DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The text of 35 U.S.C. § 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,865,710 B2 to Manome, in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,682,755 B2 to Cao et al.
Claim 1: Manome discloses a robot 100 comprising:
a first link 1;
a second link 2 aligned with the first link 1 along a [first] rotation axis A2 and extending away from the [first] rotation axis A2; and
an actuator 21, 22 accommodated in the first link 1 to rotate the second link 2 around the [first] rotation axis A2 with respect to the first link 1, wherein
the second link 2 includes a first sub-link (left half of 2 shown in FIG. 1) and a second sub-link (right half of 2 shown in FIG. 1) that sandwich the actuator 21, 22 along the [first] rotation axis,
the first sub-link is attached to the actuator 21, 22 (see FIG. 2 – the right side of second link 2 shown in FIG. 2 is attached to circular spline 22c), and
the second sub-link is attached to the first sub-link in a state where the second sub-link is not constrained from the first link 1 in a direction crossing the [first] rotation axis A2 and is relatively movable with respect to the first link 1 in a direction crossing the [first] rotation axis A2.
Manome does not disclose that the first and second sub-links are attached by a fixing member, as recited in amended Claim 1. The Office also acknowledges that while Manome does not appear to expressly disclose that the first and second sub-links described above (belonging to “second arm 2”) are separate housings that are connected together to form the second arm 2, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to form each half of second arm 2 separately and to connect these halves in order to form the second arm 2, in order to simplify assembly of the robot 100. The Office notes that an integrally-formed second arm 2 (i.e., in which the left and right sections are integrally formed) seems unlikely because it would appear to be quite difficult to connect such an arm to the actuator 21, 22.
Cao teaches a similar link 105, 106 which includes a first sub-link 105 and a second sub-link 106. As shown in FIGS. 3-6 of Cao, the sub-links 105, 106 includes several holes along the perimeter of the housing where the housings become coupled together, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing that the disclosed holes are used to receive fixing members (e.g., screws, bolts) in order to couple the two sub-links 105, 106 together.
In view of the Cao teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the robot disclosed by Manome, such that the second sub-link of Manome is attached to the first sub-link by a fixing member, such as a screw or bolt, in order to couple the two sub-links together.
Claim 7: The robot 100 disclosed by Manome further comprises:
a third link 3 aligned with the second link 2 along a second rotation axis A3 parallel to the [first] rotation axis A2 and extending away from the second rotation axis A3; and
a second actuator 31, 32 accommodated in the third link 3 to rotate the third link 3 with respect to the second link 2, wherein
the first sub-link and the second sub-link sandwich the second actuator 31, 32 along the second rotation axis A3,
the first sub-link is attached to the second actuator 32c, and
the second sub-link is attached to the first sub-link in a state of not being constrained from the first link 1 in the direction crossing the [first] rotation axis A2 and not being constrained from the third link 3 in a direction crossing the second rotation axis A3.
Thus, the robot recited in Claim 7 is rendered obvious over the combination of Manome and Cao, as described above.
Claim 12: The robot according to claim 1, further comprising:
a base link 10 fixed to an installation surface 100a, wherein
the first link 1 is connected to the base link 10 to rotate around a turning axis A1 crossing the [first] rotation axis A2.
Thus, the robot recited in Claim 12 is rendered obvious over the combination of Manome and Cao, as described above.
Claim 14: Regarding Manome, the first link 1 of the robot 100 includes:
a link base section extending along a direction crossing the rotation axis, and
a protruding section protruding from the link base section toward the second sub-link, and
the second sub-link is attached to the protruding section.
The Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to attach the second sub-link to the protruding section by the fixing member taught by Cao, in order to couple the two sub-links together. Thus, the robot recited in Claim 15 is rendered obvious over the combination of Manome and Cao.
Claim 15: Regarding Manome, the first link 1 of the robot 100 includes:
an internal space configured to accommodate the actuator 21, 22, and
an opening configured to allow the internal space and an outside of the internal space to communicate with each other, and
a portion of the first link 1 that forms the opening and a proximal end portion of the second sub-link are spaced apart from each other in a direction along the rotation axis A2.
Thus, the robot recited in Claim 15 is rendered obvious over the combination of Manome and Cao.
Claims 2-6, 8-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,865,710 B2 to Manome, in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,682,755 B2 to Cao et al. (hereinafter “Cao_1”), as applied to Claims 1, 7, 12, and 15 above, respectively, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0181662 A1 to Cao (hereinafter “Cao_2”).
Claim 2: Manome, as modified by Cao_1 in the rejection of Claim 1 above, discloses the robot according to claim 1, wherein
the first link 1 includes
an internal space (see FIG. 2) configured to accommodate the actuator 21, 22, and
an opening (see FIG. 2) configured to allow the internal space and an outside of the internal space to communicate with each other.
Manome does not expressly disclose wherein the robot further comprises a seal interposed between the second sub-link and the first link 1 around the opening.
The Office turns to Cao_2, which teaches a robot joint in which a seal 100 is interposed between a first component 201 and a second component 202. Multiple motivations for the seal 100 are described in Paragraph [0042]:
With the sealing assembly 100 arranged between the first component 201 and second component 202, as shown in FIG. 1, there is no slot, sharp edge or sharp angle that causes the joint to be hard to clean. In this way, the joint can be easily cleaned and a good cleaning effect is achieved while ensuring the sealing performance. Furthermore, the sealing assembly 100 according to embodiments of the present disclosure has the advantages of fewer parts, easy processing, simple assembly and low tolerance requirements for workpieces.
In view of the Cao_2 teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the robot disclosed by Manome, as modified above by Cao_1, so as to further comprise a seal interposed between the second sub-link and the first link 1 around the opening, in order to provide a joint that can be easily cleaned while ensuring sealing performance, as taught by Cao_2.
Claim 3: The robot disclosed by Manome further comprises a cable harness (shown in FIG. 2 below and to the left of motor 21a), wherein the second sub-link 20 includes a wiring space (see FIG. 2) for guiding the cable harness.
The Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing that the cable harness disclosed by Manome is connected to at least the actuator 21, 22 in order to supply power to the actuator 21, 22 and to control the actuator 21, 22. According to this characterization, the robot of Claim 3 is rendered obvious over the combination of Manome, Cao_1, and Cao_2.
Claim 4: As shown in FIG. 2 of Manome, the opening allows the internal space to communicate with the wiring space, and
the cable harness is wired through the opening and the wiring space. Thus, Claim 4 is rendered obvious over the combination of Manome, Cao_1, and Cao_2.
Claim 5: The seal taught by Cao_2 is configured to be interposed between two links while allowing relative displacement between the two links.
According to the modification of Manome described in the rejection of Claim 2 above, so as to include a seal in view of the Cao_2 teaching, the seal (taught by Cao_2) is configured to be interposed between the second sub-link and the first link 1 while allowing relative displacement between the second sub-link and the first link 1 in the direction crossing the [first] rotation axis A2, in order to provide a joint that can be easily cleaned while ensuring sealing performance, as taught by Cao_2.
Claim 6: The seal taught by Cao_2 includes[:]
a sealing surface 101 along a plane crossing a rotation axis, and
a sealing element 102 configured to be displaced along the sealing surface in accordance with the relative displacement between two links while being in contact with the sealing surface.
According to the modification of Manome described in the rejection of Claim 2 above, so as to include a seal in view of the Cao_2 teaching, the Office finds that the seal (taught by Cao_2) includes[:]
a sealing surface along a plane crossing the [first] rotation axis A2, and
a sealing element configured to be displaced along the sealing surface in accordance with the relative displacement between the second sub-link and the first link 1 while being in contact with the sealing surface,
in order to provide a joint that can be easily cleaned while ensuring sealing performance, as taught by Cao_2.
Claim 8: Manome, as modified by Cao_1 in the rejection of Claim 7 above, discloses the robot according to claim 7, wherein the first link 1 includes[:]
[a first] internal space configured to accommodate the actuator 21, 22, and
[a first] opening configured to allow the [first] internal space and an outside of the [first] internal space to communicate with each other,
the third link 3 includes[:]
a second internal space configured to accommodate the second actuator 31, 32, and
a second opening configured to allow the second internal space and an outside of the second internal space to communicate with each other.
Manome does not disclose wherein the robot further comprises a seal interposed between the second sub-link and the first link 1 around the [first] opening, and a second seal interposed between the second sub-link and the third link 3 around the second opening.
The Office turns to Cao_2, which teaches a robot joint in which a seal 100 is interposed between a first component 201 and a second component 202. Multiple motivations for the seal 100 are described in Paragraph [0042] (cited above in the rejection of Claim 2).
In view of the Cao_2 teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the robot disclosed by Manome, as modified above by Cao_1, so as to further comprise a [first] seal interposed between the second sub-link and the first link 1 around the [first] opening, and a second seal interposed between the second sub-link and the third link 3 around the second opening, in order to provide a joint that can be easily cleaned while ensuring sealing performance, as taught by Cao_2.
Claim 9: The robot disclosed by Manome further comprises a cable harness (see FIG. 3) within the [first] internal space, wherein
the second sub-link includes a wiring space for guiding the cable harness from the [first] internal space to the second actuator 31, 32.
The Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing that the cable harness disclosed by Manome is connected to at least the second actuator 31, 32 in order to supply power to the actuator 31, 32 and to control the actuator 31, 32. According to this characterization, the robot of Claim 9 is rendered obvious over the combination of Manome, Cao_1, and Cao_2.
Claim 10: The robot disclosed by Manome is characterized wherein
the [first] opening allows the [first] internal space to communicate with the wiring space,
the second opening allows the second internal space to communicate with the wiring space 64, and
the cable harness is wired from the [first] internal space to the second internal space through the [first] opening, the wiring space, and the second opening.
Thus, Claim 10 is rendered obvious over the combination of Manome, Cao_1, and Cao_2.
Claim 11: The seal taught by Cao_2 is configured to be interposed between two links while allowing relative displacement between the two links.
According to the modification of Manome described in the rejection of Claim 8 above, so as to include a seal in view of the Cao_2 teaching, the [first] seal (taught by Cao_2) is configured to be interposed between the second sub-link and the first link 1 while allowing relative displacement between the second sub-link and the first link 1 in the direction crossing the [first] rotation axis, and
the second seal (taught by Cao_2) is configured to be interposed between the second sub-link and the third link 3 while allowing relative displacement between the second sub-link and the third link 3 in a direction crossing the second rotation axis,
in order to provide a joint that can be easily cleaned while ensuring sealing performance, as taught by Cao_2.
Claim 16: Manome does not expressly disclose wherein the robot further comprises a seal interposed between the second sub-link and the first link 1 around the opening.
The Office turns to Cao_2, which teaches a robot joint in which a seal 100 is interposed between a first component 201 and a second component 202. Multiple motivations for the seal 100 are described in Paragraph [0042]:
With the sealing assembly 100 arranged between the first component 201 and second component 202, as shown in FIG. 1, there is no slot, sharp edge or sharp angle that causes the joint to be hard to clean. In this way, the joint can be easily cleaned and a good cleaning effect is achieved while ensuring the sealing performance. Furthermore, the sealing assembly 100 according to embodiments of the present disclosure has the advantages of fewer parts, easy processing, simple assembly and low tolerance requirements for workpieces.
In view of the Cao_2 teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the robot disclosed by Manome, as modified above by Cao_1, so as to further comprise a seal interposed between the second sub-link and the first link 1 around the opening, in order to provide a joint that can be easily cleaned while ensuring sealing performance, as taught by Cao_2.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,865,710 B2 to Manome, in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,682,755 B2 to Cao et al., as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 5225658 B2 to Shibaura Machine Co.
Claim 13: The combination of Manome and Cao does not disclose a first sub-link which is made of a first material and a second sub-link which is made of a second material having rigidity and specific gravity smaller than the first material.
Shibaura teaches a robot similar to the robot disclosed by Manome. Shibaura teaches a first sub-link 13B made of a first material (the attached machine translation discloses “One of the arm members 13B is an arm that receives the load of the robot, and is made of a metal material”), and a second sub-link 13A made of a second material having rigidity and specific gravity smaller than the first material (the attached machine translation discloses “the plate-like structure 13D is disposed between the second rotation axis A 2 and the third rotation axis A 3 and is made of a metal material such as aluminum. On the other hand, the enclosure 13C can be made of a relatively light and soft material such as a synthetic resin material, an elastic rubber material (especially a silicon rubber material), a wood material, or a paper material”).
In view of the Shibaura teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the robot disclosed by Manome, as modified above by Cao, such that the first sub-link is made of a first material (such as metal) and such that the second sub-link is made of a second material having rigidity and specific gravity smaller than the first material (such as a synthetic resin material), because the first sub-link receives the load of the robot and the second sub-link is simply used to accommodate a wiring harness and additional support for the robot arm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's 04/27/2026 arguments are moot because they do not apply to the combination of the references cited in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDELL J KRUG whose telephone number is (313) 446-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00-14:00 AZ time.
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 on 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.
/RANDELL J KRUG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights