CTNF 19/100,298 CTNF 87755 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Improper Amendment The Examiner notes that the claim amendment filed 1/31/2025 is improper because the marked up changes are illegible due to being submitted in grayscale rather than black-and-white. The Examiner was only able to examine the claims because this amendment was published in the PreGrant Publication of the instant application which contained a legible copy of the claims as amended, and did so as a onetime courtesy to the Applicant. Since the amendment was captured by the PGPub, the Applicant does not need to and should NOT refile this amendment since it has been examined. The Examiner notes that future amendments will not be reflected in a PGPub. Consequently, any future submissions of amendments (in particular amendments to the claims) that show any changes in grayscale may be considered an improper amendment and may result in the Examiner having to send a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment due to the illegibility of the grayscale. Per MPEP § 714 and 37 CFR 1.121, amendments to the claims should be shown by the following. “ The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text [ (e.g. example added text ) ]. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters [ (e.g. example deleted text ) ]. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived [ (e.g. to delete a period [[.]], etc.) ]. ” Similarly, for amendments to the specification, “ The full text of any replacement paragraph with markings to show all the changes relative to the previous version of the paragraph. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived ”. The Examiner notes in addition to the above, that the entire claim text, including unchanged text, additions, and deletions, should be submitted in black-and-white, and should neither be submitted in color nor grayscale. Text submitted in color is converted to gray scale. Grayscale text, whether submitted as gray scale or as a result of the Applicant submitting text in color, is not readily legible. The same applies for amendments to the specification, which should likewise be submitted in black-and-white and neither submitted in color nor grayscale. The underlining of additions and strike-through of deletions, in compliance with MPEP 714 and 37 CFR 1.121, is sufficient for showing changes; the use of color or grayscale text is unhelpful in indicating changes due to illegibility. The Examiner notes that the faded grayscale text in the claims and/or specification appears likely to be the result of using track changes in Microsoft Word with the “insertions” and “deletions” defaulting to color(s) besides black text. The following instructions are from Microsoft Support’s website, provided for Applicant’s convenience, and may be helpful in changing the track changes’ text color to black text. The Examiner cannot guarantee these instructions are compatible with the Applicant’s version of Microsoft Word or other word processor, which may be either an older version or newer version, and cannot help the Applicant troubleshoot their software if these instructions are not compatible with their word processor version. The following Microsoft Word instructions are retrieved from https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/change-the-track-changes-color-48c80bb3-458c-4abb-8e21-25f9bac47484 on October 28, 2025 and provided for Applicant’s convenience without any guarantee: Change the track changes color >Applies To If you want to customize how track changes markup appears in your documents, the Track Changes dialog box gives you control over every aspect of markup appearance. You can set tracked changes to appear in different colors for different authors. But Word automatically picks which color represents each author—and that color might change when you reopen the document or someone else opens the document. Go to Review > Tracking Dialog Launcher PNG media_image1.png 13 14 media_image1.png Greyscale . Select Advanced Options . Select the arrows next to the Color boxes and choose By author . PNG media_image2.png 456 502 media_image2.png Greyscale You can also color-code text moves and changes made to table cells. Tip: To see everyone's changes in a single color, choose that color instead of By author . For example, to see all insertions as Turquoise, click the arrow by Color , and then choose Turquoise [or Black for Black text] . Now everyone's insertions are colored turquoise. These color settings are for your computer only. Other people will see the tracked changes in whatever colors they set up. The By author colors will look different on different computers, too. Advance Track Changes Options Insertions Sets a format (default is Underline ) and a color (default is By author ) when you insert text into a document. You can change the color to a fixed value, or have no color at all in the Color field. Deletions Sets a format (default is Strikethrough ) and a color (default is By author ) when you delete text from a document. You can change the color to a fixed value or have no color at all in the Color field. OK Saves changes and exits the dialog box. Cancel Ignores changes, and exits the dialog box. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is missing punctuation such as a comma or semicolon between the antepenultimate line and the penultimate line. Additionally, since the wherein clause beginning at the beginning of the penultimate line is the last clause of the claim, there should be an “and” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1, 2, and 4-21 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 , line 6 recites “a unique joint”. Claim 1, line 8 recites “a joint”. Claim 1 already recites “a plurality of joints” in line 4. It is unclear whether the joints recited in line 6 and line 8 are the same or different from the plurality of joints recited in line 4. For the purpose of further examination on the merits it will be assumed these are referring to the joints of the “plurality of joints” in line 4. Additionally, claim 1, line 15 recites “the joint”. If the joints in lines 6 and 8 are not the same as the joints in line 4, then it is unclear whether “the joint” in line 15 refers to the joint(s) recited in line 4, in line 6, or in line 8. According to MPEP § 2173.03, “a claim, although clear on its face, may also 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. The last paragraph of claim 1 recites “wherein the at least one channel is arranged to conduct the gas flow along an outside of the transmission associated with the joint.” Claims 8 and 18 each recite “wherein each transmission comprises a transmission flange, and wherein each transmission flange includes at least one transmission through hole forming part of the at least one channel .” The Examiner notes that claims 8 and 18 appear to contradict parent claim 1. In parent claim 1, the channel conducts gas flow along an outside of the transmission, but in dependent claims 8 and 18, the channel is required to include a through hole in the transmission, which appears in the specification to not be along the outside of the transmission. This conflict between the claims themselves and the claims and the specification renders the scope of the claims (including claims 1, 8, and 18) uncertain. It is unclear whether the limitation that requires conducting gas flow along an outside of the transmission requires the flow to be outside of the transmission rather than through any interior portion of the transmission, and it is unclear whether flow through a through hole in the transmission if flow along an outside of the transmission. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, and 7-15, 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; a plurality of motors (121a, 122a para. [0035], [0036]) inside the manipulator, each motor being arranged to drive a joint (121, 122) via the transmission associated with the 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, 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 joint (See annotated Fig. 3 below) wherein the at least one channel is arranged to conduct the gas flow along an outside of the transmission associated with the joint (See annotated Fig. 3 below. See the 35 USC 112(b) rejection hereinabove pertaining to this limitation.) . PNG media_image3.png 532 781 media_image3.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 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 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 9. The industrial robot according to claim 1, wherein the industrial robot comprises a plurality of links (111, 112) between the joints, and wherein each link includes at least one link through hole (hole in each of 111 and 112 through which 111a, 112a 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 (hole in each of 111, 112, and 123 through which 111a, 112a, and 123a 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_image4.png 532 779 media_image4.png Greyscale 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin (JPH05305596, cited by Applicant) . The current application is related to PCT/EP2022/072768 and the current claims are substantially similar in scope to the PCT claims. The examiner adopts, and incorporates herein by reference, the explanations of the closest prior art Shin (JPH05305596, cited by Applicant) as set forth in the PCT (see the copy of the PCT/ISA/237 filed in this current application on 1/31/2025). ( See MPEP 1893.03(e)(II) which permits the examiner to adopt any portion or all of any report on patentability of the IPEA or ISA that would be relevant to U.S. practice, e.g., explanations of prior art, etc. ) In regards to claim 1 as amended, the Examiner notes that Shin additionally discloses the added limitation of the at least one channel is arranged to conduct the gas flow along an outside of the transmission associated with the joint, since the channel (see 27, 40) is relatively on the outside of the transmission compared to the centerline of the transmission . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 and 16-21 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 18) The industrial robot according to claim 2, wherein each transmission comprises a transmission 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 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 19. (Similar to claim 9) The industrial robot according to claim 2, wherein the industrial robot comprises a plurality of links (111, 112) between the joints, and wherein each link includes at least one link through hole (hole in each of 111 and 112 through which 111a, 112a 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 . 07-21-aia AIA 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. Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 19/100,298 Page 2 Art Unit: 3618 Application/Control Number: 19/100,298 Page 3 Art Unit: 3618 Application/Control Number: 19/100,298 Page 4 Art Unit: 3618 Application/Control Number: 19/100,298 Page 5 Art Unit: 3618 Application/Control Number: 19/100,298 Page 6 Art Unit: 3618 Application/Control Number: 19/100,298 Page 7 Art Unit: 3618 Application/Control Number: 19/100,298 Page 8 Art Unit: 3618 Application/Control Number: 19/100,298 Page 9 Art Unit: 3618 Application/Control Number: 19/100,298 Page 10 Art Unit: 3618 Application/Control Number: 19/100,298 Page 11 Art Unit: 3618 Application/Control Number: 19/100,298 Page 12 Art Unit: 3618 Application/Control Number: 19/100,298 Page 13 Art Unit: 3618 Application/Control Number: 19/100,298 Page 14 Art Unit: 3618
Prosecution Insights