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
Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 2, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, Sub-Species 1A in the reply filed on July 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner failed to show the alternative drive configurations or cable topologies occupy different classifications, have a separate status in the art or require a different field of search. This is not found persuasive because the differing embodiments of the instant application surely yields a search and examination burden if required to search all embodiments. See MPEP 808.02 which states that undue search burden is established by any one of the following: a separate classification, a separate status, or a different field of search. Further note that examination burden is not limited to search but rather includes numerous other activities conducted throughout prosecution such as careful consideration of amended claim scope, careful consideration of all arguments, reconsideration of all art in view of arguments/amendments (to include the U.S. Patents in all relevant classes, all relevant foreign art, all relevant publications and any relevant Non-patent literature), updating prior searches, formulating responses, constructing formal written replies, etc..
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 16, 2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Claims 4, 6, 7, 9-12 and 14 are not supported by the application as filed.
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 1-12 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 1 states, “the second input pulley can…”. The term “can” is permissive, rather than mandatory, language. It is unclear whether the recited functionality is: (1) a required functional limitation that the claimed function must be capable of performing, (2) an optional feature that may or may not be present, or (3) merely a statement of intended use or a description of one possible mode of operation among others not positively recited. Please clarify.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the sum” and “the first driving cable and second driving cable and first idler cable and second idler cable”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation, “one of the first input pulley or the second input pulley or the idler pulley or the output pulley is further comprised of two halves independently rotatable about the first axis”. Claim 1 describes the idler pulley and output pulley as being mounted to rotate about the second axis. Please clarify how the idler pulley and output pulley are to rotate about the first axis.
Claim 10 describes the motor controller processor implementing a method. It is unclear if the method is done automatically, by artificial intelligence or by or with the assistance of a human user. Please clarify.
Remaining claims are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
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, 3, 5, 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakana et al. (US 2022/0330965).
Wakana discloses and shows at Fig. 4, for example, a motor-drivable two degrees of freedom joint comprising:
a first input pulley (Fig. 4, item P1a) that rotates around a first axis;
a second input pulley (P2a) that rotates around the first axis and is spaced apart from the first input pulley along the first axis, wherein the second input pulley can rotate independent from the first input pulley;
an intermediate link (We) that rotates around the first axis, wherein the intermediate link defines a second axis that is orthogonal to and offset from the first axis;
an output pulley (JC1) that is mounted to rotate around the second axis of the intermediate link;
an idler pulley (JC2) that is mounted to rotate around the second axis of the intermediate link, wherein the idler pulley is spaced apart from the output pulley along the second axis; and
one or more cables (C1, C2) connecting the input pulleys, output pulley, and idler pulley, such that the rotation of the input pulleys in the same or different directions results in the output pulley rotating around the first and/or second axis.
Cl. 3 – the intermediate link (WE) is disposed between the first input pulley and the second input pulley along the first axis (see Fig. 4).
Cl. 5 – the joint further comprises a first motor M1 connected to drive the first input pulley.
Cl. 6 – the second input pulley is selectively disconnected from the first input pulley (the input pulleys are independent of one another).
Cl. 8 – the joint further comprises a first motor (M1) connected to drive the first input pulley, and a second motor (M2) connected to drive the second input pulley.
Cl. 9 – Wakana further comprises a motor controller processor (para. 0191) that is configured by computer-executable instructions to coordinate the operation of the first and second motors to achieve desired movements of the output pulley around both the first and second axes (para. 0130-0134).
Cl. 10 – the motor controller processor is configured to implement a method comprising: receiving a target sequence of rotary movements for the output link; translating the target sequence of rotary movements to a sequence of motor commands for the first and second motors; and driving the first and second motors according to the sequence of motor commands (para. 0130-0134).
Cl. 11 – Wakana further comprises first and second rotary encoders, which are associated with the respective first and second motors for closed-loop control of the motors (para. 0164).
Cl. 12 – the rotation of the output pulley around the first axis is determined by the average rotational input of the first and second input pulleys (para. 0125), and the rotation of the output pulley around the second axis is determined by the differential rotational input of the first and second input pulleys.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakana et al. as applied to claim 1.
Wakana discloses and shows the invention of claim 1 as described elsewhere above. Wakana does not mention the total angular contact of the two driving cables and two idler cables against the input, idler and output pulleys.
However, the amount of total angular contact is dependent on the rotation amount of the input pulleys and output pulleys and, thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the total angular contact of the sum of the first driving cable and second driving cable and first idler cable and second idler cable about the first input pulley and second input pulley and output pulley and idler pulley is equal to 1440 degrees.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 7 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 13 and 14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art, including the aforementioned refence to Wakana, which is closely related to the claim, lacks the four driving cables having ends specifically terminating at corresponding pulleys. Wakana includes cables having one end terminating at a motor and the other end terminating at corresponding output and idle pulleys.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art lacks the worm gear mounted to a face of a first half of one of the pulleys, the worm gear being meshed with a tensioning gear mounted to the second half of the gear.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art lacks the method moving a joint as claimed. While Wakana is capable of rotating the first input pulley around a first axis while rotating the second input pulley around the first axis in the same direction and in the same amount as the first input pulley to cause an output pulley and idler pulley to rotate around the first axis, Wakana and the prior art lacks the further method and features as claimed.
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