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
This application contains one or more species claims directed to one of the following patentably distinct species thereby constituting an election by original presentation:
Species 1 (claims 1-14) -- embodiment shown in figures 2, 4, 5.
Species 2 (unclaimed) -- embodiment shown in figure 6.
No claims are generic.
The species are independent or distinct because the species as disclosed have a materially different design and are mutually exclusive (e.g., species 1 lacks roller bearing 151 of species 2; and species 2 lacks the ball bearings 50a/50b of species 1, etc.) In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Species 1 has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits such that any claims later presented toward the currently unclaimed species 2 will be withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. Note that claim 10 recites “a paired duplex angular contact ball bearing” and is thus a species claim directed to species 1 (figures 2, 4 and 5 having ball bearing 50a/50b) rather than species 2 (figure 6 having roller bearing 151). Note further that independent claim 1 (from which all other claims depend) recites “a plurality of first clamping members configured to sandwich an outer ring of the bearing in an axial direction; and a first seal part provided at a location where the plurality of first clamping members oppose to each other”, which is present in species 1 (figures 2, 4 and 5, which has seal 62 where clamping members 56/58 oppose each other) but is NOT present in species 2 (fig.6).
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-14 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 is unclear as to which, if any, of the initially recited “a plurality of first clamping members” the later singular recitation of “the first clamping member” is to refer.
Claim 2 is unclear as to which, if any, of the initially recited “a plurality of second clamping members” the later singular recitation of “the second clamping member” is to refer.
Claim 4 recites “a canceling mechanism configured to cancel an axial gap” which is unclear as to how “canceling” and “cancel” are to structurally limit the invention. For purposes of applying the prior art elsewhere below the examiner takes the limitation to broadly include any direct contact between portions/surfaces/elements where there is no axial gap there between.
Claim 4 is unclear as to whether the recitation of “the clamping member” is to refer to one or more of the previously recited “a plurality of first clamping members”, “a plurality of second clamping members” or some other additional element or elements.
Claims 5 and 6 each recite “the first clamping member” which is unclear as to which of the previously recited “a plurality of first clamping members”, if any, is being referred to.
Claim 6 recites “a third seal part” without recitation of any second seal part (note that claim 6 does not depend from claim 5) such that it is unclear how many seal parts are being claimed.
Claim 12 recites “An actuator for a robot, comprising…” which is unclear as to whether the actuator, the robot or both is/are to comprise that which follows.
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, 5-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagai US10287972.
Claim 1. Nagai discloses a bearing structure for a speed reducer of a robot (see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114 regarding inherency of functions/properties in product claims and applicant’s burden to obtain/test the prior art to prove otherwise), the bearing structure comprising: a bearing (303) capable of receiving a moment acting in any direction; a plurality of first clamping members (20, 28, 38b) configured to sandwich an outer ring (301) of the bearing in an axial direction; and a first seal part (51) provided at a location where the plurality of first clamping members oppose to each other, wherein at least a portion (20) of the first clamping member is configured from a material (col. ll.48-50 states “aluminum alloy material”) having a lower specific gravity than steel (see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114 regarding inherency of functions/properties in product claims and applicant’s burden to obtain/test the prior art to prove otherwise.
Claim 5. The bearing structure according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion (e.g., 28) of the first clamping member has a second seal part (310) which seals an output rotating member (48b) of the speed reducer.
Claim 6. The bearing structure according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion (e.g., 28) of the first clamping member contacts a component (55) of the speed reducer, and has a third seal part (50) which seals between the first clamping member and the component at a contact site (site of 50) therebetween.
Claim 7. The bearing structure according to claim 1, wherein the bearing is an open type (in that 303 is open between 301 and 302) 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 11. The bearing structure according to claim 1, wherein the bearing supports an output shaft (371, 48b) of a strain wave gear speed reducer (21).
Claim 12. An actuator (see written description of “actuator for a link mechanism”) for a robot (“link mechanism” is a robot within broadest reasonable interpretation, see also MPEP 2112.01 and 2114 regarding inherency of functions in product claims), comprising: the bearing structure according to claim 1; and an electric motor (22) for driving an output shaft (22) of the speed reducer (21).
Claim 13. A robot (see written description of “link mechanism” which is a robot within the broadest reasonable interpretation) comprising the bearing structure according to claim 1. Note that the label “robot” is given limited patentable weight since where there is physical identity between the subject matter of the claim and the prior art, the label given to the claimed subject matter does not distinguish the invention over the prior art. In re Pearson, 494 F. 2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974); In re Lemin, 326 F. 2d 437, 140 USPQ 273 (CCPA 1964).
Claim 14. A robot (see written description of “link mechanism” which is a robot within the broadest reasonable interpretation) comprising the actuator according to claim 12. Note that the label “robot” is given limited patentable weight since where there is physical identity between the subject matter of the claim and the prior art, the label given to the claimed subject matter does not distinguish the invention over the prior art. In re Pearson, 494 F. 2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974); In re Lemin, 326 F. 2d 437, 140 USPQ 273 (CCPA 1964).
Claims 1-9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ri Jutei JP2007016838.
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; 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 the first clamping member 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. 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 attached to this action).
Claim 2. The bearing structure according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of second clamping members (60, 20) configured to sandwich an inner ring (51) of the bearing in an axial direction, wherein at least a portion (e.g., 60) of the second clamping member 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 first or second clamping member 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 4. The bearing structure according to claim 2, wherein at least one of the first or second clamping member has a canceling mechanism (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 rejection, direct contact between 80 and 52; or between 20 and 51; or between 60 and 51) configured to cancel an axial gap (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 rejection, axial gap canceled/prevented by the direct contact mechanism) between an axial end surface of the outer ring or the inner ring and an axial end surface of the clamping member which contacts the axial end surface of the outer ring or the inner ring.
Claim 5. The bearing structure according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion (e.g., portion 31 of 32/31) of the first clamping member 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 1, wherein at least a portion (portion 31 of 32/31 contacting 20) of the first clamping member contacts a component (20) of the speed reducer, and has a third seal part (31) which seals between the first clamping member 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 first or second clamping member 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai US10287972 in view of Shannahan US9182070.
Claim 10. The Nagai 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 Nagai 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 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.
Conclusion
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