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 .
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/847,491, filed on 16-SEP-2024. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-13, and 16-18 have been rejected as follows. 14 and 15 is objected to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ben-Tzvi et al. (US 2008/0277172 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches: A moving body comprising: an expansion/contraction linear motion mechanism that expands and contracts in a first direction (Figure 1, 22), wherein the expansion/contraction linear motion mechanism includes a first link (element 12; Paragraph [49], " The robot 30 includes two base links 12, link 14, link 16"), a second link (element 14), a plurality of sprockets that includes a drive sprocket (Figure 15; element 46; Paragraph [69], "Sprocket 100 is driven by sprocket 46") arranged on the first link and that is arranged on a plane parallel to the first direction (Figure 8, 10; Paragraph [69], "One sprocket 46 is attached to the miter gear 98...Sprocket 100 is driven by sprocket 46 via ANSI chain 102. Depending on whether the driving gear mechanism 90 and 70 propels a pulley 26 "), and a chain that connects the sprockets to each other, both ends of the chain being connected to the second link (element 102; Paragraph [69], " sprocket 100 is attached to first joint 19"), the first link and the second link at least partially overlap in a second direction perpendicular to the plane (Figure 1; element 19), and as the drive sprocket is driven, the first link and the second link move in the first direction so as to approach or separate from each other (Paragraph [69], "Sprocket 100 is driven by sprocket 46 via ANSI chain 102. Depending on whether the driving gear mechanism 90 and 70 propels a pulley 26 and link 14 or 16 respectively")
Regarding claim 2, Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches: The moving body according to claim 1, wherein the expansion/contraction linear motion mechanism further includes a third link (element 16), at least a part of a plurality of the sprockets is arranged on the first link (Figure 8, 10; Paragraph [69], "One sprocket 46 is attached to the miter gear 98...Sprocket 100 is driven by sprocket 46 via ANSI chain 102. Depending on whether the driving gear mechanism 90 and 70 propels a pulley 26 ")
and the third link (Paragraph [72], "Sprocket 78 is attached to second joint 21 driving shaft 82 that is connected to link 16"), at least a part of the third link overlaps with the first link and the second link in the second direction (Figure 1(a)), and as the drive sprocket is driven, the first link and the third link move in the first direction so as to approach or separate from each other (Figure 1(b); Paragraph [69]Sprocket 100 is driven by sprocket 46 via ANSI chain 102. Depending on whether the driving gear mechanism 90 and 70 propels a pulley 26 and link 14 or 16 respectively)
Regarding claim 3, Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches: The moving body according to claim 2, wherein, as for side surfaces of the second link, a first side surface and a second side surface parallel to the plane and opposed to each other (Figure 5; element sides of 14 on either side of the wheel track 18)
, and a third side surface perpendicular to the first side surface and the second side surface (Figure 5; element side by joint 19) and parallel to the first direction are arranged in a U shape (Figure 2(d); element 14), and a part of the third link is sandwiched between the first side surface and the second side surface of the second link (Paragraph [63], "In the stowed or closed configuration link 16 is nested in link 14 ")
Regarding claim 4, Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches: The moving body according to claim 3, wherein the second link and the third link are at least partially housed in a space formed by the first link (Figure 1(a), 5) and a cover that covers a surface of the first link on which the sprocket is arranged (Figure 12; element 36)
Regarding claim 5, Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches: The moving body according to claim 4, wherein the first side surface of the second link is opposed to the first link (Figure 5), and a cable carrier that houses a cable is arranged between the first link and the first side surface of the second link (Figure 7, 15; Paragraph [71])
Regarding claim 6, Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches: The moving body according to claim 5, further comprising: a joint portion that is connected to the first link (element 19), wherein the cable carrier houses cables that extend from the joint portion (Figure 20)
Regarding claim 7, Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches: The moving body according to claim 3, wherein a linear guide that guides movement of the second link in the first direction is arranged on a surface of the third link opposed to the third side surface of the second link (Figure 5; Joint 2)
Regarding claim 9, Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches: The moving body according to claim 2, wherein a portion where the chain is connected to the second link overlaps with the third link in the first direction (Figure 16, 19; element 64, 68)
Regarding claim 10, Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches: The moving body according to claim 2, wherein a linear guide that guides movement of the first link in the first direction is arranged on a first surface on the plane side and a second surface on a back side of the third link (Figure 5; Joint 1; The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a backside” is behind)
Regarding claim 11, Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches: The moving body according to claim 10, wherein the second surface of the third link is provided with a rib that is higher than an upper end of the linear guide (Figure 9; the top of link 16 is higher than Joint 1)
Regarding claim 16, Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches: The moving body according to claim 1, further comprising: a motor that drives the drive sprocket (Figure 8; element 24, 88)
Regarding claim 18, Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches: An expansion/contraction linear motion mechanism comprising: a first link (element 12); a second link (element 14); a plurality of sprockets that includes a drive sprocket (Figure 15; element 46; Paragraph [69], "Sprocket 100 is driven by sprocket 46") arranged on the first link and that is arranged on a plane parallel to a first direction (Figure 8, 10; Paragraph [69], "One sprocket 46 is attached to the miter gear 98...Sprocket 100 is driven by sprocket 46 via ANSI chain 102. Depending on whether the driving gear mechanism 90 and 70 propels a pulley 26 "); and a chain that connects the sprockets to each other, both ends of the chain being connected to a first connecting portion of the second link (element 102; Paragraph [69], " sprocket 100 is attached to first joint 19"), wherein the first link and the second link at least partially overlap in a second direction perpendicular to the plane (Figure 1; element 19), and as the drive sprocket is driven, the first link and the second link move in the first direction so as to approach or separate from each other (Paragraph [69], "Sprocket 100 is driven by sprocket 46 via ANSI chain 102. Depending on whether the driving gear mechanism 90 and 70 propels a pulley 26 and link 14 or 16 respectively")
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Tzvi et al. (US 2008/0277172 A1) in view of Matsumoto (US 2021/0129359 A1).
Regarding claim 8, while Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches the limitations in claim 7 as stated above, including the linear guides guiding the links, it does not expressly teach:
the linear guide has dustproof and waterproof specification
However, Matsumoto teaches: The moving body according to claim 7, wherein the linear guide has dustproof and waterproof specification (Paragraph [28], "Such a structure in which adjacent two cylindrical bodies are connected through the sliding bearing is adopted to prevent thickening of the entire arm unit 10 and produce an effect of improving the water and dust-proof ability of the arm unit 10.")
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 joint where the link extends of Ben-Tzvi et al., to include link design that improves water and dust proof ability, as taught by Matsumoto. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot that has a joint where a link extends wherein the link design that improves water and dust proof ability.
Regarding claim 12, while Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches the limitations in claim 10 as stated above, including the linear guides guiding the links, it does not expressly teach:
the linear guide has dustproof and waterproof specification
However, Matsumoto teaches: The moving body according to claim 10, wherein the linear guide has dustproof and waterproof specification (Paragraph [28], "Such a structure in which adjacent two cylindrical bodies are connected through the sliding bearing is adopted to prevent thickening of the entire arm unit 10 and produce an effect of improving the water and dust-proof ability of the arm unit 10.")
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 joint where the link extends of Ben-Tzvi et al., to include link design that improves water and dust proof ability, as taught by Matsumoto. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot that has a joint where a link extends wherein the link design that improves water and dust proof ability.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Tzvi et al. (US 2008/0277172 A1) in view of Beimler et al. (US 20080292061 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches: The moving body according to claim 2, wherein one end of the chain extends from the first link in a direction of the second link (Figure 5; element 102; Paragraph [69], " sprocket 100 is attached to first joint 19”) … and another end of the chain extends from the third link in a direction of the second link (element 80) and is connected to the second link via a second spring (Figure 5, 6)
While Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly teach:
and is connected to the second link via a first spring
However, Beimler et al. teaches: one end of the chain and is connected to the second link via a first spring (Figure 5, 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify robot with links that are driven by sprockets, chains, and motors of Ben-Tzvi et al., to include the chains connected to the links via springs, as taught by Beimler et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot with links that are driven by sprockets, chains, and motors, wherein the chains are connected to the links via springs.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Tzvi et al. (US 2008/0277172 A1) in view of Matsumoto (US 2021/0129359 A1) in further view of Kiley (US 2007/0144421 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches: The moving body according to claim 16, planetary gear-equipped motor (Figure 24; Paragraph [69]), the drive sprocket is directly connected to an output shaft of the motor (Figure 15; element 24, 46), a passive sprocket of a plurality of the sprockets is supported by a bearing with a contact-type seal (Figure 15; element 66)
While Ben-Tzvi et al. teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly teach:
and is connected to the second link via a first spring
However, Matsumoto teaches: wherein the motor is a dustproof and waterproof specification (Paragraph [28], "Such a structure in which adjacent two cylindrical bodies are connected through the sliding bearing is adopted to prevent thickening of the entire arm unit 10 and produce an effect of improving the water and dust-proof ability of the arm unit 10")
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 motor sprocket system of Ben-Tzvi et al., to include design that improves water and dust proof ability, as taught by Matsumoto. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot with a motor sprocket system with a design that improves water and dust proof ability.
While Ben-Tzvi et al. and Matsumoto teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly teach:
the chain is a seal chain
However, Kiley teaches: and the chain is a seal chain (Figure 2; element 200; Paragraph [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 robot with a motor sprocket system with a design improves water and dust proof ability of Ben-Tzvi et al., to include the chain connected to the sprockets being a seal chain, as taught by Kiley. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot with a motor sprocket system connected to a seal chain with a design that improves water and dust proof ability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 14 would be allowable for disclosing, in combination with the other limitations, the maximum spring force of the first spring is equal to or higher than a maximum load generated at a connecting portion with the chain, and a maximum spring force of the second spring is equal to or higher than a maximum load generated at a connecting portion with the chain. Ben-Tzvi et al. (US 2008/0277172 A1) discloses a chain (element 80) but does not disclose a spring connected to the chain or a spring force. Matsumoto (US 2021/0129359 A1) does not disclose any springs. Beimler et al. (US 20080292061 A1) discloses (Paragraph [59], “a maximum force related to the spring properties”) but does not disclose the force being equal or higher than a maximum load generated at a connecting portion with the chain. Kiley (US 2007/0144421 A1) discloses (Paragraph [25], “With the spring 404 in compression, a force in a direction 408 is applied to the chain 402 exerting a force on the chain 402 to “push” the chain 402 into the housing 418. The spring 404 push on the chain 414 into the housing 418 may remove slack from the chain 110”) but does not disclose the force being equal or higher than a maximum load generated at a connecting portion with the chain.
Claim 15 would be allowable for disclosing, in combination with the other limitations, a spring constant of the second spring is higher than a spring constant of the first spring. Ben-Tzvi et al. (US 2008/0277172 A1) discloses a chain (element 80) but does not disclose spring constants. Matsumoto (US 2021/0129359 A1) does not disclose any springs. Beimler et al. (US 20080292061 A1) does not disclose a spring constant. Kiley (US 2007/0144421 A1) does not disclose spring constants.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSE TRAMANH TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5879. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm ET.
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.
/A.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656