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 § 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For instance, note the following examples:
Claim 1 states “three motors each connected to a ring by means of a pinion, each ring being disposed inside a hollow disc stacked on a base” which is unclearly contrary to the disclosure which shows each motor connected to --a respective one of three rings by a respective one of three pinions, each ring being disposed inside a respective one of three hollow discs stacked on a base--. See MPEP 2173.03 which states that a claim may 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.”
Claim 1 states “the platform being connected to the base and to the hollow discs only by the three arms”, which is unclearly contrary to the disclosure which shows that the platform (2) is connected to the base (B) by numerous elements (e.g., 8, 7, 10, etc.)
Claim 8 is unclear as to how one or more teeth can be both “of the ring of a disc” and also be “omitted”.
Claim 9 is unclear as to whether “a motor” is to refer one of the previous motors from claim 1 or to an additional motor. Regarding unclear double inclusions of elements, see MPEP 2173.05(o) which states "where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite.”
Claim 12 recites “in particular of the polytetrafluoroethylene type”, which renders the claim indefinite as to whether “in particular” is to limit the claim and further as to what materials are encompassed by "type".
Claim 14 is unclear as to whether “a joint” is to refer to the same element as set forth in claim 1 or to an additional joint.
Claim 15 recites “the cable” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Applicant should carefully review all claims and ensure that all terms have proper antecedent basis without unclear double inclusions (i.e., not only the examples noted above).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 11 and 13-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapeyre WO2021089474 in view of Hulin DE102019124358.
Claim 1. Lapeyre discloses a joint with three degrees of freedom for a robot, comprising a platform (2), three motors (3a, 3b, 3c) each connected to a ring (4, 4a, 4b, 4c) by means of a pinion (5a, 5b, 5c), each ring being disposed inside a hollow disc (6a, 6b, 6c) stacked on a base (base under 6a as seen in fig.1), so that each disc is secured to a ring, each disc is moreover itself secured to a disc head (7, 7a, 7b, 7c) extending in the same direction as the stack of the base and discs, for each disc head, an arm (8, 8a, 8b, 8c) is rotatably connected firstly to the disc head and secondly to the platform, the platform being connected to the base and to the hollow discs only by the three arms.
Lapeyre does not disclose a sphere/bar/opening assembly as claimed.
Hulin teaches (fig.1) that it was well known to improve a three degree of freedom joint with the addition of a sphere (24) connected to the base by a cylindrical bar (26), the sphere being disposed at the centre of a cylindrical opening (opening in 14) provided at the centre of the platform (14), the sphere, the cylindrical bar and the base cooperating in order to achieve a transfer of forces from those generated at the platform and arms.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lapeyre to have a sphere/bar/opening as taught by Hulin since Hulin expressly states that such is beneficial for improving rigidity (i.e., see the copy of the English translation of Hulin attached to this Office action, which states “particular firm, preferably rigid”).
Claim 8. The joint with three degrees of freedom according to claim 1, wherein one or more teeth of the ring of a disc are omitted (as best understood, see 35 USC 112), so as to limit the rotation of the corresponding disc. As best understood, any number of teeth greater than those actually disclosed by the art are interpreted to be “omitted” in that they are not present, and that rotation is limited to not include such omitted teeth.
Claim 9. The joint with three degrees of freedom according to claim 1, wherein a motor (3a, 3b, 3c, as best understood, see 35 USC 112 rejection) is provided with means (see English translation description of “angular position sensors or magnetic encoders”) for determining the angular position of its output shaft with respect to a reference position.
Claim 11. The joint with three degrees of freedom according to claim 9, wherein the means for determining angular position comprise sensors (see English translation description of “angular position sensors or magnetic encoders”) in line with each rotation axis carrying a pinion (in that they are associated with each motor that drives a pinion in line, respectively).
Claim 13. The joint with three degrees of freedom according to claim 1, wherein Hulin further teaches that the cylindrical bar should have through holes (28a, 28b) or be fully hollow (see English translation) for the benefit of allowing cables (31a, 31b) to carry data, electricity and/or mechanical forces therethrough (see English translation). Although Hulin does not expressly show or describe the sphere and base also having through holes such would be obvious so as to facilitate the cable transmission therethrough (i.e., if the sphere and base on either side of the bar did not also have communicating through holes the cables in the bar could not exit and thus could not carry out Hulin’s expressly taught advantages of carrying data, electricity and/or mechanical forces). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Lapeyre/Hulin assembly as such.
Claim 14. A robot limb, comprising at least two limb segments (top surface segment of 2, bottom surface segment of base below 6a as seen in fig.1) joined by [the] joint with three degrees of freedom according to claim 1.
Claim 15. A robot limb comprising at least two limb segments (top surface segment of 2, bottom surface segment of base below 6a as seen in fig.1) joined by [the] joint with three degrees of freedom according to claim 13 as well as equipment (equipment that would obviously/necessarily supply Hulin’s expressly taught data, electricity and/or mechanical forces) disposed downstream of the joint with three degrees of freedom, the cable (Hulin, 31a, 31b) supplying and/or controlling said equipment being disposed through the hole in the sphere and the hollow cylindrical bar and through the hole in the base, to emerge between the motors (as would necessarily/obviously result from the claim 13 modification from which claim 15 depends).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapeyre WO2021089474 and Hulin DE102019124358, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Stasiek US5239875.
Claim 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lapeyre/Hulin to provide the sphere with a polytetrafluoroethylene coating, since Stasiek teaches that it was extremely well known to provide a sphere (36) with a polytetrafluoroethylene coating (col.5, l.61 – col.6, l.6) on the seat/platform (35) for the benefit of reducing friction (see written description of Stasiek). Note that applicant’s claim does not expressly state that --the ball is coated-- but merely that the ball is provided with a coating such that Stasiek providing the sphere with the coating on the seat/platform mated thereto reads on the claim. If applicant intends to amend the claim to expressly require that the --ball is coated-- note that it would have been obvious to coat both the ball and seat to further reduce friction; or to relocate the coating such that only the ball is directly coated in light of case law regarding the obviousness reversing/relocating parts as set forth in MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The art of record does not suggest the totality of limitations, does not provide any teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify toward the entirety of applicant's claims, nor was there any readily apparent cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art to obtain the entirety of applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR L MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7085.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VICTOR L MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights