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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 13, “3,” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson et al. (WO 2022/229609).
Jackson discloses and shows at Fig. 4c a manipulator robot comprising:
a first 4-bar link (25, 24,23, horizontal portion of 28);
a second 4-bar link (29,30,28(angled portion),31) configured to move symmetrically with the first 4-bar link;
a single motor (M3) connected to one of the first 4-bar link and the second 4-bar link to supply driver power to the first 4-bar link and the second 4-bar link via gear transmission (23’,27,29’); and
a rotation mechanism (27) configured to interconnect the first 4-bar link and the second 4-bar link to transmit drive power supplied to one of the first 4-bar link and the second 4-bar link to the other of the first 4-bar link and the second 4-bar link,
wherein the single motor and the rotation mechanism are configured to drive the first 4-bar link and the second 4-bar link to move the manipulator robot with a 1-degree-of-freedom.
Cl. 2 – the rotation mechanism comprises: a first gear (23’) configured to rotate in accordance with drive power supplied to the first 4-bar link; and a second gear (29’) configured to rotate, corresponding to rotation of the first gear.
Cl. 3 – the first 4-bar link comprises a first link (25) connected to the single motor at one side thereof (side facing item 22) while being connected to the first gear at another side thereof (side facing item 27), and wherein the second 4-bar link comprises a second link (29) connected to the second gear at one side thereof and configured to move symmetrically with the first link.
Cl. 4 – (assuming the first and second links are arranged such that they are symmetrical to the a vertical line) assuming that an angle formed by the first link with respect to a horizontal plane is a first angle (01), and an angle between the first link and the second link is a second angle (02), the other side of the second link is configured to move along a linear path with respect to the one side of the first link in response to a first condition that the first link and the second link have equal length and a second condition that the second angle corresponds to double the first angle being satisfied (that is assuming the first and second links are arranged such that they are symmetrical to the a vertical line, which in Fig. 5, they are not).
Cl. 5 – assuming that an angle formed by the first link with respect to a horizontal plane is a first angle (01), and an angle between the first link and the second link is a second angle (02), the other side of the second link is configured to move along a curved path with respect to the one side of the first link in response to one or both of a first condition that the first link and the second link have equal length and a second condition that the second angle corresponds to double the first angle not being satisfied.
Cl. 11 – the single motor is connected to one of the first 4-bar link and the second 4-bar link via a reducer.
Cl. 12 – Jackson discloses and shows at Fig. 5 a manipulator robot comprising:
a first 4-bar link (25, 24,23, horizontal portion of 28);
a second 4-bar link (29,30,28(angled portion),31) configured to move symmetrically with the first 4-bar link;
a single motor (M3) connected to one of the first 4-bar link and the second 4-bar link to supply driver power to the first 4-bar link and the second 4-bar link; and
a rotation mechanism (27) configured to interconnect the first 4-bar link and the second 4-bar link to transmit drive power supplied to one of the first 4-bar link and the second 4-bar link to the other of the first 4-bar link and the second 4-bar link; and
a controller configured to:
control the single motor; and
control the rotation mechanism to drive the first 4-bar link and the second 4-bar link to move with a 1-degree-of-freedom (pg. 19, item E).
Cl. 13 – the 1-degree-of- freedom movement includes linear movement.
Cl. 14 – the rotation mechanism comprises: a first gear (23’) configured to rotate in accordance with drive power supplied to the first 4-bar link; and a second gear (29’) configured to rotate, corresponding to rotation of the first gear.
Cl. 15 – the single motor is connected to one of the first 4-bar link and the second 4-bar link via a reducer.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson, as applied to claims 1-3, and in view of Master Mechanical DESIGN (hereinafter, MMD), “Keyless Shaft Locking Mechanical Design – ‘Power Lock’”, found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek4kVqilTRk&t=752 (see transcripts).
Jackson discloses and shows the invention of claims 1-3 as described elsewhere above. Jackson does not include a mechanical lock as claimed. MMD discloses the use and benefits of a mechanical lock to include: zero backlash (at 12:52), higher torque density (13:30), free phase adjustment (14:18) and more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manipulator robot to include a mechanical lock for the benefits of zero backlash, higher torque density and free phase adjustment as offered by MMD, all of which will take into consideration a phase difference caused by the first gear and the second gear, corresponding to the first link and the second link.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson, as applied to claims 1-3.
Jackson discloses and shows the invention of claims 1-3 as described elsewhere above. Jackson does not include helical gears as the first and second gears. However, Jackson discloses a “complete, powered robotic arm, with multiple construction options (belts, linear gearing etc.)” (pg. 4, first full paragraph) and further states, “a drivetrain or transmission might be used, for example comprising one or more timing belt(s), pulley(s), linkage(s), motor(s), sprocket(s), gear(s), chain(s), hydraulic or pneumatic actuator(s), drive shaft(s) and/or electronic equivalents” (pg. 10, third full paragraph).
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 the Jackson robot to where the first and second gear comprises a second gear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
Claims 16-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art discloses and shows the invention of claims 1-3 as described elsewhere above. The prior art does not, however, include the first gear and the second gear are connected to opposite sides of a third link, respectively, wherein the first link is connected, at the other side thereof, to one side of the third link, together with the first gear and one side of a 1-2th link which is one link of the first 4- bar link, and wherein the second link is connected, at the one side thereof, to another side of the third link, together with the second gear and one side of a 2-2th link which is one link of the second 4-bar link.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the aforementioned Jackson reference is a “traditional 2-DOF manipulator” using “two motors”. Claim 1 calls for a manipulator robot having a single motor this is configured, along with the rotation mechanism, to drive the first and second 4-bar links with 1 degree of freedom. Motor M2 is considered a single motor to drive the manipulator in 1-DOF while motor M3 drives the manipulator in a second, single DOF. Thusly, Examiner relies on a single motor to provide the 1-DOF as required.
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 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 BOBBY RUSHING, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-5PM 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) 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.
/BOBBY RUSHING, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights