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 § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7-8, and 10-15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Okamura (US2024/0222185, effectively filed Jan 19, 2022).
Okamura discloses:
Re claim 1. An industrial robot comprising:
a base (structure containing 162; see Fig. 3);
a manipulator movable relative to the base (see Fig. 3), the manipulator being hermetically closed and having a plurality of joints (See Fig. 3; para. [0048] - must be sealed at least to some degree for cooling air to flow through arm);
a plurality of transmissions (portion of the drives (121a, 122a) that connect the motor of the drives to the portions of the arms (see para. [0035], [0036], Fig. 3). Note that the claim does not require the transmission to have gearing.) inside the manipulator, each transmission being associated with a unique joint of the plurality of joints;
a plurality of motors (121a, 122a para. [0035], [0036]) inside the manipulator, each motor being arranged to drive the unique joint (121, 122) via the transmission associated with the unique joint;
an outlet (outlet of gas line/air tube 160; para. [0048]) inside the manipulator distal of a distal transmission among the plurality of transmissions;
a gas line (160) passing between the base and the outlet; and
a gas conducting structure configured to conduct a gas flow between the outlet and the base inside the manipulator the gas conducting structure (para. [0048]; see Fig. 3) including, for each joint of the plurality of joints, at least one channel (air flows from outlet of air tube 160 through the arm to outlet 162 in the base) arranged to conduct the gas flow through the unique joint (See annotated Fig. 3 below)
wherein the industrial robot comprises a plurality of links (111, 112) between the joints, and wherein each link comprises at least one link through hole (lower hole in each of 111 & 112 through which 111a & 112a respectively extend and through which the gas line 160 extends) forming part of the at least one channel (See annotated Fig. 3 below. See the 35 USC 112(b) rejection hereinabove pertaining to this limitation. The tube/gas line 160 is routed through a through hole in each link. Therefore, the air/gas flowing through the tube flows/conducts through the through holes that form the at least one channel. The claim uses open-ended language “comprising”. That open-ended claim language does not preclude additional structure, such as a tube/gas line, from being routed through the through hole and the channel.).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 4. The industrial robot according to claim 1, wherein the industrial robot comprises an attachment interface (124), and wherein the outlet (outlet of gas line/air tube 160; para. [0048]) is positioned adjacent to the attachment interface distal of a transmission associated with a joint for driving the attachment interface (See Fig. 3).
Re claim 5. The industrial robot according to claim 4, wherein the attachment interface (124) comprises a collar (124) enclosing the outlet.
Re claim 7. The industrial robot according to claim 1, wherein each transmission is hollow, and wherein the gas line passes through each transmission (See Fig. 3).
Re claim 8. The industrial robot according to claim 1, wherein each transmission comprises a transmission flange (portion around upper hole in each of 111 & 112 through which 111a & 112a respectively extend and through which the gas line 160 extends) and wherein each transmission flange includes at least one transmission through hole (hole in each of 111, 112, and 123 through which 111a, 112a, and 123a respectively extend and through which the gas line 160 extends) forming part of the at least one channel.
Re claim 10. The industrial robot according to claim 9, wherein each link comprises a link flange (portion around hole in each of 111, 112, and 123 through which 111a, 112a, and 123a respectively extend and through which the gas line 160 extends), and wherein each link flange (lower hole in each of 111 &, 112 through which 121a & 122a respectively extend and through which the gas line 160 extends) includes some or all of the at least one link through hole.
Re claim 11. The industrial robot according to claim 1, wherein for each pair of a motor and a transmission associated with a joint, the transmission (a portion of transmission will be upstream of the rotor/stator and a portion of the transmission will be downstream of the rotor/stator, since both links must be connected through the motor and the transmission) is arranged upstream of the motor with respect to the gas flow.
Re claim 12. The industrial robot according to claim 1, wherein the industrial robot comprises, for at least one joint, a temperature sensor (161) associated with the joint.
Re claim 13. The industrial robot according to claim 12, wherein the industrial robot comprises a gas source (air outside inlet 151) configured to deliver pressurized gas into the gas line.
Re claim 14. The industrial robot according to claim 12, wherein the industrial robot is configured to control the gas source based on a temperature measured by the at least one temperature sensor (para. [0050]).
Re claim 15. The industrial robot according to claim 1, wherein the at least one channel comprises a plurality of parallel channels for each joint (see annotated Fig. 3 below, compare to Figs. 3-4 of instant application).
PNG
media_image2.png
532
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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(s) 2, 16-18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura (US2024/0222185, effectively filed Jan 19, 2022).
Re claim 2
Okamura discloses all claim dependency limitations, see above, but is silent to wherein for each joint, each channel is positioned at a distance from a rotation axis of the joint that is at least 30% of a radial dimension of the joint.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Okamura such that for each joint, each channel is positioned at a distance from a rotation axis of the joint that is at least 30% of a radial dimension of the joint, as held by the courts, since a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device.
Okamura as modified above further suggests:
Re claim 16. (Similar to claim 4) The industrial robot according to claim 2, wherein the industrial robot comprises an attachment interface (124), and wherein the outlet (outlet of gas line/air tube 160; para. [0048]) is positioned adjacent to the attachment interface distal of a transmission associated with a joint for driving the attachment interface (See Fig. 3).
Re claim 17. (Similar to claim 7) The industrial robot according to claim 2, wherein each transmission is hollow, and wherein the gas line passes through each transmission (See Fig. 3).
Re claim 18. (Similar to claim 8) The industrial robot according to claim 1, wherein each transmission comprises a transmission flange (portion around upper hole in each of 111 & 112 through which 111a & 112a respectively extend and through which the gas line 160 extends) and wherein each transmission flange includes at least one transmission through hole (hole in each of 111, 112, and 123 through which 111a, 112a, and 123a respectively extend and through which the gas line 160 extends) forming part of the at least one channel.
Re claim 20. (Similar to claim 11) The industrial robot according to claim 2, wherein for each pair of a motor and a transmission associated with a joint, the transmission (a portion of transmission will be upstream of the rotor/stator and a portion of the transmission will be downstream of the rotor/stator, since both links must be connected through the motor and the transmission) is arranged upstream of the motor with respect to the gas flow.
Re claim 21. (Similar to claim 12). The industrial robot according to claim 2, wherein the industrial robot comprises, for at least one joint, a temperature sensor (161) associated with the joint.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura (US2024/0222185, effectively filed Jan 19, 2022) in view of Torii (US5,282,390).
Re claim 6
Okamura does not disclose wherein the collar comprises one or more radial through holes for conducting the gas flow.
Torii teaches a collar (27) comprises one or more radial through holes (34) for conducting the gas flow (abstract), for the purpose of distributing the cooling air more effectively in the annular space (see abstract) of the manipulator near the outlet.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Okamura such that a collar comprises one or more radial through holes for conducting the gas flow, as taught by Torii, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of distributing the cooling air more effectively in the annular space of the manipulator near the outlet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims have been amended. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections above.
The Applicant argues because gas flows in prior art reference Okamura within a tube 160 that the gas does not flow within the claimed channel. The Examiners notes that the claims use the open-ended claim language “comprising”. Therefore, the claims do not preclude gas flowing through a tube that is within the claimed channel, as is the case in Okamura.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “distinct” channel for each joint, distribution of gas flow across the outside surface of each gearbox, enclosing the gearbox within an annular chamber, ring of per-joint channels) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As to the 35 USC 103 rejection citing Gardner v. TEC, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s argument that there would be different performance is not based on the claimed relative dimension but rather on structural details which are not claimed (see earlier in this paragraph).
Prior art reference Shin has been overcome by Applicant’s amendment and accordingly the rejection in view of Shin is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY T PRATHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 AM - 5 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, 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.
/GREGORY T PRATHER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/MINNAH L SEOH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights