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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “at least one heat transfer path member provided on one heat transfer path extending from the connected member to the fixed member”, which is contrary to the disclosure and is thus unclear. Note that applicant’s figures show that the heat transfer path members (88-1, 88-2) do NOT extend to the fixed member (40=1, 40-2). Rather, internal gear (50) is interposed therebetween preventing the claimed extension.
See MPEP 2173.03 which states that a claim may be "indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970)."
It is unclear if the claim 7 “A cooking robot… a mounting portion… a cooking attachment” (lines 1-2 of claim 7) and “a first output member… an output member” (last lines of claim 7) are to refer to the same elements as similarly labeled in claim 1 from which claim 7 depends, or if the claim 7 elements are in addition thereto. See also the 35 USC 112(d) rejection elsewhere below.
See MPEP 2173.05(o) which states "where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite. Ix parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989)".
The claim 7 limitation “close” is not expressly disclosed to require any specific magnitude or measure such that the limitation is a subjective, relative and unclear term of degree. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 8 recites “a covering member that covers a part of the first connection member exposed on a first driven member side driven by the first output member with respect to the first output member”, which is unclear in two respects. Firstly, it is unclear what element defines “a first driven member side”. Secondly, it is unclear how the first output member can be with respect to itself.
Claim 8 recites “the second connection member is not covered with a covering member on a second driven member side driven by the second output member with respect to the second output member”, which is unclear in four respects. Firstly, it is unclear whether “a covering member” in this latter portion of claim 8 is to refer to the same element as the previous recitation, or an additional element. Secondly, it is unclear whether the claim requires a covering member located so as not to cover the second connection member, or whether the claim forbids any covering member. Thirdly, it is unclear what element defines the second driven member side. Fourthly, it is unclear how the second output member can be “with respect” to itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites “the first power transmission device is the power transmission device according to claim 1” (lines 7-8 of claim 7). However, claim 1 is drawn to a combination of a “A power transmission device that is incorporated in a cooking robot including a mounting portion… cooking attachment… ”. Accordingly, claim 7 improperly seeks to include less than the entirety of claim 1 from which it depends. See also, the 35 USC 112(b) clarity rejection.
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and thus similarly fails to include all of claim 1 from which 7 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura US2021/0053210.
Claim 1. Tamura discloses (fig.2) a power transmission device (42) that is incorporated in a cooking robot (100) including a mounting portion (21) on which a cooking attachment (29) is mounted, the power transmission device comprising: an output member (56) and an other member (90) of the power transmission device. Tamura discloses (para.0035-0036) suitable materials of the power transmission device being “resin containing reinforcing fibers such as glass fibers and carbon fibers” but does not expressly assign the glass fiber containing resin to the output member and assign the carbon fiber containing resin to the other member. However, such modification/assignment of materials appears to be within the spirit of Tamura (see para.0079-0081). See also MPEP 2144.07 which details that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a design consideration and supports prima facie obviousness citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp, 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); and In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). 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 Tamura as such. Note that the above modification necessarily results in the output member having lower thermal conductivity than the other member since glass fibers inherently have lower thermal conductivity than carbon fiber. The term “cooking” is considered to be a mere label for the robot since where there is physical identity between the subject matter of the claim and the prior art, the label given to the claimed subject matter does not distinguish the invention over the prior art. In re Pearson, 494 F. 2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974); In re Lemin, 326 F. 2d 437, 140 USPQ 273 (CCPA 1964). See also MPEP 2112.01 and 2114 regarding the presumption of inherency of functions/properties (such as cooking ability) in a product claim, and applicant’s burden to obtain/test the prior art and submit evidence to the contrary.
Claim 2. The power transmission device according to the power transmission device according to wherein the other member and the output member are made of a resin-based material (as necessarily results from the modification detailed for claim 1 above).
Claim 3. The power transmission device according to claim 2, wherein the other member is made of a fiber reinforced resin containing carbon fibers in a base material resin, and the output member is made of a fiber reinforced resin containing reinforcing fibers other than the carbon fibers in a base material resin, or a resin-based material that does not contain the reinforcing fibers (as necessarily results from the modification detailed for claim 1 above).
Claim 4. The power transmission device according to claim 3, wherein Tamura discloses (para.0035-0036) the output member and the other member are made of fiber reinforced resins having the same base material resin (both are resin as results from the modification detailed for claim 1). Applicant does not expressly claim any particular type of resin compound such that both having resin meets the claim language within the broadest reasonable interpretation. However, if applicant meant to claim --same type of base material resin-- the examiner notes that Tamura discloses either POM or PEEK types of resin and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose only one of the two types for both members for the purpose of simplifying manufacturing.
Claim 5. The power transmission device according to claim 1, further comprising: a connection member (B2) that connects the other member and the output member; and a covering member (54) that covers a part of the connection member exposed on a driven member side (right part/side of B2 as seen in fig.2) with respect to the output member, wherein the covering member is made of a material (54 is resin, para.0035) having lower thermal conductivity than the connection member (the resin of 54 inherently has a lower thermal conductivity than B2, which is metal, para.0037).
Claim 6 (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 rejections). The power transmission device according to claim 1, wherein the cooking robot includes a fixed member (60 and/or 61 and/or 32) to which the power transmission device is fixed and which supports the power transmission device, the power transmission device includes a connected member (54) that is connected to the output member, and at least one heat transfer path member (58 and/or 63 and/or 60) provided on one heat transfer path extending from the connected member to the fixed member, and all the heat transfer path members on the one heat transfer path are made of a material (para.0037 states that 58 is metal, para.0043 states that 63 is metal. para.0035-0036 states that 60 is a resin in which a heat conductive filler is mixed) having higher thermal conductivity (metal thermal conductivity is inherently greater than that of glass fiber containing resin) than the output member (output member is glass fiber containing resin as necessarily results from the modification detailed for claim 1 above).
Claim 7 (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 rejections). A cooking robot (100) including a mounting portion (21) on which a cooking attachment (29) is mounted, the cooking robot comprising: a first power transmission device (42) that is incorporated in a first drive unit (42) close to the mounting portion in the cooking robot; and a second power transmission device (44) that is incorporated in a second drive unit (44) farther from the mounting portion than the first drive unit in the cooking robot, wherein the first power transmission device is the power transmission device according to claim 1, and the second power transmission device includes a second output member (57) made of a material (para. 0066 states 47 is metal) having higher thermal conductivity than a first output member (56 as modified in claim 1 to be made of glass fiber containing resin) which is an output member (56 as modified in claim 1 to be made of glass fiber containing resin) of the first power transmission device.
Claim 8 (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 rejections). The cooking robot according to claim 7, wherein the first power transmission device includes a first connection member (B2 as seen in fig.2) that connects the other member and the first output member of the first power transmission device, and a covering member (54 as seen in fig.2) that covers a part of the first connection member exposed on a first driven member side (right part/side of B2 as seen in fig.2) driven by the first output member with respect to the first output member, the second power transmission device (44) includes a second connection member (B2 as seen in fig.3) that connects the second output member (57) and an other member (90 as seen in fig.3) of the second power transmission device, and the second connection member (B2 as seen in fig.3) is not covered with a covering member (left side/head of B2 is uncovered in fig.3 by any number of distant elements located far away or not present, see 35 USC 112 rejection) on a second driven member side driven by the second output member (57) with respect to the second output member (57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon above is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure due general structural similarity thereto.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR L MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7085.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VICTOR L MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618