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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024 has been considered and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 discloses the claim limitation “Joint arrangement for a robot arm,” in line 1 and the examiner puts forth the claim limitation should read as “A joint arrangement for a robot arm,”.
Claim 7 discloses the claim limitation “a joint arrangement…” and the examiner puts forth the claim limitation should read as “the joint arrangement…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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 1 discloses the limitation “for a robot arm, especially a robot arm for use in microsurgery” which the examiner has found to be unclear. The examiner puts forth it is unclear as to whether the limitation claimed is for a microsurgery robot arm, or any robotic arm capable of performing operations relating to microsurgery. Therefore claim 1 is rejected under 112(b). Furthermore Claims 2-7 are rejected under 112(b) for their dependency on independent claim 1.
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 1-10, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (“An Optimized Permanent Magnet Brake Mechanism in Robot Joints”; hereinafter Wang and already of record from IDS received 10/17/2024).
Regarding Claim 1:
Wang discloses joint arrangement for a robot arm, especially a robot arm for use in microsurgery, comprising: at least one brake device being configured for engagement and for disengagement and comprising a stator assembly and a rotor assembly (Wang, Fig. 2-3, Pg. 18279-18280, Wang discloses a brake mechanism with an electro magnet in the stator and a rotor comprising permanent magnets),
wherein the brake device is further configured to be operable at a minimal power consumption in a disengagement state (Wang, Pg. 18279, Section II A, Wang discloses in a third operating state the brake mechanism will enter a holding state following the release of the brake (i.e. disengagement state) with the holding state comprising a small current being required to balance the magnet force).
Regarding Claim 2:
Wang discloses the joint arrangement of claim 1.
Wang further discloses wherein the brake device comprises: at least one permanent magnet for providing a braking effect during engagement and being assigned to the rotor assembly (Wang, Fig. 1-3, Pg. 18279, Section II A, Wang discloses the permanent magnets produces braking state when the electromagnet is powered off), and
at least one electromagnet for releasing the braking effect during disengagement and being assigned to the stator assembly (Wang, Fig. 1-3, Pg. 18279, Section II A, Wang discloses the stator is supplied with a high pulse current and the brake is released),
wherein the permanent magnet and the electromagnet are arranged or arrangeable to each other with a gap between themselves such as to allow the brake device to be operable at a minimal power consumption (Wang, Fig. 1-3, Pg. 18282, Wang discloses the gap between the permanent magnet and electromagnet and the braking armature comprises a distance of .3mm to 1.3mm depending on the design parameters and expected results).
Regarding Claim 3:
Wang discloses the joint arrangement of claim 2.
Wang further discloses wherein the gap is smaller than 1 mm ± 10% (Wang, Fig. 1-3, Pg. 18282, Wang discloses the gap between the permanent magnet and electromagnet and the braking armature comprises a distance of .3mm to 1.3mm depending on the design parameters and expected results).
Regarding Claim 4:
Wang discloses the joint arrangement of claim 2.
Wang further discloses wherein the joint arrangement further comprises at least one motor stack having a rotor assembly and a stator assembly, wherein the brake device is arranged in connection with or within the motor stack (Wang, Pg. 18278, Wang discloses the robotic arm joint includes a motor brake mechanism with the brake structure including at least a stator and rotor assemblies).
Regarding Claim 5:
Wang discloses the joint arrangement of claim 4.
Wang further discloses wherein the rotor assembly of the brake device is configured as a part of the rotor assembly of the motor stack, and the stator assembly of the brake device is configured as a part of the stator assembly of the motor stack (Wang, Pg. 18278, Wang discloses the robotic arm joint includes a motor brake mechanism with the brake structure including at least a stator and rotor assemblies).
Regarding Claim 6:
Wang discloses the joint arrangement of claim 4.
Wang further discloses wherein the motor stack comprises at least one spring, being configured to provide a spring force to the brake device (Wang, Pg. 18278, Wang discloses the brake structure comprises a torque spring embedded in at least the electromagnet).
Regarding Claim 7:
Wang discloses robot arm, comprising: a joint arrangement of claim 1 (Wang, Pg. 18278, Wang discloses the robotic arm joint includes a motor brake mechanism).
Regarding Claim 8:
The claim discloses analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 9:
Wang discloses the method of claim 8.
Wang further discloses wherein the brake device is further configured for engagement at an engagement threshold value and for disengagement at a disengagement threshold value being higher than the engagement threshold value (Wang, Pg. 18279, Wang discloses the braking mechanism engages and disengages based on the amount of power provided to the braking mechanism), and
the method further comprises the following steps: providing full power to the brake device by applying Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) for disengaging the brake device (Wang, Pg. 18279, Wang discloses providing a high current pulse in the electromagnet coil in order to keep the brake armature attached),
reducing the power provided to the brake device to a first predetermined power value by applying PWM, wherein the first predetermined power value is set between the disengagement threshold value and the engagement threshold value (Wang, Pg. 18279, Wang discloses reducing the current applied to the electromagnet coil in order to balance the magnet force acting on the brake armature), and
maintaining the power provided to the brake device at the first predetermined value by applying PWM for keeping the brake device in disengagement (Wang, Pg. 18279, Wang discloses applying a small current during the holding state of operation of the braking device).
Regarding Claim 10:
Wang discloses the method of claim 9.
Wang further discloses wherein the method further comprises reducing the power provided to the brake device to a second predetermined power value by applying PWM for engaging the brake device, wherein the second predetermined power value is set below the engagement threshold value (Wang, Pg. 18279, Wang discloses further reduction of the applied current will result in the permanent magnet engaging the braking armature resulting the braking state while the robot system is powered off).
Regarding Claim 12:
Wang discloses the method of claim 9.
Wang further discloses wherein the full power being providable or provided to the brake device by applying PWM for disengaging the brake device includes a 24V signal (Wang, Fig. 14, Wang discloses at least a 24 volt signal being provided to the braking device).
Regarding Claim 15:
Wang discloses the method of claim 9.
Wang further discloses wherein providing full power to the brake device by applying PWM for disengaging the brake device is maintained for a first predetermined time period (Wang, Fig. 12, Pg. 18283, Wang discloses a large current applied to the electromagnet is maintained for a predetermined time period), and
maintaining the power provided to the brake device at the first predetermined power value by applying PWM for keeping the brake device in disengagement is maintained for a second predetermined time period (Wang, Pg. 18283, Wang discloses a small current applied during the holding state),
wherein the second predetermined time period is longer than the first predetermined time period (Wang, Pg. 18283, Wang discloses a small current applied during the holding state is maintained to save energy and reduce heat generation, and therefore would be a longer time period than when the full power is applied).
Regarding Claim 16:
The claim discloses analogous limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 17:
Wang discloses the method of claim 8.
Wang further discloses wherein the brake device is arranged in connection with or within a motor stack of the joint arrangement, optionally, wherein the motor stack comprises at least one spring being configured to provide a spring force to the brake device (Wang, Pg. 18278, Wang discloses the robotic arm joint includes a motor brake mechanism with the brake structure including at least a stator and rotor assemblies with a torque spring embedded in at least the electromagnet).
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.
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 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Regarding Claim 11:
Wang discloses the method of claim 9.
However Wang does not explicitly disclose the first predetermined power value is half of the full power being providable or provided to the brake device by applying PWM for disengaging the brake device. While Wang does disclose (Pg. 18283) reducing from the full power to a lower power amount when disengaging the braking device during the holding state, explicit value reductions are not disclosed. The examiner puts forth it would have been obvious of one ordinary skill in the art the reduce the full power to half when disengaging the braking device, and this amounts to no more than a design choice based on designed parameters regarding the electromagnet and other parameters. Therefore the examiner puts forth it would have been obvious to reduce the power by one half when disengaging the braking the device, and one ordinary skill in the art would have expected results. Such expected results from Wang can be derived from at least equations (2) and (3) found in page 18280 where the current is determined.
Regarding Claim 13:
Wang discloses the method of claim 9.
However Wang does not explicitly disclose the disengagement threshold value is 5/8 of the full power.
While Wang does disclose (Pg. 18283) reducing from the full power to a lower power amount when disengaging the braking device during the holding state, explicit value reductions are not disclosed. The examiner puts forth it would have been obvious of one ordinary skill in the art the reduce the full power to 5/8 when disengaging the braking device, and this amounts to no more than a design choice based on designed parameters regarding the electromagnet and other parameters. Therefore the examiner puts forth it would have been obvious to reduce the power by 5/8 when disengaging the braking the device, and one ordinary skill in the art would have expected results. Such expected results from Wang can be derived from at least equations (2) and (3) found in page 18280 where the current is determined.
Regarding Claim 14:
Wang discloses the method of claim 9.
However Wang does not explicitly disclose the disengagement threshold value is 1/3 of the full power.
While Wang does disclose (Pg. 18283) reducing from the full power to a lower power amount when disengaging the braking device during the holding state, explicit value reductions are not disclosed. The examiner puts forth it would have been obvious of one ordinary skill in the art the reduce the full power to 1/3 when disengaging the braking device, and this amounts to no more than a design choice based on designed parameters regarding the electromagnet and other parameters. Therefore the examiner puts forth it would have been obvious to reduce the power by 1/3 when disengaging the braking the device, and one ordinary skill in the art would have expected results. Such expected results from Wang can be derived from at least equations (2) and (3) found in page 18280 where the current is determined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Esfahani (USP 11,607,817) – discloses a robotic arm with joints which include an extra actuator for variable stiffness in the gripper.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH WALLACE whose telephone number is (469)295-9087. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/Z.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights