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 .
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) 1-10 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiland et al., US PG Pub 2011/0190934 A1., (hereafter Reiland).
Regarding claim 1 where it is disclosed by Reiland to have an elastic actuators to control the motion of an arm as shown in at least figures 1 & 2. Where this is read upon by applicants claim to:
“A drive device that rotationally moves a drive target [see at least background and summary of the invention], comprising: a motor portion [see at least figure 2 and paragraphs 7, 15-17]; a speed reducer that reduces a torque input from the motor portion [See at least figures 1-2 and paragraphs 18-20]; and a buffer device that outputs the torque input from the speed reducer from an output end part to the drive target via an elastic portion [see at least paragraphs 17-20], wherein at least a part of the buffer device is disposed on a side opposite to the motor portion and the speed reducer with the drive target is interposed therebetween [see at least figures 1-2 and paragraphs 16-20].”
However where it is not specifically disclosed by Reiland to have their system include, a buffer device including an elastic portion, this has been interpreted to mean that the spring device in Reiland is the buffer device which controls the amount of torque which would pass from the actuator to the load side of the joint as shown in figure 1 and the elastic device is the spring. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Reiland to include a buffer device that would allow the torque to be passed from the actuator to the load side smoothly and also prevent any sudden increase in torque which could damage the joint.
Regarding claim 2 where it is disclosed by Reiland in at least paragraphs 10 and 16 to have the system also have, “a part of the buffer device is disposed inside a through hole disposed in the drive target.”
Regarding claim 3 where it is disclosed by Reiland to have:
“A drive device that rotationally moves a drive target [see at least figures 1-2 and summary of the invention], comprising: a motor portion [see at least figures 1-2 and paragraphs 7 & 15-17]; a speed reducer that reduces a torque input from the motor portion [See at least figures 1-2 and paragraphs 18-20]; and a buffer device that outputs the torque input from the speed reducer from an output end part to the drive target via an elastic portion [see at least paragraphs 17-20], wherein the buffer device is disposed inside a through hole disposed in the drive target [see at least figures 1-2 and paragraphs 16-20].”
However where it is not specifically disclosed by Reiland to have their system include, a buffer device including an elastic portion, this has been interpreted to mean that the spring device in Reiland is the buffer device which controls the amount of torque which would pass from the actuator to the load side of the joint as shown in figure 1 and the elastic device is the spring. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Reiland to include a buffer device that would allow the torque to be passed from the actuator to the load side smoothly and also prevent any sudden increase in torque which could damage the joint.
Regarding claim 4 where it is shown in at least figures 1-2 to have, “an output shaft of the speed reducer is connected to the buffer device through a through hole disposed in the drive target; and the output end part of the buffer device is connected to the drive target.” Where by the spring is interpreted to be the buffer device that helps reduce and smooth the power from the actuator to the load side.
However where it is not specifically disclosed by Reiland to have their system include, a buffer device including an elastic portion, this has been interpreted to mean that the spring device in Reiland is the buffer device which controls the amount of torque which would pass from the actuator to the load side of the joint as shown in figure 1 and the elastic device is the spring. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Reiland to include a buffer device that would allow the torque to be passed from the actuator to the load side smoothly and also prevent any sudden increase in torque which could damage the joint.
Regarding claim 5 where it is disclosed by Reiland to have:
“A drive device that rotationally moves a drive target [see at least figures 1-2 where the actuator rotational moves the load], comprising: a motor portion [see at least figure 2 and paragraphs 7, 15-17]; a buffer device that outputs a torque of the motor portion from an output end part via an elastic portion [see at least paragraphs 17-20]; and a first speed reducer that reduces the torque input from the buffer device [See at least figures 1-2 and paragraphs 18-20], wherein the buffer device is disposed between the motor portion and the first speed reducer [See at least figures 1-2 and paragraphs 18-20]; the output end part of the buffer device is connected to the first speed reducer [See at least figures 1-2 and paragraphs 18-20]; and a first output shaft of the first speed reducer is connected to the drive target [See at least figures 1-2 and paragraphs 18-20].”
However where it is not specifically disclosed by Reiland to have their system include, a buffer device including an elastic portion, this has been interpreted to mean that the spring device in Reiland is the buffer device which controls the amount of torque which would pass from the actuator to the load side of the joint as shown in figure 1 and the elastic device is the spring. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Reiland to include a buffer device that would allow the torque to be passed from the actuator to the load side smoothly and also prevent any sudden increase in torque which could damage the joint.
Regarding claim 6 where it is disclosed by Reiland in at least figures 1-2 to have, “a second speed reducer that is disposed between the motor portion and the buffer device and reduces a torque input from the motor portion, wherein a second output shaft of the second speed reducer is connected to the buffer device.”
Regarding claim 7 where it is disclosed by Reiland in at least paragraphs 16, 18 & 19 to have, “a sensor for detecting a relative phase of an input end part of the buffer device and the output end part of the buffer device.”
However where it is not specifically disclosed by Reiland to have their system include, a buffer device including an elastic portion, this has been interpreted to mean that the spring device in Reiland is the buffer device which controls the amount of torque which would pass from the actuator to the load side of the joint as shown in figure 1 and the elastic device is the spring. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Reiland to include a buffer device that would allow the torque to be passed from the actuator to the load side smoothly and also prevent any sudden increase in torque which could damage the joint.
Regarding claim 8 where it is disclosed by Reiland in at least figure 1-2 to have their system also have, “the input end part and the output end part are capable of rotational movement around a rotation axis of the drive target; and the sensor detects a relative phase of the other to one of the input end part and the output end part.”
Regarding claim 9 where it is disclosed by Reiland in at least paragraphs 19-21 to have, “the input end part and the output end part are capable of rotational movement around a rotation axis of the drive target; and the sensor has: a first sensor that detects a first phase of the input end part; and a second sensor that detects a second phase of the output end part.”
Regarding claim 10 where it is disclosed by Reiland in at least figures 1-2 to have, “at least a part of the sensor is disposed in the through hole of the drive target.”
Regarding claim 13 which is the corresponding device claim for system claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiland as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kraft., US Patent 5,019,761.
Regarding claim 14 where all the limitations of claim 13 are disclosed by Reiland, as described above. Where it is not specifically disclose by Reiland to have their system include, “an operating machine that has a joint portion and is swingably attached to a base; and a control portion that controls drive of the operating machine and the drive device, wherein the drive device is disposed on the joint portion and drives the joint portion; and the control portion estimates a reaction force acting on a distal end part of the operating machine on the basis of a detection result of a load detection portion for detecting a load acting on the joint portion.”
Kraft is directed to a force feedback control system for a backhoe as shown in at least figures 1-9. Kraft in at least column 3 lines 3-60 as well as figures 1-9 shows their system having, “an operating machine that has a joint portion and is swingably attached to a base; and a control portion that controls drive of the operating machine and the drive device, wherein the drive device is disposed on the joint portion and drives the joint portion; and the control portion estimates a reaction force acting on a distal end part of the operating machine on the basis of a detection result of a load detection portion for detecting a load acting on the joint portion.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Reiland by the teachings of Kraft, where they are both directed to the same filed of endeavor of control systems to reduce torque. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Reiland by Kraft by the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Where one would have looked to modify the prior art of Kraft to include the feature of Reiland to have the controlling of the actuators to better control torque transfer between the motor and the load/bucket.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 & 15-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVESH V AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3255. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur, 8-6:30, EST.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
BHAVESH V. AMIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/BHAVESH V AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights