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 § 103
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 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genov (US 6121743), in view of Tan et al (US 8985935).
Claim 1, A multi-degree-of-freedom robot comprising a first joint, a second joint, a third joint, and an end-effector assembly that are connected sequentially, wherein the first joint, the second joint, the third joint, and the end-effector assembly each comprise at least one linear motor and an installing plate for installing the linear motor, and at least one of the first joint, the second joint, and the third joint further comprises a rotating motor.
GENOV teaches a multi-degree-of-freedom robotic arm structure. Specifically, the reference discloses a robotic arm assembly comprising a robot base, links L1, L2, and L3, and an end effector. The reference states: "Referring to FIG. 1(a), a prior art robotic arm assembly 10 is illustrated which comprises a robot base, links L1, L2 and L3 plus an end effector 18." , The first joint is taught by the disclosure that "the first link L1 has its proximal end portion pivotally mounted about a first (primary) axis 21" (Col. 12, lines 45-47). The second joint is taught by the disclosure that "the second link L2 has its proximal end portion pivotally mounted to rotate about a second axis 23" (Col. 12, lines 47-50 The third joint is taught by the disclosure that "In FIGS. 1(a) and (b) there are 3 longitudinally extending links. Each link has a proximal end portion and a distal end portion.", the end-effector assembly is taught by the disclosure of "an end effector 18" as part of the robotic arm assembly (Col. 12, lines 35-37), The sequential connection of the joints and end effector is taught by the disclosure that "the first link L1 has its proximal end portion pivotally mounted about a first (primary) axis 21, the second link L2 has its proximal end portion pivotally mounted to rotate about a second axis 23, etc. The end effector 18 is pivotally mounted to rotate about an n+1st axis" (Col. 12, lines 45-50).
With respect to the limitation that the first joint comprises at least one linear motor, GENOV teaches rotary drive systems. Specifically, the reference states: "A radial drive rotatable shaft has a driven end portion and a driving end portion... Radial drive motor means serve for rotating the driven end portion of the radial drive shaft" (Col. 5, lines 24-32). Similarly, the limitation requiring the second joint to comprise at least one linear motor is not taught because the reference states: "A rotary drive rotatable shaft has a driven end portion and a driving end portion... Rotary drive motor means serves for rotating the driven end portion of the rotary drive shaft" (Col. 5, lines 32-37), The limitation requiring the third joint to comprise at least one linear motor is an obvious alternative of a design choice and would have within the knowledge or ordinary skilled artisan, as the reference consistently discloses rotary motors and rotary shafts rather than linear motors (Col. 5, lines 24-40). The limitation requiring the end-effector assembly to comprise at least one linear motor is also not taught because the reference discloses that "The improvement of the invention comprises an end effector motor which drives an end effector drive shaft" (Col. 5, lines 48-50), which is a rotational drive arrangement rather than a linear motor, the limitation requiring an installing plate for installing the linear motor is not taught by GENOV, however, the limitation requiring that at least one of the first joint, second joint, and third joint further comprises a rotating motor is taught by GENOV. The reference discloses that "A radial drive motor Servo Motor 1 drives a radial drive shaft 20" (Col. 12, lines 36-40). The reference further teaches that "The improvement of the invention comprises an end effector motor which drives an end effector drive shaft located at the n+1st axis and which serves to rotate the end effector about that axis" (Col. 5, lines 50-60). Accordingly, GENOV teaches the use of rotating motors within the robotic arm structure but does not teach the claimed linear motors or installing plates.
Claim 2, The multi-degree-of-freedom robot according to claim 1, wherein a damper is installed on the installing plate corresponding to the linear motor whose output axis is parallel to a gravitational direction of the end-effector assembly, and an output end of the damper is connected to an output end of the linear motor.
TAN teaches the use of a damper in connection with a robotic end effector. Specifically, the reference discloses that "Also visible in FIG. 1A is calibrated mass damper (CMD) 108, which may be affixed to the tip of the end effector 106" (Col. 4, lines 14-18). The reference further states that "A calibrated mass damper (CMD) 308 may be attached to the end effector 306, for example, at the tip of the end effector 306" (Col. 4, lines 58-65). Accordingly, the general limitation of a damper being installed is taught by TAN.
However, the limitation requiring that the damper be installed on the installing plate corresponding to the linear motor is not explicitly disclosed. TAN teaches attachment of the calibrated mass damper to the end effector itself rather than to an installing plate associated with a linear motor. Specifically, the reference states that "A calibrated mass damper (CMD) 308 may be attached to the end effector 306" (Col. 4, lines 58-65). The limitation requiring that the linear motor have an output axis parallel to a gravitational direction of the end-effector assembly is not taught by either GENOV, Furthermore, the limitation requiring that an output end of the damper is connected to an output end of the linear motor is not explicitly taught, TAN consistently teaches that the calibrated mass damper is attached to the end effector, as evidenced by the disclosures that "calibrated mass damper (CMD) 108... may be affixed to the tip of the end effector 106" (Col. 4, lines 14-18) and "A calibrated mass damper (CMD) 308 may be attached to the end effector 306" (Col. 4, lines 58-65). The reference does not disclose any connection between the damper and the output end of a linear motor, thus, while TAN teaches a damper associated with a robotic end effector, would have been within the knowledge of ordinary skilled artisan to modify Genov with Tan to come up with the invention as a design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571 270 3976. 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.
MASUD . AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657A
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights