DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 04/23/2025. Claims 1-9 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2025 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 14 in Fig. 3 and 3ab in Fig. 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 4 reads “the axis”, --an axis-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 9 reads “second gear”, --second bevel gear-- is suggested.
Claim 3 line 2 reads “the communication”, --a communication-- is suggested.
Claim 6 line 4 reads “the other pulley”, --another pulley-- is suggested.
Claim 8 line 1 reads “a joint”, --the joint-- is suggested.
Claim 9 line 2 reads “a joint”, --the joint-- is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 lines 2 and 3, claim 4 line 2 and claim 7 lines 3 and 5 recite the limitation “fixed freely in rotation”. It is unclear what is required by this limitation in the claims. For example, Merriam-Webster defines the term fixed as “securely placed or fastened” and “immobile”. However, freely in rotation contradicts the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term fixed. As such, the scope of the claims cannot be determined.
Claim 1 lines 4-5 recite the limitation “the axis of rotation of the active surface is between a plane normal to the axis of rotation of the head relative to the base”. It is unclear what is required by this limitation in the claim. For example, the term “between” suggests that the axis of rotation of the active surface is between at least two different elements. However, the claim lists a single element. As such, the scope of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 1 lines 6, 9, 11 and 12, claim 3 line 3, claim 5 line 2 and claim 6 line 2 recite the limitation “the first axis” and claim 1 lines 7, 10, 11 and 13, claim 3 lines 1-3 and 3-4, claim 5 line 2 and claim 6 line 2 recite the limitation “the second axis”. It is unclear what is required to be an axis in the claims. For example, Merriam-Webster defines an axis as “a straight line about which a body or a geometric figure rotates or may be supposed to rotate”, “ a straight line with respect to which a body or figure is symmetrical” or “one of the reference lines of a coordinate system”. However, the disclosure of the application appears to use the term “axis” as a shaft which is rotated, which is in direct conflict of the well established and well known use of the term “axis”. According to MPEP 2173.05(a)(III), “Consistent with the well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee or applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999)”. In this instance, the written description does not clearly redefine the “term” axis, and it is to be given its plain and customary meaning as listed above. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has rejected the claims in view of the term axis being a shaft.
Claim 1 line 11 recites the limitation “the first axis being hollow”. It is unclear how an axis is hollow.
Claim 1 lines 11-12 recite the limitation “the second axis passing through…the first axis”. It is unclear how a first axis can pass through a second axis.
Claim 1 lines 12-14 recite the limitation “the first axis and the second axis being mechanically connected to the first motor and the second motor”. It is unclear how an axis can be connected to a motor.
Claim 3 lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the second axis is hollow”. It is unclear how an axis can be hollow.
Claim 3 lines 2-4 recite the limitation “the communication cable of the sensor for measuring rotation of the active surface to the head thereby passing through the first axis and the second axis”. It is unclear how a cable can pass through an axis.
Claim 4 lines 3-4 recite the limitation “a cable can pass through the port, the first hollow axis and the second hollow axis”. It is unclear how a cable can pass through an axis.
Claim 4 lines 3-4 recite the limitation “the first hollow axis and the second hollow axis”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the first axis and the second axis recited in claim 1, or if this limitation requires additional axes.
Claim 5 lines 2-3 recite the limitation “the first axis and the second axis are mechanically connected to the first motor and the second motor”. It is unclear how an axis can be mechanically coupled to a motor.
Claim 5 lines 4-5 recites the limitation “a second gear connected to the corresponding axis”. It is unclear how a gear can be connected to an axis.
Claim 6 lines 2-3 recite the limitation “the first axis and the second axis are mechanically connected to the first motor and the second motor”. It is unclear how an axis can be mechanically coupled to a motor.
Claim 6 lines 4-5 recite the limitation “the other pulley connected to the corresponding axis”. It is unclear how a pulley can be connected to an axis.
Claim 7 line 5 recites the limitation “its”. It is unclear which elements “its” is referring to.
Claim 8 lines 3 and 5 recite the limitation “drive the axes”. It is unclear how axes are driven.
Claim 8 lines 3 and 5 recite the limitation “they”. It is unclear what elements “they” is referring to.
Accordingly, from the above, the claims and disclosure are generally narrative and indefinite, appearing to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. A great deal of confusion and uncertainty exists as to the proper interpretation of the claim limitations. In accordance with MPEP § 2173 the examiner has applied the prior art elsewhere below under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 in as best as the claims can be understood in the interest of compact prosecution. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970); In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
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.
(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, 5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by An (US 20240391116 A1).
Regarding claim 1, An discloses a parallel joint with two degrees of freedom for a robot (see Fig. 2; 10) comprising two motors (22, 23), a base (20) and a head (35) fixed freely in rotation on the base, the head also comprising an active surface (surface of lower 36 in the figure) fixed freely in rotation in the head so that the axis of rotation of the active surface (Y axis) is between a plane normal to the axis of rotation of the head relative to the base (X axis), the head comprising three bevel gears (31, 32, 34), a first bevel gear (32) being borne by a first axis (25), a second bevel gear (31) being borne by a second axis (24), a third bevel gear (lower 34 in the figure) being secured to the active surface and being disposed so as to mesh simultaneously with the first bevel gear and the second gear (see Fig. 2), the first axis and the second axis being coaxial with each other and with the axis of rotation of the head relative to the base (see Fig. 2, wherein 25 and 24 are coaxial with each other and with the X axis), the first axis being hollow, the second axis passing through the first bevel gear and the first axis (see Fig. 2, wherein 25 is hollow and 24 passes through 32 and 25), the first axis and the second axis being mechanically connected to the first motor and the second motor, respectively (see Fig. 2, wherein 25 and 24 are mechanically connected to 23 and 22 respectively).
Regarding claim 5, An discloses the first axis (25) and the second axis (24) are mechanically connected to the first motor (23) and the second motor (22) respectively, by means of a gear transmission (see Fig. 2, wherein harmonic transmission are shown), one of said motors (22, 23) being connected to a first gear (flexspline) meshing with a second gear (internally toothed gear) connected to the corresponding axis (24, 25).
Regarding claim 8, An discloses a method for controlling a joint with two degrees of freedom according to claim 1, wherein the two motors are controlled so that they drive the axes such that they rotate in different directions and at the same speed to rotate the head relative to the base and the two motors are controlled so that they drive the axes such that they rotate in the same direction and at the same speed to rotate the active surface relative to the head (see paragraph [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 9, An discloses a robotic limb comprising at least two segments connected together via a joint with two degrees of freedom according to claim 1 (see Fig. 11).
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 2, 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (US 20240391116 A1) in view of Inoe (JP H0258075 B2).
Regarding claim 2, An fails to disclose a sensor for measuring rotation of the head relative to the base and a sensor for measuring rotation of the active surface relative to the head. However, Inoe teaches a sensor (see Fig. 1; 17) for measuring rotation of the head (see annotated Fig. 1 below; A) relative to the base (see annotated Fig. 1 below; B) and a sensor (19) for measuring rotation of the active surface (14) relative to the head (see annotated Fig. 1 below; A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify An with sensors, as taught by Inoe, to detect a rotational position of each axis and allow for a rotational limit to be provided to each axis (see Detailed Description of the Invention), to allow for accurate positioning of the robot elements and prevent damage from over rotation.
Regarding claim 3, An discloses the second axis (24) is hollow (see paragraph [0023], wherein the drive shaft 24 has a hollow structure) and a communication cable thereby passing through the first axis and the second axis (see paragraph [0023], wherein the drive shaft 24 has a hollow structure with internal space for accommodation of other components, such as wires). An fails to disclose the communication cable of the sensor for measuring rotation of the active surface relative to the head. However, the combination of claim 2 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the communication cable (An; wires) of the sensor for measuring rotation of the active surface relative to the head (Inoe; 19). Note that it is well known in the art of robotics to route cables through hollow shafts and through the internal parts to be connected to sensors as shown by Mamba (US 20110314950 A1) cited in the attached PTO-892. As such, the combination of An and Inoe would necessarily result in the arrangement claimed.
Regarding claim 6, An fails to disclose belt and pulley transmissions. However, Inoe teaches belt and pulley transmissions (see Fig. 1; 3, 4, 5 and 8, 9, 10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify An with a belt and pulley transmission, as taught by Inoe, since it is well known that belt and pulley transmissions allow transfer of power over longer distances and do not generate tooth mesh noise that geared transmissions do, allowing for more versatile and quiet transmission arrangements. As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: the first axis (An; 25) and the second axis (An; 24) are mechanically connected to the first motor (An; 23) and the second motor (An; 22) respectively, by means of a belt and pulley transmission (Inoe; 1; 3, 4, 5 and 8, 9, 10), one pulley (Inoue; 3, 8) being connected to one of said motors (Inoe; 1, 2), the other pulley (Inoe; 5, 10) being connected to the corresponding axis (Inoe; 6, 11), the two pulleys being connected via the belt (Inoe; 4, 9).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (US 20240391116 A1) in view of Inoe (JP H0258075 B2) and Trangaerd (WO 2010127701 A1).
Regarding claim 4, An fails to disclose the head comprises a passive surface fixed freely in rotation relative to the head, and comprising a port in its centre so that a cable can pass through the port. However, Trangaerd teaches the head (see Fig. 1; 60) comprises a passive surface (124) fixed freely in rotation relative to the head, and comprising a port (hole in 124) in its centre so that a cable (120) can pass through the port (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify An with a passive surface comprising a port, as taught by Trangaerd, to allow a cable passage to provide power and control signals to elements attached to the wrist joint (see Detailed Description of Embodiments, paragraph four). The combination above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the cable (Trangaerd; 120) can pass through the port (hole in 124), the first hollow axis (An; 25) and the second hollow axis (An; 24) to emerge in the base (An; 20). Note that it is well known in the art of robotics to route cables through hollow shafts and through the internal parts as shown by Mamba (US 20110314950 A1) cited in the attached PTO-892. As such, the combination of An and Trangaerd would necessarily result in the arrangement claimed.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (US 20240391116 A1) in view of Yang (CN 102729255 A).
Regarding claim 7, An fails to disclose a belt transmission is connected to the active surface, a first pulley being connected to the active surface and fixed freely in rotation on a holding element, a second pulley being fixed integrally with an offset active surface and being fixed freely in rotation on the holding element, so that its position relative to the active surface is held, the two pulleys being connected via a belt. However, Yang teaches a belt transmission (see Fig. 3; 31, 41, 43) is connected to the active surface (see Fig. 2; surface of 12), a first pulley (31) being connected to the active surface and fixed freely in rotation on a holding element (see Fig. 2; 9), a second pulley (43) being fixed integrally with an offset active surface (surface of 13) and being fixed freely in rotation on the holding element (see Fig. 3), so that its position relative to the active surface is held, the two pulleys being connected via a belt (41). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify An with a belt transmission, as taught by Yang, to provide torque transmission to additional elements.
PNG
media_image1.png
538
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1 - JP H0258075 B2 Fig. 1 Annotated
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
US 20190223963 A1, US 20210148445 A1, US 20110314950 A1, US 4636138 A, CN 106240764 A and WO 9608345 A1 robot joints with bevel gears.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm 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 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
