DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The specification, the abstract and the drawings are all acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 6, 10, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN210704822U to An Ran.
As to claim 1, An Ran teaches a motor drive unit (10, 22) for a robot with a housing; a motor shaft element (221) which is mounted rotatably about an axis of rotation relative to the housing; a brake element (11, 12, 17, 14) comprising a ratchet (14), where the brake element (11, 21) is connected to the housing and the ratchet (14) is movable relative to the housing in order to enable a brake functionality of the motor drive unit (10), with the ratchet (14) engaging an annular member (12) in a locking position of the ratchet (14); wherein a brake disc element (11) which is attached to the motor shaft element (221), and the annular member (12) is rotatable relative to the brake disc element (11), with at least one set of friction surfaces is provided in order to provide a given static friction or a given dynamic friction (paragraph 61) between the brake disc element (11) and the annular member (12), where the friction surfaces extend in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation (figure 2).
As to claim 2, An Ran teaches the motor drive unit according to the preceding claim 1, further comprising: a spring element configured to press the annular member in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation towards at least a part of the brake disc element(page 4/8).
As to claim 6, An Ran teaches the motor drive unit according to claim 1,
wherein an inner diameter of the friction surfaces (fi) providing friction between the brake disc element and the annular member is at least 50% larger than a diameter(s) of the motor shaft element(figs. 2 & 4).
As to claim 10, An Ran teaches a robot joint having the motor drive unit according to claim 1(page 2 of 8).
As to claim 13, An Ran teaches a mobile robot having the motor drive unit according to claim 1(page 2 of 8).
As to claim 14, it is rejected as the same reason as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN210704822U to An Ran, and in view of JP 2011-58578A to Yahara.
As to claim 8, An Ran teaches the motor drive unit according to claim 1.
An Ran does not teach a magnetic and/or optic encoder target disc element applied on the brake disc element.
Yahara teaches a magnetic and/or optic encoder target disc element applied on the brake disc element(page 4 lines 45-49).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Yahara into An Ran
since An Ran suggests a robot/motor control system and Yahara suggests the beneficial
use of an encoder for a motor control system in the analogous art of motor control technology.
The motivation for this comes from the fact that Yahara suggests the beneficial use of an encoder which can be used to improve the robot/motor control system disclosed by An Ran.
As to claim 12, An Ran in view of Yahara teaches the motor drive unit according to claim 8. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use any conventional parts for an encoder system including but not limiting to using a magnetic elastomer.
7. Claims 3-5, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN210704822U to An Ran, and in view of USPN 9,140,342 to Hoebel.
As to claim 3, An Ran teaches the motor drive unit according to claim 2.
An Ran does not teach a bearing disc element provided between the spring element and the annular member.
Hoebel teaches a bearing disc element provided between the spring element and the annular member(col. 16: lines 14-18).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Hoebel into An Ran
since An Ran suggests a robot/motor control system and Hoebel suggests the beneficial
use of bearing disc for a motor control system in the analogous art of motor control technology.
The motivation for this comes from the fact that Hoebel teaches a bearing disc for a motor control system which can be used to improve the robot/motor control system disclosed by An Ran.
As to claim 4, An Ran in view of Hoebel teaches the motor drive unit according to any one of the claim 3, further comprising: a friction disc element provided between the annular member and the brake disc element, with the annular member being arranged in between the bearing disc element and the friction disc element(Hoebel col. 21: lines 20-38).
As to claim 5, An Ran in view of Hoebel teaches the motor drive unit according to any claim 4, wherein the bearing disc element and/or the friction disc element comprise, in addition to a disc part extending mainly perpendicular to the axis of rotation, a tube part adapted in its outer diameter to an inner diameter of the annular member(Hoebel col. 21: lines 20-38).
As to claim 11, An Ran in view of Hoebel teaches the motor drive unit according to claim 1, wherein an inner diameter of the friction surfaces providing friction between the brake disc element and the annular member is at least two times larger than a diameter of the motor shaft element(Hoebel col. 21: lines 20-38 wherein it is obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art change the size of friction component).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 7, 9, 15 are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim 1, but could be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims for the following reasons: No prior art of record discloses the features as claimed in the noted claims.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The non-obvious features are:
In comparison with the closest prior art as cited in this Office action and any previous Office actions, no prior art of record discloses the following features as claimed in the following claim limitations:
As per claim 7: The annular member comprises, at its outer face, at least one latch nose protruding from the main extension plane of the annular member into the direction parallel to the axis of rotation, where said at least one latch nose is configured for engaging with the ratchet in the locking position of the ratchet only.
As per claim 9: The ratchet is movable parallel to the axis of rotation and driven into the locking position by a spring mechanism, with another mechanism holding the ratchet in a freed position when said another mechanism is activated
As per claim 15: The annular member comprises, at its outer face, at least three latch noses protruding from the main extension plane of the annular member into the direction parallel to the axis of rotation, where said latch noses are configured for engaging with the ratchet in a locking position of the ratchet only.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 5,678,671 to Leimbach discloses a vehicle motor control system.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5251. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/DAVID LUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights