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 .
37 CFR 1.111
The reply filed on 6/8/2026 fails to adequately address the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Applicant’s statement that the claims have been amended “to address the rejections” (p.5 of remarks filed 6/8/2026) amounts to a general allegation of patentability and thus does not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) and (c), which requires applicant to distinctly and specifically address every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action with arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims patentable. More particularly, applicant is silent as to how the limitation “cancel” (formerly claim 4 and now in claim 1) is to clearly/structurally limit the claim (i.e., how does a gap that is canceled structurally differ from a gap that is not canceled). See MPEP § 714.02.
Since the above noted omission is a first occurrence after a non-final action the examiner has exercised discretion in accordance with MPEP § 714.03 to enter and “simply act on” the submission to “simply reiterate the rejection” in the interest of compact prosecution. However, note that MPEP § 714.03 stipulates that a repeated omission after previous notice will be considered deliberate rather than bona fide. Accordingly, any subsequent submission again failing to fully respond to ALL rejections will not serve to reset the time period for reply or otherwise save the application from abandonment under 37 CFR 1.135(a) and (b).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected Species 1 (figures 2, 4 and 5) by original presentation (see pp.2-3 of the previous 3/26/2026 Office action).
Applicant’s subsequent 6/8/2026 response expressly confirming the election without traverse of Species 1 (figures 2, 4 and 5) is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “to form an axial gap” (multiple recitations) and also “cancel an axial gap” (multiple recitations) which is unclear as to how “cancel” is to structurally limit the invention (i.e., how does a canceled gap differ structurally from a non-canceled gap) and further unclear how a gap can be both formed and canceled. Applicant’s figure 4 shows legs (74/78) that abut conformingly to another element without any gap therebetween such that it is unclear how the leg is to “form an axial gap”. If the gap is to refer to the gap (at 76/80) radially inward of the legs then it is unclear how the legs “cancel an axial gap”. Additionally, “an axial gap” is recited multiple times in a manner that that it is unclear as to how many distinct gaps are to limit the claim. If only one gap is claimed then the latter recitations should be “the axial gap”. If multiple distinct gaps are to limit the claim, then each should be given distinct labels (e.g., a first axial gap, a second axial gap, etc.) If applicant is attempting to claim multiple states of assembly in the same claim (having a gap after forming and not having a gap after canceling) note that such renders the scope unclear as to precisely which state of assembly the claim is to prevent others from making (finally assembled parts, kit of unassembled parts or some intermediate stage of partial assembly). For purposes of applying the prior art elsewhere below the examiner takes the limitation “cancel an axial gap” to broadly include any direct contact between portions/surfaces/elements where the direct contact results in a lack of gap at that contact point/plane.
The remaining claims depend from the above and are thus similarly unclear/rejected.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ri Jutei JP2007016838.
The prior art structures bolded below are presumed to be inherently capable of meeting the claimed functions/properties italicized below in accordance with MPEP §2112.01(I) and MPEP §2114, which state that where the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure, the PTO may presume claimed functions/properties to be inherently capable thereto, thus presenting a prima facie case and properly shifting the burden to applicant to obtain/test the prior art and provide evidence to the contrary.
Claim 1. Ri Jutei discloses a bearing structure for a speed reducer of a robot, the bearing structure comprising: a bearing (50) capable of receiving a moment acting in any direction; a plurality of first clamping members (32, 80) configured to sandwich an outer ring (52) of the bearing in an axial direction; a plurality of second clamping members (60, 20) configured to sandwich an inner ring (51) of the bearing in an axial direction; and a first seal part (53 or 70) provided at a location where the plurality of first clamping members oppose to each other, wherein at least a portion (e.g., 80) of at least one of the plurality of first clamping members is configured from a material (see written description of “light-weight materials such as aluminum, nylon and resin” in the English translation attached to this Action) having a lower specific gravity than steel, wherein the at least one of the plurality of the first clamping members or at least one of the plurality of second clamping members has a leg (legs of outer/inner circumferences of 80 that contact 70 as best seen in fig.2; and/or legs of outer circumferences of 60/20) configured to form an axial gap (gap between 80 and 70 as seen in fig.2) between the at least one of the plurality of first clamping members or between the at least one of the plurality of second clamping members, and wherein the leg is configured to cancel an axial gap (as best understood noting 35 USC 112 rejections, gap that is “canceled” by legs of 80 directly/axially contacting 70 as seen in fig.2) between an axial end surface of the outer ring and an axial end surface of the at least one of the plurality of first clamping members which contacts the axial end surface of the outer ring due to elastic deformation of the at least one of the plurality of first clamping members, or cancel an axial gap (as best understood noting 35 USC 112 rejections, gap “canceled” by direct contact at 20/51 or at 60/51) between an axial end surface of the inner ring and an axial end surface of the at least one of the plurality of second clamping members which contacts the axial end surface of the inner ring due to elastic deformation of the at least one of the plurality of second clamping members. Note that the claim does not specify which elements, if any, are sealed or in what manner such that element 70 meets the label “first seal part” within the broadest reasonable interpretation since it is a device that is used to joint two things together (e.g., 32 and 80) so as to prevent passage of something else therebetween. Note that 53 is expressly disclosed to be a “seal” (see English translation that was attached to the previous 3/26/2026 Office action).
Claim 2. The bearing structure according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion (e.g., 60) of the at least one of the plurality of second clamping members is configured from a material (see written description of “light-weight materials such as aluminum, nylon and resin” in the English translation attached to this Action) having a lower specific gravity than steel.
Claim 3. The bearing structure according to claim 2, wherein the at least one of the plurality of first clamping members or the at least one of the plurality of second clamping members has a shoulder part (shoulder of any of 32, 80, 60 or 20 which contacts end of 52 or 51) which contacts an end surface (end surface of 52 or 51) of the outer ring or the inner ring of the bearing.
Claim 5. The bearing structure according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion (e.g., portion 31 of 32/31) of the at least one of the plurality of first clamping members has a second seal part (31) which seals an output rotating member (20) of the speed reducer. Note that element 31 meets the label “second seal part” within the broadest reasonable interpretation since it is a device joining two things (e.g., 20/42) together so as to prevent passage of something else therebetween.
Claim 6. The bearing structure according to claim 5, wherein the at least a portion (portion 31 of 32/31 contacting 20) of the at least one of the plurality of first clamping members contacts a component (20) of the speed reducer, and has a third seal part (31) which seals between the at least one of the plurality of first clamping members and the component at a contact site (site of contact between 32/31 and 20) therebetween.
Claim 7. The bearing structure according to claim 1, wherein the bearing is an open type (in that 50 is open on its axial ends) and is configured (open configuration) to be lubricated by lubrication oil filled inside the speed reducer (see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114 regarding presumption of inherency for functions/properties in product claims, and applicant’s burden to obtain, test and provide evidence proving the contrary).
Claim 8. The bearing structure according to claim 2, wherein the at least one of the first clamping members or the at least one of the plurality of second clamping members has a coupling interface (interface/surface of any of 32, 80, 20, 60 that engages 71 or 61) for coupling with another component constituting the robot (see written description of “robot” in English translation attached to this action).
Claim 9. The bearing structure according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of first clamping members or the plurality of second clamping members are fastened to each other by a bolt (71, 61).
Claim 11. The bearing structure according to claim 1, wherein the bearing supports an output shaft (see “case 70 acts as the output shaft” in English translation attached to this action) of a strain wave gear speed reducer (10).
Claim 13. A robot (see “robot” in English translation attached to this action) comprising the bearing structure according to claim 1.
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 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 10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ri Jutei JP2007016838 in view of Shannahan US9182070.
Claim 10. The Ri Jutei bearing is a single row type bearing rather than a paired duplex angular contact ball bearing as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ri Jutei to use a paired duplex angular contact ball bearing since Shannahan teaches such paired duplex angular contact ball bearings (figures 43 and 44) to have known to be desirable over single row types (e.g., fig.42) for the purpose of better handling shock (see Shannahan, col.29, ll.55-67).
Claims 12 and 14. Ri Jutei discloses a robot (see multiple descriptions of “robot” in English translation of Ri Jutei attached to this action) having a actuator comprising the bearing structure of claim 1 having an output shaft (see “case 70 acts as the output shaft” and other recitations of “output shaft” in English translation of Ri Jutei attached to this action) of the speed reducer. However, Ri Jutei does not expressly state that an electric motor is used for driving the output shaft. Shannahan teaches such to have been well known to be desirable (see numerous written descriptions of electric power and motor throughout Shannahan) and one of ordinary skill would have easily recognized such to be more desirable/obvious than not (e.g., motor driven is superior/faster/etc. to non-driven or manually driven). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ri Jutei in view of Shannahan as such.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to overcome the previous grounds of rejection. This is not persuasive. The claims remain unclear/anticipated/obvious as is detailed in the reworded rejections above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR L MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7085.
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. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VICTOR L MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights