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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-5, 12 in the reply filed on 01/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species can be examined without burden. This is not found persuasive because examination burden is not limited to only 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, updating prior art searches, formulating responses, constructing formal written replies, etc.; and the burden increases as a function of the number of patentably distinct species under examination. Note that a proper search in accordance with the principles of compact prosecution includes not only the claimed features, but also those features that could reasonably be expected to be amended into the claims later in prosecution (e.g., the features shown in the figures or described in the written description). Therefore, there would be serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/28/2026.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Yamazaki (US 2020/0101627).
Regarding the claims, the prior art discloses the following:
1. (Original) A robot comprising: a base (including 20); a robot arm (including 10) rotating relative to the base; a reducer (302) coupling the base and the robot arm; a motor (301) coupled to the reducer; a control board (51) controlling driving of the motor; and a power supply board (52) supplying electric power to the control board, wherein the base includes a first housing (fig. 7) to which at least one of the reducer, the motor, the control board (51), and the power supply board (52) is attached, and a second housing (fig. 7) to which at least one of the reducer (302), the motor (301), the control board, and the power supply board excluding the at least one attached to the first housing is attached.
2. (Original) The robot according to claim 1, wherein the control board (51) and the power supply board (52) are attached to the first housing (fig. 7), and the reducer (301) and the motor (302) are attached to the second housing (fig. 7).
3. (Original) The robot according to claim 2, wherein a power transmission mechanism coupling the motor and the reducer and transmitting a driving force of the motor to the reducer is further attached to the second housing, and the power transmission mechanism includes a first pulley coupled to an output shaft of the motor, a second pulley coupled to an input side of the reducer, and a belt wound around the first pulley and the second pulley (para. 53).
4. (Original) The robot according to claim 2, wherein the first housing has an opening portion that is closed by the second housing (fig. 7), and the reducer and the motor are inserted into the first housing through the opening portion (product by process).
5. (Original) The robot according to claim 4, wherein the second housing is fixed to the first housing in a state of being mounted on the first housing (fig. 7).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 2020/0101627), in view of (CN 108105799).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not disclose a hollow reducer.
CN teaches the use of a hollow speed reducer provided with a wire passing protective sleeve 32, which provides the benefit of convenience and/or protecting the wire from damage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the hollow reducer and wiring structure as taught by CN in combination with the device disclosed by Yamazaki, for the expected benefit of convenience and/or protecting the wires from damage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights