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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I including claims 1-4 and 6-9 in the reply filed on February 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the actuator and output shaft as described in the specification in relation to the driving pulley and driven pulley in fig. 2. The shafts supporting the driven and driving pulley in fig. 2 should be shown in fig. 2 for more clear understanding of the invention. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim recites an abstract idea in the form of “calculate a load torque applied to the output shaft.”
Regarding eligibility step 1, the claimed invention of claim 1 falls into at least one of the statutory categories; namely, methods, and systems (device).
Proceeding to eligibility step 2, prong I, the limitation(s) of “calculate a load torque applied to the output shaft,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. torque calculating device 200 is a computer, see Applicant Specification ¶ [0019]) and memory storing instructions. That is, other than reciting “a computer”; nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or falls under mathematical concepts. For example, but for the by the computing device language (“a computer”), “calculate a load torque applied to the output shaft,” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually taking steps of calculating a load torque applied to the output shaft. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2A, prong II, this abstract idea which is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computing device to perform “calculating a load torque applied to the output shaft” steps. The computer in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of “calculating a load torque applied to the output shaft,” such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims disclose “calculating a load torque applied to the output shaft” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Proceeding to eligibly step 2B, claims 6-10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer to perform “calculating a load torque applied to the output shaft,” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of receiving/retrieving rotational angle of the actuator, a rotational angle of the output shaft, and a spring constant of an elastic spring, for “calculating a load torque applied to the output shaft,”, amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer which do not render an abstract idea eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. Furthermore, as explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978), see MPEP 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 7-10 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 6.
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 6-10 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. Claim 6, lines 16-18 recite “…calculate a load torque applied to the output shaft, on a basis of a rotational angle of the actuator, a rotational angle of the output shaft, and a spring constant of an elastic spring, included in the first elastic member”. It is unclear how a calculation is made on a “basis” of the three items listed. Is the basis an equation? How is the rotational angle of the actuator, the rotational angle of the output shaft and a spring constant of the first elastic member known? There appears to be a missing step as to how the data used in the calculation is detected or collected.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ackerman, U.S. Patent 3,913,410.
As per claim 1, Ackerman discloses a power transmitting mechanism (abstract) (figs. 1, 2) for transmitting power from an actuator to an output shaft (shaft associated with sprocket 10, fig. 1) the power transmitting mechanism comprising:
a driving pulley (10) (col. 1, lines 49-53)configured to be rotated by the power;
a driven pulley (34) configured to transmit the power to the output shaft (32) (fig. 1);
a transmission belt (36’) [chain] stretched between the driving pulley (10) and the driven pulley (34), and configured to transmit the power to the driven pulley (34);
a biasing pulley (40’) [biasing sprocket] supported so as to be movable in a direction intersecting a driving direction of the transmission belt (36’), and biased against the transmission belt (36’);
a first elastic member (col. 2, lines 35-41) (fig. 1) configured to elastically bias the biasing pulley (40’) against the transmission belt (36’);
a first additional pulley (39) [idler sprocket] engaged with the transmission belt (36’) between the biasing pulley (40) and the driving pulley (10); and
a second additional pulley (39a) [idler sprocket] engaged with the transmission belt (36’) between the biasing pulley (40) and the driven pulley (34).
As per claim 2, Ackerman as set forth above, disclose the first additional pulley (39) and the second additional pulley (39a) are arranged so as to hold constant an angle between a driving direction of a first belt portion between the biasing pulley (40) and the first additional pulley (39) in the transmission belt (36’) and a driving direction of a second belt portion between the biasing pulley (40) and the second additional pulley (39a) in the transmission belt (36’). The angle is fixed due to the additional pulleys (39, 39a) being fixed.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackerman, U.S. Patent 3,913,410.
As per claim 3, Ackerman as set forth above, discloses the claimed invention except for the first additional pulley and the second additional pulley are arranged such that the first belt portion and the second belt portion are parallel with each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the additional pulleys closer toward the biasing pulley shaft (figs. 1, 2), resulting parallel belt portions, since it was known in the art that rearranging the pulleys as described results in greater circumferential chain engagement, reducing likelihood of inadvertent chain dislodgement.
As per claim 4, Ackerman as set forth above, discloses the claimed invention except for the first additional pulley is disposed such that the driving direction of the first belt portion and a driving direction of a third belt portion between the first additional pulley and the driving pulley in the transmission belt are orthogonal to each other, and the second additional pulley is disposed such that the driving direction of the second belt portion and a driving direction of a fourth belt portion between the second additional pulley and the driven pulley in the transmission belt are orthogonal to each other.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the additional pulleys closer toward the biasing pulley shaft (figs. 1, 2), resulting in orthogonal belt portions when the driving pulley and driven pulley are the same diameter, since it was known in the art that rearranging the additional pulleys as described results in greater circumferential chain engagement, reducing likelihood of inadvertent chain dislodgement.
Due to 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) issues above the scope of the invention regarding claims 6-9 has not been fully ascertained. No art rejections have been made for this reason.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK KENNETH BUSE whose telephone number is (571)270-3139. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/M.K.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654