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 .
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 May 11, 2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant may wish to add “the” before “at least one supporting component” at line 1 of claims 2 and 12. Further, Applicant may wish to have claim 11 read, “the first component and the second component” at lines 7 and 8.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13 and 17 use the term “respectively” which renders the claims indefinite It is unclear whether the recited functionality is: (1) a required functional limitation that the claimed function must be capable of performing, (2) an optional feature that may or may not be present, or (3) merely a statement of intended use or a description of one possible mode of operation among others not positively recited. Please clarify.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the supporting apparatus” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Remaining claims are rejected for dependency to claims 1 and 11.
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.
Claims 1, 6-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by Nagatsuka (US 2017/0326736).
Nagatsuka discloses and shows a supporting apparatus for a robot, comprising:
at least one supporting component each comprising:
a pair of joint assemblies (31, 18) respectively arranged at both ends of the supporting component in an extending direction and respectively rotatably coupled to a first component (32) and a second component (17) of the robot;
a pair of driving components (24, 25) arranged between the pair of joint assemblies and respectively comprising a fixing part (not labeled, connecting the linear driving rod to the joint assemblies, 31, 18) and a linear driving rod (24b, driving rod to 25 is not labeled), wherein end parts of the pair of linear driving rods are respectively rotatably coupled to the pair of joint assemblies about a rotation axis, and adapted to perform telescopic movement along their own axes to drive the supporting component to rotate relative to the first component and the second component; and
a pair of force-bearing components (21, 22) arranged to extend in the extending direction and at least partially clamp the pair of joint assemblies, the force-bearing components comprising a pair of hinge points respectively rotatably coupled to the pair of joint assemblies (see Figs. 8 and 10, for example).
Cl. 6 – the pair of force-bearing components comprises a force-bearing plate (also 21, 22) and a rib structure (14) arranged on the force bearing plate.
Cl. 7 – at least one outer reinforcement member (14d), two ends of the at least one outer reinforcement member is respectively coupled to the pair of force-bearing components, and located outside of the pair of driving components.
Cl. 8 – the at least one outer reinforcement member is configured as a frame structure (see para. 0035).
Cl. 9 – the pair of driving components are arranged side by side in a front-rear direction perpendicular to the rotation axis.
Cl. 10 –the driving components (24, 25) comprise linear motors.
Cl. 11 – Nagatsuka discloses and shows a robot comprising:
a first component (32) and a second component (17); and
a supporting apparatus arranged between the first component and the second component, wherein the supporting apparatus comprises:
at least one supporting component each comprising:
a pair of joint assemblies (31, 18) respectively arranged at both ends of the supporting component in an extending direction and respectively rotatably coupled to the first component (32) and the second component (17) of the robot;
a pair of driving components (24, 25) arranged between the pair of joint assemblies and respectively comprising a fixing part (not labeled, connecting the linear driving rod to the joint assemblies, 31, 18) and a linear driving rod (24b, driving rod to 25 is not labeled), wherein end parts of the pair of linear driving rods are respectively rotatably coupled to the pair of joint assemblies about a rotation axis, and adapted to perform telescopic movement along their own axes to drive the supporting component to rotate relative to the corresponding first component and the second component; and
a pair of force-bearing components (21, 22) arranged to extend in the extending direction and at least partially clamp the pair of joint assemblies, the force-bearing components comprising a pair of hinge points respectively rotatably coupled to the pair of joint assemblies (see Figs. 8 and 10, for example).
Cl. 16 – the pair of force-bearing components comprises a force-bearing plate (also 21, 22) and a rib structure (14) arranged on the force bearing plate.
Cl. 17 – at least one outer reinforcement member (14d), two ends of the at least one outer reinforcement member is respectively coupled to the pair of force-bearing components, and located outside of the pair of driving components.
Cl. 18 – the at least one outer reinforcement member is configured as a frame structure (see para. 0035).
Cl. 19 – the pair of driving components are arranged side by side in a front-rear direction perpendicular to the rotation axis.
Cl. 20 –the driving components (24, 25) comprise linear motors.
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.
Claims 2, 12, 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagatsuka as applied to claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Nagatsuka discloses and shows the invention of claim 1 as described elsewhere above and further, wherein at least one supporting component comprises a pair of supporting components (see Figs. 1 and 3), the pair of supporting components being arranged side by side and further comprising a connecting frame (14c) fixedly coupled between the pair of supporting components.
The pair of supporting components are not arranged side by side along the rotation axis as shown. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the pair of supporting components being arranged side by side along the rotation axis in accordance with:
· MPEP 2144.04(I) states, “matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art” in citing In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
· MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) which states, “shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device” in citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
· MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) details that rearrangement of parts has been established by case law to be obvious where there is no unexpected result (criticality) citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), In re Kuhle, 526 Fx2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
· MPEP 2144 clearly states that “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rational may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law" (emphasis added).
· MPEP 2144 also states, “If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection” (emphasis added). However, Applicant’s disclosure, and all other evidence of record, fails to set forth any unexpected result (i.e., criticality) due to the pair of supporting components being arranged side by side along the rotation axis. Accordingly, the claimed orientation lacks any criticality such that a rejection based solely on case law is appropriate.
Cls. 5 and 15 – at least one link of each of the pair of joint assemblies is implemented by a portion o of the pair of force-bearing components. Nagatsuka does not include the pair of joint assemblies arranged in a four-bar linkage. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the pair of joint assemblies in a four-bar linkage in accordance with:
· MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) which states, “shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device” in citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
· MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) details that rearrangement of parts has been established by case law to be obvious where there is no unexpected result (criticality) citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), In re Kuhle, 526 Fx2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
· MPEP 2144 clearly states that “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rational may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law" (emphasis added).
· MPEP 2144 also states, “If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection” (emphasis added). However, Applicant’s disclosure, and all other evidence of record, fails to set forth any unexpected result (i.e., criticality) due to the pair of supporting components being arranged side by side along the rotation axis. In fact, Applicant offers a four-bar linkage as a further embodiment (an option) in the arrangement and design of the supporting apparatus. Accordingly, the claimed orientation lacks any criticality such that a rejection based solely on case law is appropriate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The aforementioned reference to Nagatsuka, as described elsewhere above, is the prior art closest related to the claims. Regarding claims 3 and 13, the prior art lacks the pair of balancing arms as claimed as Nagatsuka’s fixing parts are rotatably coupled to the first and second components and the force-bearing components. There is no expectation to add balancing arms to the fixing parts and, thus, it would not have been obvious to couple a pair of balancing arms to the fixing parts without destroying an advantageous property, see Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353, 87 USPQ2d 1452, MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY RUSHING, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-5PM 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) 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.
/BOBBY RUSHING, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights