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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 06/28/2022. It is noted, however, that applicants have not filed a certified copy of the PCT/CN2022/101808 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 02/11/2025 and 12/31/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Palfenier et al. (US 20140020491).
Regarding claim 1, Palfenier et al. teach:
A modular actuator that is configurable in the field, the modular actuator configured to drive an actuator output (abstract), the modular actuator comprising:
a first modular actuator base assembly (10) providing the actuator output of the modular actuator,
the first modular actuator base assembly (10) comprising:
a first modular actuator base housing (18, para 14);
a first electric motor (14) operatively coupled to a first gear train (12),
wherein the first gear includes two or more reduction gears (Fig 1 shows 78 having smaller diameters and stepped gearing, para 20) for driving the actuator output,
the first electric motor (14) and the first gear train (12) carried by the first modular actuator base housing (18);
a first modular control assembly (18,24, 150, 160), the first modular control assembly comprising:
a first control assembly housing (24,160, paras 14,36);
a first controller (16) carried by the first control assembly housing (24,160);
wherein the first control assembly housing (24,160) is removable mountable to the first modular actuator base housing (18) in the field; and
wherein the first controller (16) is configured to control the first electric motor (14) of the first modular actuator base assembly (10), and thus control the actuator output of the modular actuator through the first gear train (12, paras 4, 21-25,31-36).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palfenier et al. (US 20140020491).
Regarding claim 2/1, Palfenier et al. teach the invention as discussed above, except wherein the first modular actuator base assembly is field replaceable with a second modular actuator base assembly, wherein the second modular actuator base assembly when installed provides the actuator output of the modular actuator, the second modular actuator base assembly includes a second gear train, wherein the second gear train includes two or more reduction gears for driving the actuator output of the modular actuator, the second gear train and the actuator output carried by a second modular actuator base housing.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of scaling the invention wherein the first modular actuator base assembly is field replaceable with a second modular actuator base assembly, wherein the second modular actuator base assembly when installed provides the actuator output of the modular actuator, the second modular actuator base assembly includes a second gear train, wherein the second gear train includes two or more reduction gears for driving the actuator output of the modular actuator, the second gear train and the actuator output carried by a second modular actuator base housing, since it would depend on desired efficiency, cost, available space and weight.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Palfenier et al. wherein the first modular actuator base assembly is field replaceable with a second modular actuator base assembly, wherein the second modular actuator base assembly when installed provides the actuator output of the modular actuator, the second modular actuator base assembly includes a second gear train, wherein the second gear train includes two or more reduction gears for driving the actuator output of the modular actuator, the second gear train and the actuator output carried by a second modular actuator base housing.
The motivation to do so would depend on desired efficiency, cost, available space and weight.
In regards to claim 2/1 Palfenier et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the multiplicity of modular actuator base assembly, a second gear train, wherein the second gear train includes two or more reduction gears for driving the actuator output of the modular actuator, the second gear train and the actuator output carried by a second modular actuator base housing. Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing of the invention was made to duplicate modular actuator base assembly, gear train and modular actuator base housing, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would depend on desired efficiency, cost, available space and weight.
Regarding claim 3/2, Palfenier et al. teach the invention as discussed above, except wherein the second modular actuator base housing is field-attachable to the first control assembly housing.
In regard to claim 3/2 Palfenier et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the multiplicity of modular actuator base housing being field-attachable. Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing of the invention was made to duplicate the modular actuator base housing and have it field-attachable (examiner notes no particular structure is recited limiting the device to being field-attachable), since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would depend on desired efficiency (power), cost, available space and weight.
Regarding claim 18, Palfenier et al. teach:
A method for assembling a modular actuator having an actuator output (abstract, Fig 1), the method comprising:
selecting a first modular actuator base assembly (10) from a plurality of modular actuator base assemblies,
the first modular actuator base assembly (10) including a first electric motor (14) operatively coupled to a first gear train (12),
wherein the first gear train (12) includes two or more reduction gears (78) for driving an actuator output of the first modular actuator base assembly,
the first electric motor (14) and first gear train (12) carried by a first modular actuator base housing (18, para 14);
selecting a first modular control assembly (18,24, 150, 160) from a plurality of modular control assemblies,
the first modular control assembly (18,24, 150, 160) includes a first controller (16) housed by a first modular controller assembly housing (24,160); and
removably mounting (via 150,162) the first modular controller assembly housing (24,160) to the first modular actuator base housing (18, para 14),
wherein the first controller (16) of the first modular control assembly is configured to control the first electric motor (14) of the first modular actuator base assembly (10, paras 31-36), and
thus control the actuator output of the first modular actuator base assembly (paras 4, 21-25,31-36).
In regards to claim 18, Palfenier et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the multiplicity of modular actuator base assembly or a plurality of modular control assemblies. Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing of the invention was made to duplicate a modular actuator base assembly and a modular control assembly, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would depend on desired efficiency, cost, available space and weight.
