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
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naderer (2016/0176015, previously presented) in view of Layton (2017/0355056).
Regarding Claim 13, Naderer teaches A grinding apparatus (Fig. 1, [0017]) for machining a surface (Ref. 303, Fig. 1, [0017]), the grinding apparatus comprising:
a grinding machine (Ref. 203, Fig. 1, [0017]) coupled to a manipulator (Ref. 100, Fig. 1, [0017]) and having a motor (Ref. 201, Fig. 1, [0018]) and a grinding tool (Ref. 203, Fig. 1, [0018]) driven by the motor ([0018]); and
a controller (Ref. 204, Fig. 1, [0017]) configured to:
control the grinding machine to adjust the rotational speed of the grinding tool ([0018] describes the controller controls the revolutions per minute and can control the rotational speed, examiner interprets rotational velocity as an analogous phrase for rotational velocity);
position the grinding machine by means of the manipulator to contact the surface with the grinding tool while the grinding machine is being driven at a first rotational speed ([0018] describes the controller controls the revolutions per minute and can control the rotational speed to a first rotational speed);
detect a contact between the grinding tool and the surface ([0025]); and
raise the rotational speed of the grinding tool from the first rotational speed to a second rotational speed ([0018] describes the controller controls the revolutions per minute and can control the rotational speed including a second rotational speed).
Naderer fails to explicitly teach detect a contact between the grinding tool and the surface and raising the rotational speed of the grinding tool from the first rotational speed to a second rotational speed in response to detecting the contact. Layton teaches a grinding apparatus, with a grinding machine, motor, and a controller and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Layton teaches a grinding apparatus (Fig. 1&4) comprising a grinding machine (Fig. 4) coupled to a manipulator (Ref. 78, Fig. 4, [0323]) and having a motor (Ref. 80, Fig. 4) and a grinding tool (Ref. 36, fig. 4) driven by the motor (fig. 4, [0324]),
a controller (Ref. 32, [0327]) configured to:
control the grinding machine to adjust a rotational speed of the grinding tool ([0327]);
detect a contact between the grinding tool and the surface ([0327-0328] describes the controller determining contact the grinding wheel contacting a surface); and
raise the rotational speed of the grinding tool from a first rotational speed ([0328] describes having an initial rotational speed of 1000 rpm) to a second rotational speed ([0328] describes having the rotational speed increasing to 8000 rpm) in response to detecting contact ([0328]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller, as taught by Naderer, to raise the rotational speed of the grinding tool in response to detecting contact, as taught by Layton, to reduce bouncing when in contact with the surface and providing a more uniform material removal and surface finish ([0323]).
Regarding Claim 14, Naderer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and Naderer further teaches an actuator (Ref. 200, Fig. 1, [0018]) configured to adjust a contact force (Ref. Fs, Fig. 1, [0018]) between the grinding tool and the surface ([0018]), wherein the controller is configured to detect the contact between the grinding tool and the surface based on a deflection of the actuator or on its change of the deflection ([0019&0025-0026]).
Regarding Claim 15, Naderer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and Naderer further teaches the concept of the controller (204) acting as a force regulator to have the grinding wheel (203) apply a change of force (Fs) to the surface (303) ([0018]) and the concept of the controller (204) of the actuator is configured to recognize the contact between the surface and grinding tool ([0025-0026] note a controller is configured to recognize the contact between the surface and grinding tool thereby detecting a loss of contact with the surface). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the controller configured to increase the contact force between the grinding tool and the surface in response to detecting the contact, as taught by Naderer, size and scale of the device, and basic engineering principles, to best suit the intended function of grinding a work surface efficiently.
Regarding Claim 16, Naderer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further teaches the concept of a controller is configured to recognize the contact between the surface and grinding tool ([0025-0026] note a controller is configured to recognize the contact between the surface and grinding tool thereby detecting a loss of contact with the surface), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to detect a loss of contact and to reduce the rotational speed of the grinding tool in response to detecting the loss of contact. Layton teaches a grinding apparatus with a grinding machine, motor, and controller, and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Layton teaches detect a loss of contact ([0324-0325 describes detecting when there is and is not contact with the work surface) and to reduce the rotational speed of the grinding tool in response to detecting the loss of contact ([0324-0325] describes the program to ramp up during contact and be at a lower speed when not in contact). Because Naderer as modified is silent as to the rotational speed increasing or decreasing when moving from not contacting to contacting the workpiece, based on the teachings of Layton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try having the controller, as taught by Naderer as modified, to decrease the rotation speed the rotational grinding tool when not contacting the workpiece, as taught by Layton, to reduce bouncing when in contact with the surface and reduce unnecessary movement of the manipulator ([0325]).
Regarding Claim 17, Naderer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to raise the rotational speed of the grinding tool according to a defined and specifiable progression. Layton teaches controller is used to the control procedures of the controller to raise the rotational speed of the grinding tool according to defined and specific progression ([0324-0328] describes raising the rotational speed of the grinding tool from a lower RPM to a higher RPM over a specific time period) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller, as taught by Naderer, to raise the rotational speed of the grinding tool according to a defined and specifiable progression, as taught by Layton, to reduce bouncing when in contact with the surface and providing a more uniform material removal and surface finish ([0323]).
Regarding Claim 18, Naderer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and Naderer further teaches wherein the manipulator is an industrial robot (Fig. 1, [0003&0017] describes a robotic apparatus).
Regarding Claim 19, Naderer teaches A method for automated grinding of surfaces, the method comprising:
robot-supported positioning of a grinding machine (Ref. 201&203, Fig. 1, [0017]) that has a grinding tool (Ref. 203, Fig. 1, [0018]) so that the grinding tool contacts a surface (Ref. 303, Fig. 1, [0017]) while the grinding machine is being driven at a first rotational speed ([0018] describes the controller controls the revolutions per minute and can control the rotational speed including a first rotational speed);
detecting a contact between the grinding tool and the surface ([0025]); and
increasing the rotational speed of the grinding tool from the first rotational speed to a second rotational speed ([0018] describes the controller controls the revolutions per minute and can control the rotational speed including a second rotational speed).
Naderer fails to explicitly teach detect a contact between the grinding tool and the surface and raising the rotational speed of the grinding tool from the first rotational speed to a second rotational speed in response to detecting the contact. Layton teaches a grinding apparatus, with a grinding machine, motor, and a controller and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Layton teaches a grinding apparatus (Fig. 1&4) comprising a grinding machine (Fig. 4) coupled to a manipulator (Ref. 78, Fig. 4, [0323]) and having a motor (Ref. 80, Fig. 4) and a grinding tool (Ref. 36, fig. 4) driven by the motor (fig. 4, [0324]),
a controller (Ref. 32, [0327]) configured to:
control the grinding machine to adjust a rotational speed of the grinding tool ([0327]);
detect a contact between the grinding tool and the surface ([0327-0328] describes the controller determining contact the grinding wheel contacting a surface); and
raise the rotational speed of the grinding tool from a first rotational speed ([0328] describes having an initial rotational speed of 1000 rpm) to a second rotational speed ([0328] describes having the rotational speed increasing to 8000 rpm) in response to detecting contact ([0328]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller, as taught by Naderer, to raise the rotational speed of the grinding tool in response to detecting contact, as taught by Layton, to reduce bouncing when in contact with the surface and providing a more uniform material removal and surface finish ([0323]).
Regarding Claim 20, Naderer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and Naderer further teaches adjusting the contact force by means of a linear actuator (Ref. 200, Fig. 1, [0019]) that is disposed between a manipulator (Ref. 100, Fig. 1, [0017]) and the grinding machine (201&203), wherein the contact between the grinding tool and the surface is detected based on a deflection of the linear actuator or its change of the deflection (([0019&0025-0026])).
Regarding Claim 21, Naderer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 20, as described above, and Naderer further teaches the actuator acting as a force regulator to have the grinding wheel (203) apply a change of force (Fs) to the surface (303) ([0018]) and the concept of the controller (204) of the actuator is configured to recognize the contact between the surface and grinding tool and act as a force regulator ([0025-0026] note a controller is configured to recognize the contact between the surface and grinding tool thereby detecting a loss of contact with the surface). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the controller configured to increase the contact force between the grinding tool and the surface in response to detecting the contact, as taught by Naderer, size and scale of the device, and basic engineering principles, to best suit the intended function of grinding a work surface efficiently.
Regarding Claim 22, Naderer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and Naderer teaches the controller is capable of controlling the revolutions per minute (rotational speed) of the grinding tool (speed ([0018] describes the controller controls the revolutions per minute and can control the rotational speed and can change the speed) and the concept of a controller is configured to recognize the contact between the surface and grinding tool ([0025-0026] note a controller is configured to recognize the contact between the surface and grinding tool thereby detecting a loss of contact with the surface). Naderer fails to explicitly teach detecting a loss of contact and in response to detecting the loss of contact, reducing the rotational speed of the grinding tool. Layton teaches a grinding apparatus with a grinding machine, motor, and controller, and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Layton teaches detect a loss of contact ([0324-0325 describes detecting when there is and is not contact with the work surface) and to reduce the rotational speed of the grinding tool in response to detecting the loss of contact ([0324-0325] describes the program to ramp up during contact and be at a lower speed when not in contact). Because Naderer as modified is silent as to the rotational speed increasing or decreasing when moving from not contacting to contacting the workpiece, based on the teachings of Layton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try having the controller, as taught by Naderer as modified, to decrease the rotation speed the rotational grinding tool when not contacting the workpiece, as taught by Layton, to reduce bouncing when in contact with the surface and reduce unnecessary movement of the manipulator ([0325]).
Regarding Claim 23, Naderer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the rotational speed of the grinding tool according to a defined and specifiable progression. Layton teaches controller is used to the control procedures of the controller to raise the rotational speed of the grinding tool according to defined and specific progression ([0324-0328] describes raising the rotational speed of the grinding tool from a lower RPM to a higher RPM over a specific time period) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller, as taught by Naderer, to raise the rotational speed of the grinding tool according to a defined and specifiable progression, as taught by Layton, to reduce bouncing when in contact with the surface and providing a more uniform material removal and surface finish ([0323]).
Regarding Claim 24, Naderer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and Naderer further teaches wherein the robot-supported positioning of the grinding machine is carried out by means of an industrial robot (Fig. 1, [0003&0017] describes a robotic apparatus).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments of the claim have been fully considered and examiner has withdrawn the claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 26 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 and 19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Naderer in view of Layton. Layton teaches a grinding apparatus, with a grinding machine, motor, and a controller and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Layton teaches a grinding apparatus (Fig. 1&4) comprising a grinding machine (Fig. 4) with a controller (Ref. 32, [0327]) configured to detect a contact between the grinding tool and the surface ([0327-0328] describes the controller determining contact the grinding wheel contacting a surface), and raise the rotational speed of the grinding tool from a first rotational speed ([0328] describes having an initial rotational speed of 1000 rpm) to a second rotational speed ([0328] describes having the rotational speed increasing to 8000 rpm) in response to detecting contact ([0328]). Because Naderer is silent as to the rotational speed increase or decreasing when contacting the workpiece, based on the teachings of Layton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller, as taught by Naderer, to raise the rotational speed of the grinding tool in response to detecting contact, as taught by Layton, to reduce bouncing when in contact with the surface and providing a more uniform material removal and surface finish ([0323]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hess (2019/0030616) and Vepa (2001/0023082) teach grinding apparatus for machining a surface and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor of RPM changing grinding devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
