DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection and objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/03/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang (US 20230118765 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a transmission device, (see Fig. 3), comprising: a main bracket (see Fig. 7; 70) including a base plate (71) and a base column (see annotated Fig. 7 below; 72 and A), wherein the base plate is connected to one end of the base column, the base plate includes a plurality of recesses formed on a side thereof (see annotated Fig. 7 below; B), the base column has a plurality of mounting surfaces (see annotated Fig. 7 below; C), and the plurality of recesses and the plurality of mounting surfaces are arranged in a staggered manner (see annotated Fig. 7, wherein B and C are staggered); a pedestal (see Fig. 2; 15) mounted to another end of the base column; a mobile platform (11-1) including a plurality of mechanical arm assemblies (11-3), wherein the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies are distributed in the plurality of recesses (see Fig. 7); a plurality of transmission assemblies (see Fig. 7; 80) distributed on the plurality of mounting surfaces (see Fig. 7), wherein each of the transmission assemblies is connected to an adjacent one of the mechanical arm assemblies (see Fig. 7), and the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies and the plurality of transmission assemblies are arranged in a staggered manner (see Fig. 7); and a plurality of motor assemblies (81) disposed on the pedestal (see Fig. 5), wherein the plurality of motor assemblies are coupled to the plurality of transmission assemblies, respectively (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses the mobile platform (11-1) further includes a base stage (base of 11-1), the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies (11-3) are connected to the base stage, each of the mechanical arm assemblies includes a first arm (see annotated Fig. 7 below, J), a second arm (see annotated Fig. 7 below, K), and an arm connector (see annotated Fig. 7 below, L), one end of the first arm includes a first U-shaped joint (see annotated Fig. 7 below, U-joint of J), another end of the first arm is connected to an adjacent one of the transmission assemblies (80), one end of the second arm includes a second U-shaped joint (see annotated Fig. 7 below, U-shaped joint of K), and the arm connector is connected between the first U-shaped joint and the second U-shaped joint (see Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oguri (US 20190160650 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oguri discloses a transmission device, (see Fig. 5), comprising: a main bracket (see Fig. 6) including a base plate (top plate of 21) and a base column (21), wherein the base plate is connected to one end of the base column, the base plate includes a plurality of recesses formed on a side thereof (recesses where 24 is provided), the base column has a plurality of mounting surfaces (surfaces of 21), and the plurality of recesses and the plurality of mounting surfaces are arranged in a staggered manner; a pedestal (bottom plate of 21) mounted to another end of the base column; a mobile platform (22) including a plurality of mechanical arm assemblies (23, slides of 24), wherein the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies are distributed in the plurality of recesses; a plurality of transmission assemblies (24) distributed on the plurality of mounting surfaces, wherein each of the transmission assemblies is connected to an adjacent one of the mechanical arm assemblies, and the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies and the plurality of transmission assemblies are arranged in a staggered manner; and a plurality of motor assemblies (25, 26) disposed on the pedestal, wherein the plurality of motor assemblies are coupled to the plurality of transmission assemblies, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, Oguri discloses the mobile platform (22) further includes a base stage (base of 22), the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies (23, slides of 24) are connected to the base stage, each of the mechanical arm assemblies includes a first arm (see Fig. 13; 25a), a second arm (23), and an arm connector (connected between 23 and 25a), one end of the first arm includes a first U-shaped joint (U-shaped joint of 25a), another end of the first arm is connected to an adjacent one of the transmission assemblies, one end of the second arm includes a second U-shaped joint (U-shaped joint of 23), and the arm connector is connected between the first U-shaped joint and the second U-shaped joint (see Fig. 13).
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.
Claim 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20230118765 A1) in view of Geteau (US 20240117591 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses each of the transmission assemblies (80) includes: a fixing frame (frame of 80) fixed to one of the mounting surfaces of the base column (see Fig. 7); a first transmission set (see annotated Fig. 7 below; D, E) disposed on the fixing frame, wherein the first transmission set includes a leadscrew (see annotated Fig. 7 below; D) and a nut (see annotated Fig. 7 below; E) that is movably disposed on the leadscrew; a first connecting member (see annotated Fig. 7 below; F) disposed on the nut. Huang fails to disclose a second transmission set disposed on the fixing frame, wherein the second transmission set includes a slide rail and a slide block movably disposed on the slide rail. However, Geteau teaches a second transmission set (see Fig. 7; 24, 15A) disposed on the fixing frame (80), wherein the second transmission set includes a slide rail (24) and a slide block (15A) movably disposed on the slide rail. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Huang with a second transmission set, as taught by Geteau, to guide the movement of the sliding element along the longitudinal axis (see paragraph [0038]). Axial guidance of the sliding element prevents tilting of the nut on the screw, which can cause binding of the threads leading to failure of the transmission mechanism. As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: a second connecting member (Geteau, 15) including a first connecting portion (Geteau, upper portion of 15 in the figure) and a second connecting portion (Geteau, 15B), wherein the first connecting portion is connected to the first connecting member (Geteau, 14A), one side of the second connecting portion (Geteau, upper portion of 15B) is connected to the slide block (Geteau, 15A), and another side of the second connecting portion (Geteau, lower portion of 15B) is connected to an adjacent one of the mechanical arm assemblies (Geteau, Fig. 3; 18).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of claim 2 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the leadscrew (Huang, D) is parallel to the slide rail (Geteau, 24).
Regarding claim 4, Huang discloses the fixing frame (frame of 80) includes a first side wall (see annotated Fig. 7 below, G), a second side wall (see annotated Fig. 7 below, H), and a third side wall (see annotated Fig. 7 below, I), the third side wall is connected between the first side wall and the second side wall, each of the first side wall and the second side wall has a concave portion with a through hole (see Fig. 7), and the fixing frame is fixed to one of the mounting surfaces (see Fig. 7).
Claim 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20230118765 A1) in view of Wikipedia.
Regarding claim 9, Huang discloses two rotating shafts (see annotated Fig. 7 below, upper and lower shafts of L) and four bearings (see annotated Fig. 7 below, each U-shaped joint comprises two bearing surfaces), the arm connector includes two connecting holes (see annotated Fig. 7 below, holes in L), the first U-shaped joint includes two first through holes (see annotated Fig. 7 below, holes in the U-shaped joint of J), and the second U-shaped joint includes two second through holes (see annotated Fig. 7 below, holes in the U-shaped joint of K); wherein the four bearings are respectively disposed in the two first through holes and the two second through holes (see Fig. 7), one of the rotating shafts passes through one of the connecting holes to be connected with two of the bearings that are respectively located in the two first through holes, and another rotating shaft passes through another connecting hole to be connected with the remaining two bearings that are respectively located in the two second through holes (see Fig. 7). Huang fails to disclose ball bearings. However, Wikipedia teaches ball bearings. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Huang with ball bearings, as taught by Wikipedia, to minimize friction and allow for the efficient transfer of loads (see page 1, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Huang discloses extending directions of the two rotating shafts are perpendicular to each other (see Fig. 7).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20230118765 A1) in view of Wikipedia and Spicer.
Regarding claim 11, Huang fails to disclose each of the mechanical arm assemblies further includes four washers. However, Spicer teaches each of the mechanical arm assemblies further includes four washers (see page 3, thrust washers). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Huang with thrust washers, as taught by Spicer, to eliminate friction and end galling by eliminating metal to metal contact. As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: the four washers (Spicer, thrust washer) are respectively disposed between the arm connector (Huang, L) and the four ball bearings (Wikipedia, ball bearings).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20230118765 A1) in view of Wikipedia and Mallaky.
Regarding claim 12, Huang fails to disclose each of the mechanical arm assemblies further includes two limiting posts, the first U-shaped joint and the second U-shaped joint respectively include two limiting holes, the limiting posts are respectively disposed in the limiting holes, and upper and lower sides of the arm connector respectively abut against the two limiting posts. However, Mallaky teaches a limiting post (see page 8, control strut). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Huang with a limiting post, as taught by Mallaky, to limit the rotation of the mobile platform while underload to prevent damage to the arms and transmission. In other words, maintaining the mobile platform as close to a center axis of the transmission device reduces the forces acting upon the arms and transmissions. As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: each of the mechanical arm assemblies (Huang, 80) further includes two limiting posts (Mallaky, control strut), the first U-shaped joint (Huang, U-shaped joint of J) and the second U-shaped joint (Huang, U-shaped joint of K) respectively include two limiting holes (Mallaky, socket), the limiting posts are respectively disposed in the limiting holes, and upper and lower sides of the arm connector respectively abut against the two limiting posts (Mallaky).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20230118765 A1) in view of Yu (US 20200069373 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Huang fails to disclose another end of the second arm of each of the mechanical arm assemblies includes a ball joint. However, Yu teaches another end of the second arm of each of the mechanical arm assemblies (see Fig. 6, 1240) includes a ball joint (1247). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Huang with ball joints, as taught by Yu, to enable broad ranges of motion and various kinematic states of the manipulator (see paragraph [0079). Huang in view of Yu fail to disclose the base stage includes a plurality of spherical grooves, and the ball joint is disposed in one of the spherical grooves. However, it has been held that a rearrangement of parts, which does not modify the operation of the device, is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this instance, the mechanical arm assemblies are provided with spherical grooves and the base stage is provided with balls of the ball joints. However, rearranging the parts such that the bas stage includes the spherical grooves and the mechanical arm assemblies are provided with the balls of the ball joints would not modify the operation of the device. Additionally, given only two options for the placement of the grooves, i.e., on the base stage or on the arms, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try both locations.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1 - Huang (US 20230118765 A1) Fig. 7 Annotated
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the plurality of recesses B and the plurality of mounting surfaces C are not arranged in a staggered manner, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2111.01 states “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)”. In this instance, the specification of the instant application fails to set forth any special definition of the term “staggered”, and the term “staggered” must be given its ordinary and customary meaning. Britannica1 defines staggered as “arranged so that things are positioned at different places or happen at different times”. As can be seen in Fig. 3 of the instant application, the plurality of recesses (110) and the plurality of mounting surfaces (121) are arranged so that they are positioned at different places, i.e., staggered. Additionally, as can be seen in annotated Fig. 7 of Huang above, the plurality of recesses B and the plurality of mounting surfaces C are arranged so that they are positioned at different places, i.e., staggered. Therefore, Huang discloses “the plurality of recesses and the plurality of mounting surfaces are arranged in a staggered manner”, as required by claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the position identified as “A” by the Office appears to be more accurately part of the shaft motor 82, rather than a mounting surface as claimed, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 reads “a main bracket including a base plate and a base column, wherein the base plate is connected to one end of the base column, the base plate includes a plurality of recesses formed on a side thereof, the base column has a plurality of mounting surfaces”. As can be seen in annotated Fig. 7 of Huang above, the main bracket (70) includes base plate (71) and a base column (72 and A), wherein the base plate and the base column are connected. There is no requirement in the claims that the base plate and the base column be made of a singular piece or that they be directly connected together. Therefore, Huang discloses “a main bracket including a base plate and a base column, wherein the base plate is connected to one end of the base column, the base plate includes a plurality of recesses formed on a side thereof, the base column has a plurality of mounting surfaces”, as required by claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Huang fails to disclose “the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies and the plurality of transmission assemblies are arranged in a staggered manner”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2111.01 states “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)”. In this instance, the specification of the instant application fails to set forth any special definition of the term “staggered”, and the term “staggered” must be given its ordinary and customary meaning. Britannica2 defines staggered as “arranged so that things are positioned at different places or happen at different times”. As can be seen in Fig. 1 of the instant application, the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies (31) and the plurality of transmission assemblies (4) are arranged so that they are positioned at different places, i.e., staggered. Additionally, as can be seen in Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 7 of Huang above, the plurality of transmission assemblies (80) and the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies (11-3) are arranged so that they are positioned at different places, i.e., staggered. Therefore, Huang discloses “the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies and the plurality of transmission assemblies are arranged in a staggered manner”, as required by claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the transmission assemblies of Huang are distributed on the base plate, not on the mounting surfaces of the base column, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the annotated Fig. 7 of Huang above, the transmission assemblies (80) are distributed on the mounting surfaces (C) of the base column (72 and A). There is no requirement that the transmission assemblies can only be mounted and/or connected to a single element. Therefore, Huang discloses “the base column has a plurality of mounting surfaces”, as required by claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Oguri fails to disclose “the base plate includes a plurality of recesses formed on a side thereof” and “the plurality of recesses and the plurality of mounting surfaces are arranged in a staggered manner”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Fig. 6-8 of Oguri clearly show recesses in top plate of 21. More specifically, as noted in the rejection above, Oguri discloses recesses in the top plate of 21 where 24 is provided. Second, as noted in the arguments presented above regarding MPEP 2111.01, Oguri discloses the plurality of recesses (recesses the top plate of 21 where 24 is provided) and the plurality of mounting surfaces (surfaces of 21) are arranged so that they are positioned at different places, i.e., staggered. Therefore, Oguri discloses “the base plate includes a plurality of recesses formed on a side thereof” and “the plurality of recesses and the plurality of mounting surfaces are arranged in a staggered manner”, as required by claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Oguri fails to disclose “the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies are distributed in the plurality of recesses” and “the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies and the plurality of transmission assemblies are arranged in a staggered manner”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies includes 23 and the slides of 24. As can be seen in Fig. 6-8 of Oguri, the slides of 24 are provided in the recesses of the top plate of 21. Second, as can be seen the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies (23, slides of 24) and the plurality of transmission assemblies (24) are arranged so that they are positioned at different places, i.e., staggered. Therefore, Oguri discloses “the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies are distributed in the plurality of recesses” and “the plurality of mechanical arm assemblies and the plurality of transmission assemblies are arranged in a staggered manner”, as required by claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Office’s analogy of the actuator 24 as the transmission assembly and the combination of the mover 25 and the stator 26 as the motor assembly is inconsistent, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 requires a plurality of transmission assemblies and a plurality of motor assemblies. There is nothing in the claims that explicitly define what an transmission assembly or a motor assembly is. As such, Oguri discloses a plurality of transmission assemblies (24) and a plurality of motor assemblies (25, 26).
Given at least the arguments presented above, Huang and Oguri disclose each and every limitation of claim 1, and the rejections of 11/03/2025 are maintained.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/staggered
2 https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/staggered