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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group or non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 20, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (drawn to a robot) and Species 4 (shown in Figs. 8-9) in the reply filed on July 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “wherein the member including the hollow portion is arranged at each of the plurality of joints, the drive device is arranged at each of the plurality of joints” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). (The Examiner notes the drawings only show a hollow portion at a single joint, the drawings do not show the same hollow portion arranged at each of the plurality of joints, and likewise show a drive device arranged at a single joint, and do not show the same drive device arranged at each of the plurality of joints.) No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-3 and 5-8 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 recites the limitation "a member" in line 4, line 10 and line 11. This is double inclusion. It is unclear whether the “a member” recited in line 10 is the same as or different from that recited in line 4, and it is unclear whether the “a member” recited in line 11 is the same as or different from that recited in line 4 and likewise that recited in line 10.
Claim 1 recites “the second support member is fixed to a member that rotates when the drive device is driven”. It is unclear whether the second support member rotates when the drive device is driven or the “a member” rotates when the drive device is driven.
The limitation “rotate” in claim 1 in the limitation “the second support member is fixed to a member that rotates when the drive device is driven” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The claim does not specify relative to what the “member that rotates” rotates.
The term “stationary” in claim 1 in the limitation “the first support member is fixed to a member that is stationary when the drive device is driven” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The claim does not specify relative to what the “member that is stationary” is stationary.
According to MPEP § 2173.03, “a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claim 1 recites “a drive device configured to rotate a second constituent member of the robot around a rotation axis with respect to a first constituent member of the robot; a member including a hollow portion extending in a direction along the rotation axis[.]” Paragraph [0021] recites, inter alia, “For example, a hollow portion may be formed in a housing of a constituent member of the robot.” Paragraph [0022] recites, inter alia, “In this case, the electric motor 21, the reduction gear 22, and the torque sensor 23 correspond to members forming the hollow portion.” While claim 1 (and its dependents) appear to claim different members as different, distinct components (e.g. the “a member including a hollow portion” being distinct from a “first constituent member” and distinct from “a second constituent member,” the specification implicitly describes at least some members as being either components/sub-components of other members. This inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain. For the purpose of further examination on the merits, the term “member”, including as used in “a member”, “a first constituent member”, etc. is found to not require a distinct component that is distinct from any other claimed “member” or claimed component. In other words, for example, “a member including a hollow portion” may be a distinct component from any other claimed component or may be a portion of or entirety of a “first constituent member”, “a first support member”, or another claimed member or claimed component.
Claims 5 and 8 each recite the limitation "the electric motor" in lines 2 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the drive device is arranged at each of the plurality of joints, a plurality of the drive devices”. Claim 6 depends upon claim 1 which recites “a drive device”. It is unclear whether the “a plurality of the drive devices” recited in claim 6 at line 5 includes the “drive device” recited in claim 6 at line 4 and/or the “drive device” recited in claim 1 at line 2.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the member including the hollow portion is arranged at each of the plurality of joints.” Claim 6 depends upon claim 1 which recites “a member including a hollow portion”. It is unclear whether claim 6 is attempting to claim a respective member including a respective hollow portion respectively arranged at each of the plurality of joints. As claimed in claim 6, there is only a single hollow portion and that same hollow portion must be arranged at each of the plurality of joints, as opposed to each joint having a respective member having a respective hollow portion (e.g. if three joints, then three members each having a respective hollow portion, i.e. three joints and three hollow portions). The specification however identifies shows and describes a plurality of hollow portions (21a, 22a, and 23a), but does not show any single hollow portion (e.g. one of 21a, 22a, and 23a) as being arranged at each of the plurality of joints (10a-10f) or at two or more joints of the plurality of joints, but rather only ever shows or describes a hollow portion at a single joint.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hahakura (US2015/0321344, corresponding to JP2015-212002 cited by Applicant).
Hahakura discloses:
Re claim 1
A robot comprising:
a drive device (including motor M2, belt 32, and shaft portion 33) configured to rotate a second constituent member (22) of the robot around a rotation axis with respect to a first constituent member (10) of the robot;
a member (33, as best understood, a claimed “member” may be a component/sub-component of another claimed component such as one of the constituent members or the drive device. See also dependent claim 2) including a hollow portion (through hole 36 in 24) extending in a direction along the rotation axis;
an optical cable (wiring part 30 (optical cable); para. [0038]) arranged so as to pass through an inside of the hollow portion (36);
a first support member (40, including 40A) arranged on one side in an axial direction of the hollow portion (36) and configured to support the optical cable; and
a second support member (42) arranged on a side opposite to the one side in the axial direction of the hollow portion (36) and configured to support the optical cable (30), wherein the first support member (40) is fixed to a member that is stationary when the drive device (M) is driven, the second support member (articulated arm 20) is fixed to a member (21) that rotates (21 rotates relative to 22) when the drive device (M) is driven, the first support member and the second support member are configured to support the optical cable (wiring part 30 (optical cable)) substantially on the rotation axis (axial center C1, axial center C2), and when the drive device is driven, the second support member (42) rotates with respect to the first support member (40) so that the optical cable (30) is twisted between the first support member (40) and the second support member(42) (para. [0061], [0063], [0067]).
Re claim 2. The robot of claim 1, wherein the member (33) including the hollow portion (36) is arranged in the drive device (including motor M2, belt 32, and shaft portion 33).
Re claim 5. The robot of claim 1, wherein the drive device includes a driver (para. [0075] - “a control unit that is provided in the articulated arm 20”) configured to control electricity supplied to the electric motor, the driver includes a communication device configured to transmit and receive information communicated through the optical cable, and the communication device is arranged inside a housing of the first constituent member or inside a housing of the second constituent member (para. [0075]).
Re claim 8. The robot of claim 1, wherein information communicated through the optical cable includes at least one selected from a group of a position command of the electric motor, a rotational speed command of the electric motor, a current command, a voltage command, information about a position or speed detected by a rotational position detector, information about a current detected by a current detector, information detected by a sensor, and a signal for controlling a work tool (para. [0050] - “camera” which is a sensor).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahakura (US2015/0321344, corresponding to JP2015-212002 cited by Applicant) in view of Tamura (US2011/0280527).
Re claim 3
Hahakura discloses all claim dependencies, see above, and further discloses an electric wire (30) (para. [0038] - “The wiring portion 30 is a cable harness into which a plurality of wirings are bundled, and includes a communication cable (for example, an M/C cable, a LAN cable, or an optical cable).” At least M/C cable is metal-clad cable which is a type of electrical wiring. Furthermore, there a plurality of wirings, one of which is communication cable, but at least some of the wiring must be electrical to power motors M3 and M4.) for supplying electricity, wherein the electric wire is arranged so as to pass through the inside of the hollow portion (36) (see Fig. 2), but is silent to the first support member and the second support member being configured to support the electric wire at positions farther away from the rotation axis than the optical cable.
Tamura teaches the first support member and the second support member being configured to support the electric wire (15) at positions farther away from the rotation axis than the optical cable (12)(para. [0018]-[0021]), for the purpose of preventing lateral pressure from bearing on the optical fiber even during flexion of the cable and maintaining the transmission characteristics of the optical fiber (para. [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Hahakura discloses all claim dependencies, see above, and further such that the first support member and the second support member being configured to support the electric wire at positions farther away from the rotation axis than the optical cable , as taught by Tamura, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing lateral pressure from bearing on the optical fiber even during flexion of the cable and maintaining the transmission characteristics of the optical fiber.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahakura (US2015/0321344, corresponding to JP2015-212002 cited by Applicant) in view of Tamura (US2011/0280527) and Hirai (US5,712,552).
Re claim 6, as best understood
Hahakura discloses all claim dependency limitations, and further discloses a plurality of joints (between 21 and 22, and between 21 and 34), wherein the member including the hollow portion (36) is arranged at each of the plurality of joints, the drive device (including motor M2, belt 32, and shaft portion 33) is arranged at each of the plurality of joints, but is silent to a plurality of the drive devices are configured to perform serial communication, and the optical cable including two optical fibers is inserted into the hollow portion.
Tamura teaches the optical cable (30 in Hakakura; 11 in Tamura)) including two optical fibers (12 & 12; see Fig. 1) is inserted into the hollow portion, for the purpose of preventing lateral pressure from bearing on the optical fiber even during flexion of the cable and maintaining the transmission characteristics of the optical fiber (para. [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Hahakura discloses all claim dependency limitations, and further such that the optical cable ) including two optical fibers is inserted into the hollow portion, as taught by Tamura, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing lateral pressure from bearing on the optical fiber even during flexion of the cable and maintaining the transmission characteristics of the optical fiber.
Hahakura as modified above does not disclose a plurality of the drive devices are configured to perform serial communication.
Hirai teaches a plurality of the drive devices are configured to perform serial communication, for the purpose of transmitting commands and feedback signals (C4/L47-55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Hahakura such that a plurality of the drive devices are configured to perform serial communication, as taught by Hirai, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of transmitting commands and feedback signals.
Hahakura as modified above further suggests:
Re claim 7
wherein the optical cable has a structure in which the two optical fibers (12 & 12 in Tamura) are fixed to each other and integrated (fixed and integrated by protective tube 13 in Tamura).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haniya (US2009/0114052) discloses an articulated manipulator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY T PRATHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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.
/GREGORY T PRATHER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights