TORQUE SENSOR SUPPORT
STRUCTURE AND ROBOT
FIRST OFFICE ACTION
This action takes into account the Applicant’s preliminary amendments of Nov. 05, 2024 and July 14, 2025.
DRAWINGS
The Applicant’s submitted drawings of Nov. 05, 2024 have been considered and approved.
TITLE
The title is objected to because it is vague, confusing and not clearly descriptive of the claimed invention.
ABSTRACT
The Applicant’s submitted abstract in the preliminary amendment of Nov. 05, 2024 has been considered and approved.
SPECIFICATION
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. The Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the Applicant may become aware of in the specification.
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
35 U.S.C. § 103
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103, 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.
Claims 1 - 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi et al. (2009/0218162).
With respect to independent claim 1, Miyoshi et al. set forth a torque sensor support structure (Fig. 2) comprising:
an adaptor (43) that fixes a torque sensor (St) to a first member (23), the torque sensor being disposed between a decelerator (16) and the first member (23) for attaching the decelerator, and the torque sensor detecting torque (ie. steering torque) acting around an axis of the decelerator (axis of steering shaft in Fig. 2),
wherein the adaptor suppresses deformation of the sensor support structure (paragraph 61).
While Miyoshi et al. set forth that the adaptor (43) suppresses deformation of the support structure, Miyoshi et al. fail to explicitly set forth that the adaptor suppresses deformation of the first member caused by a force or moment acting on the torque sensor as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Miyoshi et al. teaching that the adaptor will suppress deformation of the first member caused by a force or moment acting on the torque sensor.
The motivation being that the adaptor (43) is formed by curving a sheet of a rectangular plate member into a cylindrical shape (paragraph 47) to surround coils (41A and 41B) which then will provide added rigidity to the coils.
With respect to claim 2, Miyoshi et al. fail to set forth the material from which the adaptor (43) and the first member (23) are made from. Thus, Miyoshi et al. fail to explicitly teach that the adaptor (43) is composed of a material with higher rigidity than the first member (23) as claimed.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to compose the adaptor from a material of high rigidity and thus of a material of a higher rigidity than the first member.
The motivation being to minimize the wear of the adaptor.
With respect to claim 3, Miyoshi et al. set forth that the torque sensor (St) is fixed to the decelerator (16), and that the adaptor (43) and the first member (23) are fastened to the torque sensor in accordance with joint fastening of a bolt (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 4, Miyoshi et al. set forth that the torque sensor (St) is fastened to the decelerator (16) by using a bolt (Fig. 2); the first member (23) is fastened to the adaptor (43) by using a first bolt; and the adaptor is fastened to the torque sensor by using a second bolt (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 5, Miyoshi et al. set forth that the torque sensor (St) has a shape of a circular plate, and the adaptor (43) has a shape of a plate that is larger toward a radially outer side than the torque sensor (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 6, Miyoshi et al. set forth that a ring-shaped seal member (47) surrounds the torque sensor (St), wherein the seal member is compressed in a direction of the axis between the decelerator (16) and the adaptor (43).
With respect to independent claim 8, Miyoshi et al. set forth a “robot” comprising:
a first member (23);
a second member (15);
a decelerator (16) that supports the second member so as to be rotatable around a predetermined axis (axis of steering shaft in Fig. 2) relative to the first member;
a torque sensor (St) that is disposed between the decelerator and the first member and that
detects torque acting between the decelerator and the first member (Fig. 2); and
an adaptor (43) fixed between the torque sensor and the first member,
wherein the adaptor suppresses deformation of the first member (paragraph 61).
While Miyoshi et al. set forth that the adaptor (43) suppresses deformation of the support structure, Miyoshi et al. fail to explicitly set forth that the adaptor suppresses deformation of the first member caused by a force or moment acting on the torque sensor as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Miyoshi et al. teaching that the adaptor will suppress deformation of the first member caused by a force or moment acting on the torque sensor.
The motivation being that the adaptor (43) is formed by curving a sheet of a rectangular plate member into a cylindrical shape (paragraph 47) to surround coils (41A and 41B) which then will provide added rigidity to the coils.
The Examiner notes that nothing in the body of the claim calls for or defines the “robot” as set forth in the preamble of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
With respect to claim 7, the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the torque sensor (St) and the adaptor (43) are engaged with each other by means of an inlay section, wherein an engagement length of the inlay section is slightly larger than an appropriate compression amount of the seal member (47).
CITED DOCUMENTS
The Applicant’s attention is directed to the “PTO-892” form for the relevant art made of record at the time of this Office Action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights