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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stackhouse (US 4,068,536).
Regarding Claim 1, Stackhouse disclose an actuator (1) comprising:
At least one end effector (11)
A chassis (9d).
A spherical joint (10) positioned between the at least one end effector and the chassis (see Fig. 1).
Wherein the spherical joint comprises an upper hemisphere (14a) that forms an upper half of the spherical joint and a lower hemisphere (14b) that forms a lower half of the spherical joint (see Fig. 2).
Wherein the upper hemisphere and the lower hemisphere lie concentrically within a common spherical plane (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 18, Stackhouse further discloses the actuator of claim 1, wherein the spherical joint combines at least three axes of motion into a single joint (see Fig. 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-14, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stackhouse (US 4,068,536) in view of Gorman (US 4,645,409).
Regarding Claims 2 and 19, Stackhouse does not discloses a through aperture for the actuator of claim 1 further comprising:
However, Gorman teaches in a similar actuator (see Fig. 4), a through-aperture (see Fig. 4, showing shafts 96 and 100 are hollow, with an opening in the center of the spherical joint).
Wherein the through-aperture comprises a cavity that runs along a center of the at least one end effector (see Fig. 4, showing a through hole in end effector 19), the chassis and the spherical joint allowing wires to route through the actuator without impeding multi-axis motion of the actuator (see Fig. 4, showing that due to the hollow shafts, it would be possible to run wires from the chassis 70, 74, 75, 76, through to the end effector).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the actuator disclosed in Stackhouse with hollow shafts for driving the spherical joint as taught in Gorman to reduce the overall weight and amount of materials required in building the actuator, thereby allowing for smaller motors being required to actuate the actuator and to reduce the cost of making it).
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, Stackhouse further discloses the actuator of claim 1 further comprising:
A plurality of motors (9a, 9b, 9c) positioned within the chassis (d), but does not disclose three separate housings making up the chassis.
However, Gorman teaches in a similar actuator (see Fig. 4) having a first motor (90) in a first housing (74), a second motor (91) in a second housing (75), and a third motor (92) in a third housing (76), that are part of a chassis (70, 74, 75, 76).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the actuator disclosed in Stackhouse with a motor configuration and chassis as taught in Gorman to provide extra protection to the motors by having them entirely within a housing, and based on the design constraints of the actuator (e.g. having a longer chassis but reducing the overall width of the chassis) and to remove the need to provide gearing to transfer torque between the motor and the shafts driving the joint.
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, the Combination further suggests the actuator of claims 3 and 9 respectively, wherein:
The first housing, the second housing and the third housing are positioned concentrically atop one another (see Gorman Fig. 4).
The first motor, the second motor and the third motor are positioned concentrically atop one another (see Gorman Fig. 4).
Regarding Claims 5 and 10, Stackhouse further discloses the actuator of claims 4 and 9 respectively, wherein:
The first motor is operatively coupled to the lower hemisphere via a first shaft (15).
The second motor is operatively coupled to the upper hemisphere via a second shaft (16); and the third motor is operatively coupled to the at least one end effector via a third shaft (20).
Regarding Claims 6, 12, and 20, Stackhouse further discloses the actuator of claim 5, wherein: upon activation of the first motor, the lower hemisphere rotates around a first axis (see Fig. 2, showing driving by shaft 15).
Upon activation of the second motor, the upper hemisphere rotates around a second axis (see Fig. 2, showing driving by shaft 16).
Upon activation of the third motor, the at least one end effector rotates around a third axis (see Fig. 2, showing driving by shaft 20).
Regarding Claims 7 and 12, Stackhouse further discloses the actuator of claim 6, wherein:
The first axis lies along a longitudinal axis of the actuator (see Fig. 2).
The second axis lies at approximately a 45° degree angle relative to the first axis (see Fig. 2, showing approximately 45 degrees).
The third axis lies at approximately a 45° degree angle relative to the second axis (see Fig. 2, showing approximately 45 degrees).
Regarding Claim 8, Stackhouse further discloses the actuator of claim 6, wherein:
The first axis lies along a longitudinal axis of the actuator (see Fig. 2).
The second axis lies at approximately a 60° degree angle relative to the first axis (see Fig. 2, showing approximately 60 degrees)
The third axis lies at approximately a 60° degree angle relative to the second axis (see Fig. 2, showing approximately 60 degrees).
Regarding Claim 13, Stackhouse further discloses the actuator of claim 1 further comprising:
A plurality of motors (9a, 9b, 9c) positioned within the chassis (d), but does not disclose three separate housings making up the chassis.
However, Gorman teaches in a similar actuator (see Fig. 4) having a first motor (90) in a first housing (74), a second motor (91) in a second housing (75), and a third motor (92) in a third housing (76), that are part of a chassis (70, 74, 75, 76).
Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that additional motors could be provided in a similar stacked manner, such as a fourth motor and fourth housing, to provide additional functionality to the actuator, such as powering additional joints within the actuator.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the actuator disclosed in Stackhouse with a motor configuration and chassis as taught in Gorman to provide extra protection to the motors by having them entirely within a housing, and based on the design constraints of the actuator (e.g. having a longer chassis but reducing the overall width of the chassis) and to remove the need to provide gearing to transfer torque between the motor and the shafts driving the joint.
Regarding Claim 14, the Combination further suggests the actuator of claim 13, wherein:
The first housing, the second housing, the third housing and the fourth housing are positioned concentrically atop one another (see Gorman Fig. 4, showing that all of the housing are concentrically on top of one another, and accordingly the fourth would be as well).
The first motor, the second motor, the third motor and the fourth motor are positioned concentrically atop one another (see Gorman Fig. 4, showing that all of the motors are concentrically atop one another, and accordingly the fourth would be as well).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fletcher et al. (US 3,922,930): showing an actuator using four shafts to drive different degrees of freedom (see Fig. 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY WEBER whose telephone number is (571)272-3307. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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 ROBERT WEBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights