion therein and preventing transmission of flames outside of housing 20 ...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally to include an actuator having an explosion proof housing, wherein the explosion proof housing of the actuator comprises at least one flame proof gap, as taught by Mares, in order to allow for safe passage of hot gasses and explosive energy to be transferred into a chamber within the housing so as not to ignite explosive gasses contained inside the chamber and outside the actuator, as stated by Mares in Col. 4 lines 28-36.
Mares does not specifically teach a pressure sensor unit adapted to measure a differential pressure pd between a cavity pressure pc and an ambient pressure pa, wherein pc > pa, a safety unit adapted to recognize the differential pressure pd, the method comprises the steps of: measuring the differential pressure pd by means of the safety unit, and starting to run a safety measure if the differential pressure pd is below a predefined pressure value, in particular if pd ≤ 500P, in particular if pd ≤ 50Pa.
However, Onishi teaches:
a pressure sensor unit adapted to measure a differential pressure pd between a cavity pressure pc and an ambient pressure pa ([0026] “The pressure detector 55 is connected to the inside through the piping of the frame 11 and detects the pressure inside the frame 11.”), wherein pc > pa ([0033] “while the protection monitoring unit 52 maintains the pressure in the frame 11 at a predetermined value higher than the external pressure.”),
a safety unit adapted to recognize the differential pressure pd ([0027] “The protection monitoring unit 52 can open and close the solenoid valves 36 and 44 in accordance with the pressure detected by the pressure detector 55. That is, the protection monitoring unit 52 controls the opening and closing of the solenoid valves 36 and 44 so that the pressure inside the frame 11 is maintained higher than the predetermined pressure.”),
the method comprises the steps of:
measuring the differential pressure pd by means of the safety unit ([0027] “The protection monitoring unit 52 can open and close the solenoid valves 36 and 44 in accordance with the pressure detected by the pressure detector 55. That is, the protection monitoring unit 52 controls the opening and closing of the solenoid valves 36 and 44 so that the pressure inside the frame 11 is maintained higher than the predetermined pressure.”), and
starting to run a safety measure if the differential pressure pd is below a predefined pressure value ([0034] “ On the other hand, when any accident or failure occurs, the pressure in the frame 11 decreases. Then, the external flammable gas may intrude into the frame 11. Therefore, the pressure detector 55 outputs a signal to the protection monitoring unit 52 via the intrinsic safety barrier relay 53 when the air pressure in the frame 11 becomes lower than a predetermined value. The protection monitoring unit 52 operates the interlock breaker 56 to stop the power supply from the battery 23 to the electric component 21, the robot control device 22, the transmitter / receiver 24, and the motor 14, and issues an emergency warning and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares and Lee, to include a pressure sensor unit adapted to measure a differential pressure pd between a cavity pressure pc and an ambient pressure pa, wherein pc > pa, a safety unit adapted to recognize the differential pressure pd, the method comprises the steps of: measuring the differential pressure pd by means of the safety unit, and starting to run a safety measure if the differential pressure pd is below a predefined pressure value, as taught by Onishi, in order to prevent infiltration of flammable gas into the inside of the robot and improve safety and workability of various operations, as suggested by Onishi in [0008].
Onishi does not specifically teach in particular if pd ≤ 500Pa or if pd ≤ 50Pa. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares, Lee, and Onishi, to determine if pd ≤ 500Pa or pd ≤ 50Pa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18, the teachings of Kenneally in view of Mares, Lee, and Onishi have been discussed above with respect to claim 17. Kenneally, Mares, and Lee do not specifically teach wherein the safety measure is:
a shutdown of the robot, in particular if pd ≤ 50Pa,
a return of the robot to a safety zone, in particular if pd ≤ 500Pa, or
a return of the robot to a docking station.
filling the cavity with gas from a cartridge that is comprised in the robot to restore the gass pressure, if pd ≤ 1atm.
However, Onishi teaches:
wherein the safety measure is:
a shutdown of the robot, in particular if pd ≤ 1atm ([0007] “a protection monitoring device for stopping power supply from the battery to the electric component and the control device when the pressure inside the frame drops to a predetermined atmospheric pressure or lower; [0034] “Therefore, the pressure detector 55 outputs a signal to the protection monitoring unit 52 via the intrinsic safety barrier relay 53 when the air pressure in the frame 11 becomes lower than a predetermined value. The protection monitoring unit 52 operates the interlock breaker 56 to stop the power supply from the battery 23 to the electric component 21, the robot control device 22, the transmitter / receiver 24, and the motor 14, and issues an emergency warning and the like.”), or
filling the cavity with gas ([0048] “Further, although air is used as air in the above-described embodiment, nitrogen gas, an inert gas, or the like may be used”) from a cartridge (Fig. 1; [0024] “air tank 32”) that is comprised in the robot to restore the gas pressure, if pd ≤ 1atm ([0040] “The absolute pressure detector 74 defines the pressure outside the frame 11 as one atmospheric pressure, and detects the absolute pressure in the frame 1 corresponding thereto.”; [0041] “The protection monitoring unit 72 can open and close the solenoid valves 36 and 44 in accordance with the pressure detected by the absolute pressure detector 74. That is, the protection monitoring unit 72 controls the opening and closing of the solenoid valves 36 and 44 so that the pressure inside the frame 11 is maintained higher than the predetermined pressure.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares and Lee and Onishi, to include shut down the robot or fill the cavity with gas from a cartridge that is comprised in the robot to restore the gas pressure, if pd is less than a predetermined value, as taught by Onishi, in order to prevent infiltration of flammable gas into the inside of the robot and improve safety and workability of various operations, as suggested by Onishi in [0008].
Onishi does not specifically teach in particular if pd ≤ 50Pa or if pd ≤ 500Pa. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares, Lee, and Onishi, to determine if pd ≤ 50Pa or if pd ≤ 500Pa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenneally et al. (US 2022/0001531 A1), in view of Mares et al. (US 6,392,322 B1), and Lee et al. (US 2013/0140929 A1), and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 202250984 U).
Regarding claim 6, Kenneally further teaches the legged robot comprising a fan ([0042] “Other subassemblies may utilize ... fans ... to achieve controlled movement.”).
Kenneally, Mares, and Lee do not specifically teach the fan is a DC fan, wherein the DC fan is adapted to be explosion proof, in particular, wherein a housing of the DC fan comprises at least one flame gap.
However, Zhang teaches: a DC fan (Fig. 1; page 3, 2nd paragraph under DETAIL DESCRIPTION “flameproof DC electric fan”), wherein the DC fan is adapted to be explosion proof (Fig. 1; page 3, 2nd paragraph under DETAIL DESCRIPTION “flameproof DC electric fan”), in particular, wherein a housing of the DC fan comprises at least one flame gap (Fig. 1; page 3, 2nd paragraph under DETAIL DESCRIPTION “flameproof chamber 4”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares and Lee, to include a DC fan adapted to be explosion proof, in particular, wherein a housing of the DC fan comprises at least one flame gap, as taught by Zhang, in order to allow the robot to work safely and reliably in an environment with explosive gas underground.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenneally et al. (US 2022/0001531 A1), in view of Mares et al. (US 6,392,322 B1), and Lee et al. (US 2013/0140929 A1), and further in view of Blank et al. (US 4,599,487 A).
Regarding claim 9, Kenneally further teaches:
a wire from the actuator or the dynamic joint or any of the other sections of the actuator to a robot component within the cavity ([0050] “Pod 15 may include a motor controller (not shown) that communicates with Computing Box 3 ... As a result of the operation of the motor controller at Pod 15 , there may be a reduced number of wires from Computing Box 3 to Pod 15 , such as, in one non-limiting example, two power wires plus four signal wires.”),
at least one cable connection adapted to connect an electrical component of the actuator of the robot to one or more electrical components ([0050] “Pod 15 may include a motor controller (not shown) that communicates with Computing Box 3 ... As a result of the operation of the motor controller at Pod 15 , there may be a reduced number of wires from Computing Box 3 to Pod 15 , such as, in one non-limiting example, two power wires plus four signal wires.”) and/or battery within the torso ([0043] “Frame 1 may route power and electrical signals from Energy Box 4 and Computing Box 3 to Alignment Fastener 13, which may then transmit power and electrical signals to Interface Bracket 16 through the peg and to Leg Subassembly 2.”).
Kenneally and Mares do not specifically teach the cable gland to connect the wire, comprising
a separator with at least one cable inlet and at least one cable outlet, and
wherein the cable connection enters the cable gland through the cable inlet and exits the cable gland through the cable outlet, and
wherein a bare section of the cable connection arranged within the separator,
wherein the bare section is soldered up, and
wherein the separator is filled with an insulating material.
However, Blank teaches:
A cable gland comprising
a separator (Col. 3 lines 22-24 “a cable gland which is installed in the hole 1a of a wall 1 serving to separate two different atmospheres A and B from one another.”) with at least one cable inlet (Col. 3 lines 33-34 “an electric cable 5 which extends through the aperture 12”) and at least one cable outlet (Col. 3 lines 62-64 “The inner sheaths 8a extend outwardly from the housing 2 by way of an open end 2b which is remote from the aperture 12”), and
wherein the cable connection (Col. 3 line 33 “electric cable 5”) enters the cable gland through the cable inlet (Col. 3 lines 33-34 “an electric cable 5 which extends through the aperture 12”) and exits the cable gland through the cable outlet (Col. 3 lines 62-64 “The inner sheaths 8a extend outwardly from the housing 2 by way of an open end 2b which is remote from the aperture 12”), and
wherein a bare section of the cable connection arranged within the separator (Col. 2 lines 43-45 “The cable can contain the one conductor and at least one additional conductor which has a bare portion in the interior of the housing.”),
wherein the bare section is soldered up (Col. 3 lines 46-49 “Those portions of the conductors 9 which are disposed between the respective inner sheaths 8, 8a are bare and are provided with welded, soldered or otherwise formed beads 10.”), and
wherein the separator is filled with an insulating material (Col. 4 lines 30-51 “The improved cable gland further comprises a mass or body 15 of filler material which can comprise or consist of a casting resin and which completely fills the interior of the housing 2 so that the beads 10, the exposed parts of the inner sheaths 8, parts of the inner sheaths 8a, the sleeves 11, the end portion of the outer sheath 6 and the clamp 7 are fully embedded in the hardened filler material ... The material of the mass 15 preferably contains suitable fillers which compensate for differences between the thermal expansion coefficients of the material of the housing 2 and the remaining material of the mass 15.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kenneally, in view of Mares and Lee, to include a separator with at least one cable inlet and at least one cable outlet, and wherein the cable connection enters the cable gland through the cable inlet and exits the cable gland through the cable outlet, and wherein a bare section of the cable connection arranged within the separator, wherein the bare section is soldered up, and wherein the separator is filled with an insulating material, as taught by Blank, in order to separate two different atmospheres.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takahashi (US 2010/0109459 A1) teaches a robot with an internal pressure explosion-proof structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHI Q BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-3962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 AM - 6:00PM 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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/NHI Q BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656