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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/996,187 filled on 01/17/2025.
Claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 8 cite the phrase “the other of the fixed part and the rotation part”. It is not clear what the applicant refers to “the other”. Does the applicant mean “another fixed part and another rotation part” or in a part other than the fixed part and the rotating part. Further clarification and/or claim amendment is required to overcome this rejection.
Claims 2-7 and 9-11 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on the rejected base claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “motor control unit” in claims 1, 8; “host controller unit” in claim 9; have has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification, filed 01/17/2025, in para. [0011, cites “The motor control unit C may be a computer comprising a processor, memory, etc.”. Therefore, the motor control unit is interpreted as processor.
Further, in the specification, in Para. [0016], discloses “The host control unit 100 is a computer comprising a processor, memory, etc.”). Therefore, the host control unit is interpreted as any computer, processor, controller, etc.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi Tomoya (WO2021166767A1, attached English translate NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Konishi) in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0060793) (hereinafter Wang).
Claim 1. Konishi teaches a joint mechanism (See Para. [0001], “a robot comprising a drive unit structure and joints that rotate a plurality of structural parts relative to each other”)”), comprising:
a fixed part (See Para. [0027], [0029], Fig. 2, discloses “the joint portion 18a includes fixed portion 31a),
a rotating part which rotates relative to the fixed part (See Para. [0027], Fig. 2, discloses “movable portion 31b”, and/or see Para. [0029], “When the movable part 31b rotates relative the fixed part 31a”),
a motor which is arranged in one of the fixed part and the rotating part (See Para. [0020]-[0021], “The joint portion 18a includes an electric motor 21, and fixed with 13a”),
a motor control unit for controlling the motor (See Para. [0003], “drive unit to control electric motor to drive component members”), and
a single umbilical member which is connected to the motor control unit and the force sensor (See Para. [0020], [0023], Fig. 2, discloses “Electrical wires or signal wires are placed in the cavity inside the housing 12a, and into the inside of the cylindrical member 25”), wherein
the umbilical member passes through a hollow hole formed in at least a portion of the joint mechanism (See Para. [0020], [0023], Fig. 2, discloses “joints 18a”, and an electrical wires or signal wires are placed into the inside of the cylindrical member 25”).
Konishi discloses in Para. [0024] that “the second structural part 10, including the movable part 31b, rotates relative to the first structural part 9, including the fixed part 31a. In other words, the lower arm 12 rotates relative to the swivel base 13 when the rotational force of the electric motor 21 is transmitted Nevertheless, Konishi fails to teach a force sensor which is arranged in the other of the fixed part and the rotating part, for detecting a force acting around a joint axis of the joint mechanism.
However, Wang teaches, a force sensor which is arranged in the other of the fixed part and the rotating part, for detecting a force acting around a joint axis of the joint mechanism (See Para. [0040]-[0045], “force sensors are placed between input part and output part of the joint”, and the force sensor is configured to measure force information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Konishi with a force sensor in a joint to measure force on a joint as taught by Wang in order to control joint torque for better robot dynamics and control performance.
Claim 4. The teaching of Konishi as modified by Wang teaches the joint mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the single umbilical member is twisted inside the hollow hole (See Konishi, Para. [0020], [0023], Fig. 2, discloses “See Para. [0020], [0023], Fig. 2, discloses “Electrical wires or signal wires are placed in the cavity inside the housing 12a”).
Claim 5. The teaching of Konishi as modified by Wang teaches the joint mechanism according to claim 1, wherein a pipe member is inserted into the hollow hole and the single umbilical member passes through the pipe member (See Konishi, Para. [0020], [0023], Fig. 2, discloses “Electrical wires or signal wires are placed into the inside of the cylindrical member 25”).
Claim 8 is a robot claim comprising a plurality of joint mechanism and having substantially the same technical features as a joint mechanism of claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 8 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 1.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi Tomoya (WO2021166767A1, attached English translate NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Konishi) in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0060793) (hereinafter Wang) and further in view of Fujita (US 2019/0160688A1).
Claim 2. The teaching of Konishi as modified by Wang teaches the joint mechanism according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the single umbilical member comprises at least one of a data line for transmitting and receiving control information related to the motor and detected information detected by the force sensor, and a power supply bus for supplying current to the motor control unit and the force sensor.
However, Fujita (US 2019/0160688A1) teaches, wherein the single umbilical member comprises at least one of a data line for transmitting and receiving control information related to the motor and detected information detected by the force sensor, and a power supply bus for supplying current to the motor control unit and the force sensor (See Para. [0016], “The motor and the position/posture confirmation sensor 32 are connected to the controller (cable-connected device) 40 via the cable CA and controlled by the controller 40”, and see Para. [0022], “The cable CA includes a plurality of signal lines and power lines. Some of the signal lines and the power lines at one end of the cable CA are connected to the robot tool 31, and others of the signal lines and the power lines at the one end of the cable CA are connected to the position/posture confirmation sensor 32. Further, the signal line and the power lines at the other end of the cable CA are connected to the controller 40”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Konishi in view of the teaching of Wang with a cable that includes signal lines and power lines as taught by Fujita in order to deploy the above claimed invention for effective communication and operate motor with safe motion function.
Claim 9. The teaching of Konishi as modified by Wang teaches the robot (See Fig. 1, and Para. [001], discloses “a robot comprising a drive unit structure and joints that rotate a plurality of structural parts relative to each other”) according to claim 8, but fails to teach, wherein the single umbilical member comprises at least one of a data line for transmitting and receiving control information related to the motor and detected information detected by the force sensor, and a power supply bus for supplying current to the motor control unit and the force sensor,
the robot further comprising:
a power supply unit for supplying current to at least one of the motor control unit and the force sensor of each of the plurality of joint mechanisms via the power supply bus, and
a host control unit for inputting and outputting the control information and the detected information to both the motor control unit and the force sensor of the plurality of joint mechanisms via the data line.
However, Fujita teaches, wherein the single umbilical member comprises at least one of a data line for transmitting and receiving control information related to the motor and detected information detected by the force sensor, and a power supply bus for supplying current to the motor control unit and the force sensor (See Para. [0016], “The motor and the position/posture confirmation sensor 32 are connected to the controller (cable-connected device) 40 via the cable CA and controlled by the controller 40”, and see Para. [0022], “The cable CA includes a plurality of signal lines and power lines. Some of the signal lines and the power lines at one end of the cable CA are connected to the robot tool 31, and others of the signal lines and the power lines at the one end of the cable CA are connected to the position/posture confirmation sensor 32. Further, the signal line and the power lines at the other end of the cable CA are connected to the controller 40”),
the robot (See Fig. 1, Para. [0005], discloses “robot and cable that supply electric power to device”) further comprising:
a power supply unit for supplying current to at least one of the motor control unit (See Fig. 1, Para. [0005], discloses “robot and cable that supply electric power to device”) and the force sensor of each of the plurality of joint mechanisms via the power supply bus (See Para. [0014], discloses “a force sensor”, and in Para. See Para. [0016], “The motor and the position/posture confirmation sensor 32 are connected to the controller (cable-connected device) 40 via the cable CA and controlled by the controller 40”, and see Para. [0022], “The cable CA includes a plurality of signal lines and power lines. Some of the signal lines and the power lines at one end of the cable CA are connected to the robot tool 31, and others of the signal lines and the power lines at the one end of the cable CA are connected to the position/posture confirmation sensor 32. Further, the signal line and the power lines at the other end of the cable CA are connected to the controller 40), and
a host control unit for inputting and outputting the control information and the detected information to both the motor control unit and the force sensor of the plurality of joint mechanisms via the data line (See Para. [0018], “receiving detection result of the force sensor 12”, and in Para. [0019]-[0020], [0022], [0033]-[0034], discloses “transmits a control signal to each servo controller 44 in accordance with the read motion program 43b while using a result of detection by the position/posture confirmation sensor 32, and controls with the control signal the motor of the robot tool 31 while controlling a servo amplifier of each servo motor 11 of the robot 10.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Konishi in view of the teaching of Wang with a cable that includes signal lines and power lines as taught by Fujita in order to deploy the above claimed invention for effective communication and operate motor with safe motion function.
Claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi Tomoya (WO2021166767A1, attached English translate NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Konishi) in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0060793) (hereinafter Wang) and further in view of Nakayama (WO2021187332A1, this reference is from IDS).
Claim 3. The teaching of Konishi as modified by Wang teaches the joint mechanism according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the single umbilical member is bus-connected or daisy chain-connected between the motor control unit and the force sensor.
However, Nakayama (WO2021187332A1, this reference is from IDS) teaches, wherein the single umbilical member is bus-connected or daisy chain-connected between the motor control unit and the force sensor (See Para. [0024], “communication board for the force sensor are being connected in daisy chain”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Konishi in view of the teaching of Wang with a daisy chain connection for the communication board and force sensor as taught by Nakayama in order to deploy the above claimed invention, therefore, in an event of circuits breaks down for some reason for a system, the other system can safely be controlled.
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi Tomoya (WO2021166767A1, attached English translate NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Konishi) in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0060793) (hereinafter Wang) and further in view of Matsushita et al. (JP2003340773A, this reference is from IDS) (hereinafter Matsushita).
Claim 6. The teaching of Konishi as modified by Wang teaches the joint mechanism according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein control information related to the motor and detected information of the force sensor are communicated using the same protocol.
However, Matsushita teaches, wherein control information related to the motor and detected information of the force sensor are communicated using the same protocol (See Abstract/overview, and/or Para. [005]-[0013], discloses “where the main control section 1 can control a plurality of nodes by a communication protocol conforming to an ARCNET. It is an object of the present invention to provide a robot control system capable of performing two-way communication control”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Konishi in view of the teaching of Wang with a communication protocol for two-way communication as taught by Matsushita in order reduce amount of wiring and improving control efficiency in all types of robots.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi Tomoya (WO2021166767A1, attached English translate NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Konishi) in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0060793) (hereinafter Wang) and further in view of Nakayama (WO2022138370A1, this reference is from IDS).
Claim 7. The teaching of Konishi as modified by Wang teaches the joint mechanism according to claim 1, but fails to teach, wherein the umbilical member is supported with slack inside the hollow hole.
However, Nakayama teaches, wherein the umbilical member is supported with slack inside the hollow hole (See Fig. 6A-6C, discloses “ “the striatum 29 [i.e., umbilical member] is fixed with a predetermined slack by the first fixing portion 23 and the second fixing portion 24”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Konishi in view of the teaching of Wang with a slack for supporting straitum, i.e., umbilical member as taught by Nakayama in order to rotate striatum-integrated actuator to a maximum angle.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claims 10-11 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, and written to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 10, the closest prior arts as cited above fail to suggest, disclose or teach individually or in combination to render obvious limitations of “wherein the host control unit includes an indication mechanism, and the indication mechanism selects at least one of the motor control unit and the force sensor of a specific joint mechanism among the plurality of joint mechanisms and outputs an instruction via the data line” and in combination with other limitations of claim 8 and intervening claim 10.
Claim 11 depends on claim 10. Therefore, claim 11 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights