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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 9, 2026 has been entered.
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 1, 2, 6-9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Cao et al. (CN 108544481).
Cao discloses and shows a robot comprising:
a base (10);
a first arm (Fig. 2, item 20, right instance) rotatably connected to the base around a first turning axis; and
a second arm (30a) rotatably connected to the first arm around a second turning axis;
a spline shaft (Fig. 3, item 52) provided at the second arm at least rotatably around a third turning axis; and
a joint actuator (Fig. A, elsewhere below, item 100) connecting the first arm and the second arm,
the second arm having:
a housing;
a motor (51) fixed to the housing;
a first pulley (56) configured to rotate around a first axis and connected to the motor;
a second pulley (57a) disposed to be separated from the first pulley and configured to
rotate around a second axis parallel to the first axis;
a first belt (58) laid around the first pulley and the second pulley;
a third pulley (57b) disposed coaxially with the second pulley in a direction along the
second axis and configured to rotate around the second axis;
a shaft (57c) extending along the second axis;
a fourth pulley (61) disposed to be separated from the third pulley, the fourth pulley
configured to rotate around the third turning axis that is parallel to the second axis;
a second belt (62) laid around the third pulley and the fourth pulley;
a spline nut (53) through which the spline shaft is inserted, the spline nut being fixed to the fourth pulley;
a first bearing (not labeled, Fig. 3, above second pulley, 57a) having an inner ring and an outer ring concentrically disposed, located at the second pulley and the third pulley and in contact with the shaft,
a second bearing (not labeled, Fig. 3, above third pulley, 57b) having an inner ring and an outer ring concentrically disposed, located at the second pulley and the third pulley and in contact
with the shaft, and
a support section fixed to the housing, the support section having a first bearing supporting section supporting the outer ring of the first bearing, and a second bearing supporting section supporting the outer ring of the second bearing (see Fig. 3);
wherein:
an outer diameter of the second pulley (57a) is larger than an outer diameter of the first pulley (56),
an outer diameter of the third pulley (57b) is smaller than the outer diameter of the second pulley (57a),
an outer diameter of the fourth pulley (61) is larger than the outer diameter of the third pulley (57b),
the third pulley is sandwiched between the first bearing and the second bearing, and
when the second bearing is viewed along a direction perpendicular to the second axis, the second bearing does not overlap the third pulley.
PNG
media_image1.png
776
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first bearing is not arranged between the second pulley and the third pulley as claimed. Such an arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the following:
· MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) which states, “shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device” in citing In re Japiske, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
· MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) which further states, “the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice” in citing In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
· MPEP 2144 clearly states that “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rational may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law" (emphasis added).
· MPEP 2144 also states, “If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection” (emphasis added). However, Applicant’s disclosure, and all other evidence of record, fails to set forth any unexpected result (i.e., criticality) in having the first bearing arranged between the first bearing and second bearing. Accordingly, the claimed arrangement lacks any criticality such that a rejection based solely on case law is appropriate.
Cl. 2 – when the shaft is viewed along the direction perpendicular to the second axis, the second pulley does not overlap the first bearing along the direction perpendicular to the second axis.
Cl. 6 – the motor has a motor body and an output shaft (not labeled), and when the motor body is viewed along a direction perpendicular to the first axis, the motor body overlaps with the first bearing. Having the motor body not overlapping with the first bearing would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in accordance with the following:
· MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) which states, “shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device” in citing In re Japiske, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
· MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) which further states, “the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice” in citing In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
· MPEP 2144 clearly states that “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rational may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law" (emphasis added).
· MPEP 2144 also states, “If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection” (emphasis added). However, Applicant’s disclosure, and all other evidence of record, fails to set forth any unexpected result (i.e., criticality) from having the motor body not overlapping the first bearing. Accordingly, the claimed positioning of the motor body lacks any criticality such that a rejection based solely on case law is appropriate.
Cl. 7 – the motor has a motor body and an output shaft, and when the motor body is viewed along a direction perpendicular to the first axis, the motor body does not overlap with the third pulley.
Cl. 8 – a rigidity of the second belt is larger than a rigidity of the first belt according to the tension applied to the belts during assembly and maintenance.
Cl. 9 – when the second arm is viewed along a first straight line parallel to the second axis, the first axis is in line with the second axis and third axis and, thus, not offset from a second straight line passing through the third axis and extending along a longitudinal direction of the second arm, and a distance between the second straight line and the second axis equal to a distance between the second straight line and the first axis.
Having the first axis (and items positioned therethrough) arranged as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in lieu of:
· MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) which states, “shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device” in citing In re Japiske, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
· MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) which further states, “the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice” in citing In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
· MPEP 2144 clearly states that “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rational may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law" (emphasis added).
· MPEP 2144 also states, “If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection” (emphasis added). However, Applicant’s disclosure, and all other evidence of record, fails to set forth any unexpected result (i.e., criticality) from having the first axis (and the items positioned therethrough). Accordingly, the claimed positioning of the first axis (and the items positioned therethrough) lacks any criticality such that a rejection based solely on case law is appropriate.
Cl. 12 – Cao discloses and shows a robot comprising:
a base (10);
a first arm (Fig. 2, item 20, right instance) rotatably connected to the base around a first turning axis;
a second arm (30a) rotatably connected to the first arm around a second turning axis; and
a joint actuator (Fig. A, elsewhere above, item 100) connecting the first arm and the second arm,
the second arm having:
a housing;
a motor (51) fixed to the housing;
a first pulley (56) configured to rotate around a first axis and receive power of the motor;
a second pulley (57a) disposed to be separated from the first pulley and configured to
rotate around a second axis parallel to the first axis;
a first belt (58) laid around the first pulley and the second pulley;
a third pulley (57b) disposed coaxially with the second pulley in a direction along the
second axis and configured to rotate around the second axis;
a shaft (57c) extending along the second axis;
a fourth pulley (61) disposed to be separated from the third pulley, the fourth pulley
configured to rotate around a third turning axis that is parallel to the second axis;
a second belt (62) laid around the third pulley and the fourth pulley;
a first bearing (not labeled, Fig. 3, above second pulley, 57a) having an inner ring and an outer ring concentrically disposed, located near the second pulley and the third pulley and in contact with the shaft,
a second bearing (not labeled, Fig. 3, above third pulley, 57b) having an inner ring and an outer ring concentrically disposed, in contact with the shaft;
a support section having a first bearing supporting section supporting the outer ring of the first bearing, and a second bearing supporting section supporting the outer ring of the second bearing (see Fig. 3);
wherein:
the first pulley transmits the power to the fourth pulley;
an outer diameter of the second pulley (57a) is larger than an outer diameter of the first pulley (56),
an outer diameter of the third pulley (57b) is smaller than the outer diameter of the second pulley (57a),
an outer diameter of the fourth pulley (61) is larger than the outer diameter of the third pulley (57b),
the third pulley is sandwiched between the first bearing and the second bearing, and
when the second bearing is viewed along a direction perpendicular to the second axis, the second bearing does not overlap the third pulley.
The first bearing is not arranged between the second pulley and the third pulley as claimed. Such an arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the following:
· MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) which states, “shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device” in citing In re Japiske, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
· MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) which further states, “the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice” in citing In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
· MPEP 2144 clearly states that “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rational may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law" (emphasis added).
· MPEP 2144 also states, “If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection” (emphasis added). However, Applicant’s disclosure, and all other evidence of record, fails to set forth any unexpected result (i.e., criticality) in having the first bearing arranged between the first bearing and second bearing. Accordingly, the claimed arrangement lacks any criticality such that a rejection based solely on case law is appropriate.
Cl. 13 – the support section passes an inner side of the second belt (Figs. 1 and 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the rejected claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds.
Conclusion
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