Regarding claim 19/18, Palfenier et al. teach further comprising: interrogating, via the first modular control assembly, one or more circuit elements of the first modular actuator base assembly to identify one or more first configuration parameters of the first modular actuator base assembly (paras 31-34); and controlling, via the first modular control assembly, the first electric motor of the first modular actuator base assembly, and thus controlling the actuator output of the first modular actuator base assembly, based at least in part on the one or more identified configuration parameters (paras 31-34).
Claim(s) 10,13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palfenier et al. (US 20140020491) in view of Freeman et al. (US 2008/0224542).
Regarding claim 10/1, Palfenier et al. teach the invention as discussed above, except wherein the first modular actuator base assembly comprises one or more circuit elements that when interrogated identify one or more configuration parameters of the first modular actuator base assembly, and wherein the first modular control assembly is configured to interrogate one or more of the circuit elements to identify one or more of the configuration parameters and control the first electric motor of the first modular actuator base assembly, and thus control the actuator output of the modular actuator, based at least in part on the one or more identified configuration parameters.
Freeman et al. disclose a device wherein the first modular actuator base assembly comprises one or more circuit elements that when interrogated identify one or more configuration parameters of the first modular actuator base assembly, and wherein the first modular control assembly is configured to interrogate one or more of the circuit elements to identify one or more of the configuration parameters and control the first electric motor of the first modular actuator base assembly, and thus control the actuator output of the modular actuator, based at least in part on the one or more identified configuration parameters (Figs 1,2,4,5, claim 1, paras 12,15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Palfenier et al. wherein the first modular actuator base assembly comprises one or more circuit elements that when interrogated identify one or more configuration parameters of the first modular actuator base assembly, and wherein the first modular control assembly is configured to interrogate one or more of the circuit elements to identify one or more of the configuration parameters and control the first electric motor of the first modular actuator base assembly, and thus control the actuator output of the modular actuator, based at least in part on the one or more identified configuration parameters, as Freeman et al. disclose.
The motivation to do so is it would provide operational control as wanted (para 12 of Freeman et al.).
Regarding claim 13, Palfenier et al. teach:
A modular actuator configured to drive an actuator output (abstract), the modular actuator comprising:
a first modular actuator base assembly (10) providing the actuator output of the modular actuator,
the first modular actuator base assembly (10) comprising:
a first modular actuator base housing (18, para 14);
a first electric motor (14) operatively coupled to a first gear train (12),
wherein the first gear train includes two or more reduction gears (78, Fig 1) for driving the actuator output, the first electric motor and the first gear train carried by the first modular actuator base housing (18);
a first modular control assembly (18,24, 150, 160), the first modular control assembly comprising:
a first control assembly housing (24,160, paras 14,36);
a first controller (16) carried by the first control assembly housing (24,160);
wherein the first control assembly housing (24,160, paras 14,36) is removable mountable to the first modular actuator base housing (18) in the field (via fasteners 162); and
wherein the first controller (16) is configured to control the first electric motor (14) of the first modular actuator base assembly (10), and thus control the actuator output of the modular actuator through the first gear train (12, paras 4, 21-25,31-36),
wherein the first modular actuator base assembly (10) comprises one or more circuit elements (16, para 33) that when interrogated identify one or more configuration parameters of the first modular actuator base assembly (para 33).
Palfenier et al. do not teach wherein the first modular control assembly is configured to interrogate one or more of the circuit elements to identify one or more of the configuration parameters and control the first electric motor of the first modular actuator base assembly, and thus control the actuator output of the modular actuator, based at least in part on the one or more identified configuration parameters.
Freeman et al. disclose a device wherein the first modular control assembly is configured to interrogate one or more of the circuit elements to identify one or more of the configuration parameters and control the first electric motor of the first modular actuator base assembly, and thus control the actuator output of the modular actuator, based at least in part on the one or more identified configuration parameters (Figs 1,2,4,5, claim 1, paras 12,15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Palfenier et al. wherein the first modular control assembly is configured to interrogate one or more of the circuit elements to identify one or more of the configuration parameters and control the first electric motor of the first modular actuator base assembly, and thus control the actuator output of the modular actuator, based at least in part on the one or more identified configuration parameters, as Freeman et al. disclose.
The motivation to do so is it would provide operational control as wanted (para 12 of Freeman et al.).
Regarding claim 16/13, Palfenier et al. teach the invention as discussed above, except wherein the first modular actuator base assembly is replaceable with a second modular actuator base assembly, wherein the second modular actuator base assembly includes a second electric motor operatively coupled to a second gear train, wherein the second gear train includes two or more reduction gears for driving the actuator output of the modular actuator, the second electric motor and the second gear train carried by a second actuator driver base housing.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of scaling the invention wherein the first modular actuator base assembly is replaceable with a second modular actuator base assembly, wherein the second modular actuator base assembly includes a second electric motor operatively coupled to a second gear train, wherein the second gear train includes two or more reduction gears for driving the actuator output of the modular actuator, the second electric motor and the second gear train carried by a second actuator driver base housing, since it would depend on desired efficiency, cost, available space and weight.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Palfenier et al. wherein the first modular actuator base assembly is replaceable with a second modular actuator base assembly, wherein the second modular actuator base assembly includes a second electric motor operatively coupled to a second gear train, wherein the second gear train includes two or more reduction gears for driving the actuator output of the modular actuator, the second electric motor and the second gear train carried by a second actuator driver base housing.
The motivation to do so would depend on desired efficiency, cost, available space and weight.
In regards to claim 16/13, Palfenier et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the multiplicity of modular actuator base assembly, wherein the second modular actuator base assembly includes a second electric motor operatively coupled to a second gear train, wherein the second gear train includes two or more reduction gears for driving the actuator output of the modular actuator, the second electric motor and the second gear train carried by a second actuator driver base housing. Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing of the invention was made to duplicate modular actuator base assembly, electric motor, gear train, reduction gears, and actuator driver base housing, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would depend on desired efficiency, cost, available space and weight.
Claim(s) 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palfenier et al. (US 20140020491) in view of Freeman et al. (US 2008/0224542), further in view of Pettey (US 2009/0066176).
Regarding claim 11/10, Palfenier et al. in view of Freeman et al. teach the invention as discussed above, except wherein the one or more circuit elements comprise one or more resistors.
Pettey teaches a machine wherein the one or more circuit elements comprise one or more resistors (para 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Palfenier et al. in view of Freeman et al. wherein the one or more circuit elements comprise one or more resistors, as Pettey teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would permit one to control and monitor the device as wanted (para 3 of Pettey).
Regarding claim 14/13, Palfenier et al. in view of Freeman et al. teach the invention as discussed above, except wherein the one or more circuit elements comprise one or more resistors.
Pettey teaches a machine wherein the one or more circuit elements comprise one or more resistors (para 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Palfenier et al. in view of Freeman et al. wherein the one or more circuit elements comprise one or more resistors, as Pettey teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would permit one to control and monitor the device as wanted (para 3 of Pettey).
Claim(s) 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palfenier et al. (US 20140020491) in view of Freeman et al. (US 2008/0224542), further in view of Mikulica et al. (US 2019/0093913).
Regarding claim 12/10, Palfenier et al. in view of Freeman et al. teach the invention as discussed above, except wherein the one or more circuit elements comprise one or more non-volatile memories.
Mikulica et al. disclose an apparatus wherein the one or more circuit elements comprise one or more non-volatile memories (para 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Palfenier et al. in view of Freeman et al. wherein the one or more circuit elements comprise one or more non-volatile memories, as Mikulica et al. disclose.
The motivation to do so is it would permit access to stored values in case of power loss (para 60 of Mikulica et al.).
Regarding claim 15/13, Palfenier et al. in view of Freeman et al. teach the invention as discussed above, except wherein the one or more circuit elements comprise one or more non-volatile memories.
Mikulica et al. disclose an apparatus wherein the one or more circuit elements comprise one or more non-volatile memories (para 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Palfenier et al. in view of Freeman et al. wherein the one or more circuit elements comprise one or more non-volatile memories, as Mikulica et al. disclose.
The motivation to do so is it would permit access to stored values in case of power loss (para 60 of Mikulica et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 17 and 20 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: In claim 4/2 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the first modular actuator base assembly implements a rotatory actuator output for the modular actuator, and the second modular actuator base assembly implements a linear actuator output for the modular actuator.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 5/2 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the second modular actuator base assembly is capable of providing more peak torque to the actuator output of the modular actuator than the first modular actuator base assembly.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 6/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the first modular control assembly is field replaceable with a second modular control assembly, wherein the second modular control assembly includes a second controller housed by a second controller housing, the second modular control assembly implements at least one different functionality relative to the first modular control assembly, the second controller housing is removably mountable to the first modular actuator base housing in the field in place of the first modular control assembly, wherein the second controller of the second modular control assembly is configured to control the first electric motor of the first modular actuator base assembly, and thus control the actuator output of the modular actuator through the first gear train.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claims 7-9 are also allowable by virtue of depending on claim 6.
In claim 17/13 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the first modular control assembly is field replaceable with a second modular control assembly, wherein the second modular control assembly includes a second controller housed by a second controller housing, the second modular control assembly implements at least one different functionality relative to the first modular control assembly, the second controller housing is removably mountable to the first modular actuator base housing in the field in place of the first modular control assembly, wherein the second controller of the second modular control assembly is configured to control the first electric motor of the first modular actuator base assembly, and thus control the actuator output of the modular actuator through the first gear train.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 20/19 inter alia, the specific limitations of “further comprising: selecting a second modular actuator base assembly from the plurality of modular actuator base assemblies; replacing in the field the first modular actuator base assembly with the second modular actuator base assembly; interrogating, via the first modular control assembly, one or more circuit elements of the second modular actuator base assembly to identify one or more second configuration parameters of the second modular actuator base assembly; and controlling, via the first modular control assembly, the second modular actuator base assembly, and thus controlling an actuator output of the second modular actuator base assembly, based at least in part on the one or more identified second configuration parameters.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights