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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 19 and 25 have been amended. Claims 2, 6, 8-10, 12-14, and 20 have been canceled. Claims 26-28 have been added. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 15-19, and 21-28 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to the amendments to
the claim objections are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are not persuasive.
With respect to “The absence of a stated rationale is fatal to the prima facie case for an obviousness rejection. The Office cannot rely on "common sense" to bridge this gap, particularly when the references operate on fundamentally different principles…..Without an articulated reason to combine these disparate technical approaches, the Office has failed to satisfy its burden of proof as to obviousness and the rejection must be withdrawn.”, the examiner disagrees. Aubin relies and credits the Zhang 2016 publication which directly relates to a sanding system. Not only does Aubin does not recommend/state how “cloud point data” is outside the invention’s scope. The disclosure actively relies and includes its use. It specifically discloses the use of “point cloud (i.e., a set of data points in space)” in paragraphs [0159, 0186, 0187]. Therefore, there is no combination, it’s part of Aubin’s original disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
‘A force adjuster…configured for force adjuster movement which moves the sanding head…to maintain the sanding contact force’ in claim 25. When looking to the specification, the corresponding structure of the force adjuster is described in at least [0024]. This limitation shall be construed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570, 1574, 225 USPQ 236, 238 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 26 recites: “the robot moves the sanding head along the sanding route in an open-loop manner with respect to the sanding contact force, such that the robot does not alter the sanding route based on the sanding contact force.”. Nowhere in the specification is an “open loop” disclosed. The only “loop” disclosed is a “closed loop” and it specifically relates to the “force adjuster” (Paragraphs [0024, 0030]). As can be seen in paragraphs [0024, 0030], the disclosure of the specification uses of such terminology, yet does not describe the sanding route with such specificity. Therefore, it’s new matter.
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, 3, 7, 11, 19, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aubin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0171620 A1, and now U.S. Patent No. 11,633,832 B2), and referring to Aubin et al.’s cited publication of 10 October 2016 “3D curvature grinding path planning based on point cloud data” by Zhang et al.
Referring to Claim 1: Aubin et al. discloses a sanding system (100 Figs. 1-4) for sanding (Paragraph 0023) a surface (202 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of a part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6), the system comprising:
a scanner (110 Figs. 2) configured to scan (Paragraph 0153) the part to obtain raw data (“online measurement data” Page 1 of Zhang et al. Publication) about a three-dimensional (3D) surface of the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6) to be sanded; and
a sander (102 Figs. 1-4 and 6) configured to sand (Paragraph 0030) the surface (202 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6), the sander (102 Figs. 1-4 and 6) including (Paragraph 0030): a sanding effector (sanding effector EF Fig. 1-A inserted below which includes a sanding head 120 Figs. 1-4 and 6) configured to engage (Paragraph 0031) and sand the surface (202 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6); and
a robot (104 Figs. 1-4 and 6) coupled to the sanding effector (EF Fig. 1-A inserted below) and configured to move (Paragraphs 0030 and 0031) the sanding effector (EF Fig. 1-A inserted below) into engagement with and across the surface (202 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6) based on the 3D surface model (Paragraph 0153) to sand the surface (202 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6);
and a primary controller (112 Figs. 1 and 2) communicatively coupled (Paragraphs 0153 and 0031) to the scanner (110 Figs. 2) and the robot (104 Figs. 1-4 and 6), the primary controller (112 Figs. 1 and 2) configured to execute a sanding routine in which the primary controller (112 Figs. 1 and 2):
(i) controls the scanner to obtain the raw data about the 3D surface of the part to be sanded (“The local contour or localized geometry of the surface 202 at each one of the sanding locations may be determined from a three-dimensional model of the structure 200 (e.g., three-dimensional model 204) (FIG. 1).” [0059]);
(ii) after completing (i) and before beginning sanding the surface of the part (“Such a determination may be performed prior to initiation of the sanding operation or in real-time during the sanding operation.” [0059]), conducting a route generation process to generate robot instructions executable by the robot to control robot movement along a sanding route (e.g., a sanding path 148) (FIG. 4) and used for determination of the actual material removal rate 160 at the corresponding, or respective, location.” [0059]),
wherein by the route generation process, the primary controller converts raw data from the scanner into point cloud data (“method using the point cloud data to create grinding trajectories for workpieces with complex surfaces, including point cloud data pre-processing, and grinding path planning.” Page 2 of Zhang et al. Publication), processes the point cloud data to determine the normal to each point in the point cloud data (“normal of the surface” Page 6 of Zhang et al. Publication), and uses the determined normal for each point in the point cloud data to program the robot instructions to define an orientation for the sanding effector (“tool postures” Page 6 of Zhang et al. Publication) for each point on the surface of the part along the sanding route (“path that tool walks along” Page 6 of Zhang et al. Publication);
and
(iii) after completing (ii), executing the robot instructions from (ii) to drive said robot movement along the sanding route (“The control unit 112 is operable to control modification or adjustment of one or more of the sanding parameters 126, while the sanding tool 102 is in the sanding position and while the sanding tool 102 moves across the surface 202 along the sanding path 148,” [0085]);
wherein the sanding effector (EF Fig. 1-A inserted below) includes a sanding head (120 Figs. 1-4, 6, and 1-A inserted below) configured to engage and sand the surface (202 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of the part and a force adjuster (190 Figs. 3 and 4) operatively connected to the sanding head (120 Figs. 1-4, 6, and 1-A inserted below), wherein while the primary controller is executing the robot instructions from (ii) to drive said robot movement along the sanding route,
the force adjuster (190 Figs. 3 and 4) is configured, independently of said robot movement along the sanding route,
to move the sanding head in relation to the robot to maintain the sanding contact force (“Advantageously, the force sensor 108 enables the system 100 to regularly sample the sanding force 128 applied to the surface 202 and provide real-time feedback of the sanding force 128 during the sanding operation.” [0091]; see also [0251-0252] disclosing that there may be a number of controllers to perform the described functions).
PNG
media_image1.png
321
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
442
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Referring to Claim 3: Aubin et al. discloses the sanding system of claim 1, and further teaches the system comprising a platform (208 Figs. 2-4) configured to support (Paragraph 0162) the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6), the scanner (110 Figs. 2) disposed above (shown above in Fig. 2) the platform (208 Figs. 2-4).
Referring to Claim 7: Aubin et al. discloses the sanding system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the robot (104 Figs. 1-4 and 6) includes a robotic arm (168 Figs. 2-4: Paragraph 0048), the sanding effector (EF Fig. 1-A inserted above) attached to (shown in Figs. 3, 4 and Fig. 1-A inserted above) the robotic arm (168 Figs 2-4).
Referring to Claim 11: Aubin et al. discloses a method for sanding a surface of a part using the sanding system (100 Figs. 1-4) of claim 1, the method comprising:
scanning (Paragraph 0153) the surface (202 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6) with the scanner (110 Figs. 2) to obtain the three-dimensional (3D) surface model (Paragraph 0153) of the surface of the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6) to be sanded; and
sanding (Paragraph 0030) the surface (202 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6) with the sanding effector (EF Fig. 1-A inserted above) of the sander, wherein the sanding includes moving (Paragraphs 0030 and 0031) the sanding effector (EF Fig. 1-A inserted above) with the robot (104 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of the sander (102 Figs. 1-4 and 6) into engagement with and across the surface (202 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6) based on the 3D surface model (Paragraph 0153).
Referring to Claim 19: Aubin et al. discloses the method of claim 11, and further teaches wherein sanding the surface of the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6) includes adjusting, with the force adjuster (190 Figs. 3 and 4) independently of robot movement (“movement of the sanding tool 102 to the sanding position.” Paragraph 0081), the contact force (128 Paragraph 0091) applied by the sanding head (120 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of the sanding effector (EF Fig. 1-A inserted above) against the surface (202 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6) as the sanding effect moves (Paragraph 0091) over the surface (202 Figs. 1-4 and 6).
Referring to Claim 25: Aubin et al. discloses a sanding system (100 Figs. 1-4) for sanding (Paragraph 0023) a surface (202 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of a part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6), the sanding system comprising:
a scanner (110 Figs. 2) configured to scan (Paragraph 0153) the part to obtain raw data (“online measurement data” Page 1 of Zhang et al. Publication) about a three-dimensional (3D) surface (202 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of the part to be sanded (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6);
a robot (104 Figs. 1-4 and 6) configured for robot movement;
a sanding head (120 Figs. 1-4, 6, and 1-A inserted above) configured for sanding the surface (202 Figs. 1-4 and 6) of the part, the sanding head mounted on the robot (104 Figs. 1-4 and 6) such that robot movement moves the sanding head in relation to the part; and
a force adjuster (190 Figs. 3 and 4) connected between the robot and the sanding head and configured for force adjuster movement which moves [0100] the sanding head in relation to the robot independently of the robot movement; and
a primary controller (112 Figs. 1 and 2) communicatively coupled (Paragraphs 0153 and 0031) to the scanner (110 Figs. 2) and the robot (104 Figs. 1-4 and 6) the primary controller configured to execute a sanding routine in which the primary controller (112 Figs. 1 and 2; see also [0251-0252]):
(i) controls the scanner to obtain the raw data about the 3D surface of the part to be sanded (“The local contour or localized geometry of the surface 202 at each one of the sanding locations may be determined from a three-dimensional model of the structure 200 (e.g., three-dimensional model 204) (FIG. 1).” [0059]);
(ii) after completing (i) and before beginning sanding the surface of the part, conducting a route generation process to generate robot instructions executable by the robot to control robot movement along a sanding route (“Such a determination may be performed prior to initiation of the sanding operation or in real-time during the sanding operation.” [0059]); and
wherein by the route generation process, the primary controller converts raw data from the scanner into point cloud data (“method using the point cloud data to create grinding trajectories for workpieces with complex surfaces, including point cloud data pre-processing, and grinding path planning.” Page 2 of Zhang et al. Publication), processes the point cloud data to determine the normal to each point in the point cloud data (“normal of the surface” Page 6 of Zhang et al. Publication), and uses the determined normal for each point in the point cloud data to program the robot instructions to define an orientation for the sanding effector (“tool postures” Page 6 of Zhang et al. Publication) for each point on the surface of the part along the sanding route (“path that tool walks along” Page 6 of Zhang et al. Publication); and
(iii) after completing (ii), executing the robot instructions from (ii) to drive said robot movement along the sanding route (“The control unit 112 is operable to control modification or adjustment of one or more of the sanding parameters 126, while the sanding tool 102 is in the sanding position and while the sanding tool 102 moves across the surface 202 along the sanding path 148,” [0085]);
wherein while the primary controller is executing the robot instructions from (ii) to drive said robot movement along the sanding route, the force adjuster (190 Figs. 3 and 4) is configured, independently of said robot movement along the sanding route, to move the sanding head in relation to the robot to maintain the sanding contact force (“Advantageously, the force sensor 108 enables the system 100 to regularly sample the sanding force 128 applied to the surface 202 and provide real-time feedback of the sanding force 128 during the sanding operation.” [0091]).
Referring to Claim 28: Aubin et al. discloses the method of claim 11, wherein moving the sanding effector with the robot comprises controlling the robot to follow the sanding route (see sanding routes 148/178 Figs. 9 and 10; “The model sanding path 178 is a fixed,” [0182]) without modifying the robot movement based on the contact force, and wherein maintaining the sanding contact force (“Advantageously, the force sensor 108 enables the system 100 to regularly sample the sanding force 128 applied to the surface 202 and provide real-time feedback of the sanding force 128 during the sanding operation.” [0091]) is performed exclusively (“the sanding operation continues without modification of the spatial location 186 of the sanding tool 102 in the direction approximately perpendicular to the surface 202 (i.e., the robotic manipulator 104 or the actuator 190 holds the sanding tool 102 in the current spatial location 186 relative to the surface 202)” [0102]; “control unit 112 commands the robotic manipulator 104 or the actuator 190 to move the sanding tool 102 closer to the surface 202 to increase the sanding force 128 until the actual sanding-force value is approximately equal to the model sanding-force value” [0103]) by the force adjuster (190 Figs. 3 and 4) moving the sanding head (120 Figs. 1-4, 6, and 1-A inserted above) relative to the robot.
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 4, 5, 15-18, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0171620 A1, and now U.S. Patent No. 11,633,832 B2) and further in view of Martinez et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,163,793 A).
Referring to Claim 4: Aubin et al. discloses the sanding system of claim 3, but is silent on wherein the platform specifically includes a plurality of clamps configured to hold the part in place on the platform.
Martinez et al., in an analogous system for material reduction, teaches a similar configuration platform (1 Figs. 1-4) specifically includes a plurality of clamps (3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13) configured to hold (Column 5, lines 38-46) the similar configuration part (9 Fig. 2) in place on the similar configuration platform (1 Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sanding system of Aubin et al. with the clamps of Martinez et al. for the purpose of having a series of adjustable clamps which conform to the shape, dimensions and positioning of the corresponding workpiece (Column 6, lines 38-40 of Martinez et al.); in the instance for working on oddly shaped/ asymmetrical workpieces.
Referring to Claim 5: Aubin et al. as modified teaches the sanding system of claim 4, wherein the clamps (3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13 of Martinez et al.) are negative pressure clamps (Column 5, lines 38-46 of Martinez et al.), the negative pressure clamps (Column 5, lines 38-46 of Martinez et al.) configured to be coupled to a negative pressure source (Column 5, lines 48-55 of Martinez et al.).
Referring to Claim 15: Aubin et al. discloses the method of claim 11, but is silent on further comprising securing the part in place before scanning the surface of the part.
Martinez et al., in an analogous system for material reduction (Column 4, lines 2-12) , teaches the similar configuration system (1 Figs. 1-4) further comprising securing (securing the part with clamps 3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13) the similar configuration part (9 Fig. 2) in place (Column 5, lines 37-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sanding system of Aubin et al. with the clamps of Martinez et al. for the purpose of having a series of adjustable clamps for securing the part which are capable of conforming to the shape, dimensions and positioning of the corresponding workpiece (Column 6, lines 38-40 of Martinez et al.); in the instance for working on oddly shaped/ asymmetrical workpieces.
As a result of Aubin et al. modified with Martinez et al., the securing (securing the part with clamps 3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13 of Martinez et al.) of the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6 of Aubin et al.) before scanning (“before the sanding tool 102 sands the respective portions of the surface 202” Paragraph 0156) the surface of the part as this would ensure an accurate scan of part.
Referring to Claim 16: Aubin et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 15, and further teaches wherein securing (securing the part with clamps 3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13 of Martinez et al.) the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6 of Aubin et al.) in place includes clamping the part in place (Column 5, lines 37-47 of Martinez et al.) with a plurality of clamps (3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13 of Martinez et al.).
Referring to Claim 17: Aubin et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 16, and further teaches wherein clamping (with clamps 3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13 of Martinez et al.) the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6 of Aubin et al.) in place (Column 5, lines 37-47 of Martinez et al.) includes activating a negative pressure source fluidly coupled (Column 5, lines 48-56) to the clamps (3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13 of Martinez et al.) so that the clamps (3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13 of Martinez et al.) hold the part in place with suction (suction from clamp 3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13 of Martinez et al.).
Referring to Claim 18: Aubin et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 17, and further teaches the method comprising operating the negative pressure source (Column 5, lines 48-56 of Martinez et al.) simultaneously and continuously with said scanning and said sanding (Paragraph 0155) to hold the part (200 Figs. 1-4 and 6 of Aubin et al.) in place (Column 5, lines 37-47 of Martinez et al.) during said scanning and said sanding.
Referring to Claim 22: Aubin et al. discloses the sanding system of claim 3, but is silent on wherein the platform further comprises a plurality of clamps coupled to a work surface; wherein the clamps are configured to be positioned by an operator at any position on the work surface to hold and support the part.
Martinez et al., in an analogous system for material reduction, teaches a similar configuration platform (1 Figs. 1-4) further comprises a plurality of clamps (3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13) coupled to a work surface (horizontal work surface of 1 Figs. 1-4); wherein the clamps (3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13) are configured to be positioned by an operator at any position (Column 4, lines 49-57; Column 6, lines 47-50) on the work surface (horizontal work surface of 1 Figs. 1-4) to hold and support (shown in Fig. 2) the similar configuration part (9 Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sanding system of Aubin et al. with the clamps of Martinez et al. for the purpose of having a series of adjustable clamps which conform to the shape, dimensions and positioning of the corresponding workpiece (Column 6, lines 38-40 of Martinez et al.); in the instance for working on oddly shaped/ asymmetrical workpieces.
Referring to Claim 23: Aubin et al. as modified teaches the sanding system of claim 4, wherein each clamp (3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13 of Martinez et al.) is configured to both grip and support (Column 5, lines 38-46 of Martinez et al.) the part (9 Fig. 2 of Martinez et al.) solely by contact with an underside (shown supporting the underside of the part in Fig. 2 of Martinez et al.) of the part opposite the surface (horizontal work surface of 1 Figs. 1-4 of Martinez et al.) of the part (9 Fig. 2 of Martinez et al.) being sanded.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0171620 A1, and now U.S. Patent No. 11,633,832 B2), and in view of Naderer (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0111570-A1).
Referring to Claim 21: Aubin et al. discloses the sanding system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the force adjuster (190 Figs. 3 and 4) is configured to adjust the amount of contact force (128 Paragraph 0091; “Detecting and using the sanding force 128 as a feedback measurement” [0091], which is consistent with the definition of a closed loop. Merriam-Webster defines “closed loop” as: “:an automatic control system in which an operation, process, or mechanism is regulated by feedback”) applied by the sanding head (120 Figs. 1-4, 6, and 1-A inserted above) to maintain constant (“The sanding force 128 may be variable or constant” Paragraph 0054) sanding pressure.
But is silent on further teaching wherein the force adjuster’s contact force is specifically adjusted via a closed loop control routine.
Naderer, in an analogous sanding machine (1 Fig. 1) and teaches wherein the similar configuration force adjuster (20 Fig. 1) is specifically configured to conduct a closed loop (Paragraph 0009) control routine to adjust the amount of contact force (“closed-loop controlling the contact force according to a predeterminable force progression” Paragraph 0009) applied by the sanding head to maintain constant sanding pressure (“closed-loop control device ensures--on contact between a tool which is mounted on the holder and a surface” Paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Aubin et al. as modified with the closed loop control routine as taught by Naderer for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, for improving the response of the system and to mitigate deviations to ensure consistency.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0171620 A1, and now U.S. Patent No. 11,633,832 B2), and Martinez et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,163,793 A), as applied above to claim 4, and in further in view of Moore et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,125,010 B2)
Referring to Claim 24: Aubin et al. as modified teaches the sanding system of claim 4, wherein each clamp (3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13 of Martinez et al.) comprises a negative pressure port (negative pressure port of “communication with a system of suction or vacuum” Column 5, lines 50-54 of Martinez et al.), a suction cup (43 Figs. 11-13; Column 5, lines 50-54 of Martinez et al.),
whereby when the negative pressure port (negative pressure port of “communication with a system of suction or vacuum” Column 5, lines 50-54 of Martinez et al.) is fluidly connected to a negative pressure source (“system of suction or vacuum” Column 5, lines 50-54 of Martinez et al.), and the clamp (3 Figs. 1-4 and 10-13 of Martinez et al.) is positioned beneath (shown in Fig. 2 of Martinez et al.) the part (9 Fig. 2 of Martinez et al.);
but is silent on a positive pressure port, and a plurality of pins, the positive pressure port is fluidly connected to a positive pressure source, the suction cup draws the part downward and the pins simultaneously push upward against the part.
Moore et al. in an analogous clamp (10 Figs. 1-4) configured to hold a workpiece, comprising a similar configuration suction cup (60 Figs. 1-4; Column 4, lines 43-49), and further comprising a positive pressure port (positive pressure port which supplies air, Column 4, lines 26-30), and a plurality of pins (12 Figs. 1-8), the positive pressure port is fluidly connected to a positive pressure source (“supply of air” Column 4, lines 26-30), the suction cup (60 Figs. 1-4) draws the part downward and the pins simultaneously push upward against (Column 4, lines 21-25, lines 43-49) the similar configuration part.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clamps of Aubin et al. as modified with the positive pressured pins of Moore et al. for the purpose of enhancing the holding apparatus to accommodate asymmetrical/ oddly shaped workpieces.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0171620 A1, and now U.S. Patent No. 11,633,832 B2), as applied above in claim 25, and in further view of Batchelder (U.S. Patent No. 10,889,068 B1).
Referring to Claim 26: Aubin et al. discloses the sanding system of claim 25, wherein the robot (104 Figs. 1-4 and 6) moves the sanding head (120 Figs. 1-4, 6, and 1-A inserted above) along the sanding route (see sanding routes 148/178 Figs. 9 and 10; “The model sanding path 178 is a fixed,” [0182]; “The control unit 112 is operable to control modification or adjustment of one or more of the sanding parameters 126, while the sanding tool 102 is in the sanding position and while the sanding tool 102 moves across the surface 202 along the sanding path 148,” [0085 with respect to the sanding contact force, such that the robot does not alter the sanding route based (the sanding routes are of fixed geometry as shown in Figs. 9 and 10 and do not rely on feedback. “the sanding force 128 (FIG. 5) approximately normal to the surface 202 when the sanding tool 102 is in the sanding position, such as when the sanding tool 102 is stationary and when the sanding tool 102 is moving across the surface 202, such as along the sanding path 148 (FIG. 4)” [0136]) on the sanding contact force.
Merriam-Webster defines “open loop” as: “:a control system for an operation or process in which there is no self-correcting action as there is in a closed loop”. Merriam-Webster defines “closed loop” as: “:an automatic control system in which an operation, process, or mechanism is regulated by feedback”. Aubin further discloses, the sanding contact force 128 specifically relies on feedback. “Detecting and using the sanding force 128 as a feedback measurement” [0091]). Aubin’s sanding path is “fixed” as disclosed in paragraph [0182] and does not disclose its reliance on feedback. Aubin’s operation operates consistent with Merriam-Webster’s definition of “open loop” and “closed loop”. However, Aubin does not disclose the operation is done in specifically an open loop manner.
Batchelder in an analogous robotic control teaches a similar configuration path operated specifically in an open loop manner (“therefore extrusion tip 446 to follow the desire path in an open loop manner.” Col. 9, lines 34-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sanding route of Aubin with the open loop manner as taught by Batchelder for the purpose of having an alternate manner of moving the end effector across the surface.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0171620 A1, and now U.S. Patent No. 11,633,832 B2), and Batchelder (U.S. Patent No. 10,889,068 B1), as applied above in claim 26, and in further view of Naderer (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0111570-A1).
Referring to Claim 27: Aubin et al. discloses the sanding system of claim 26, wherein the force adjuster (190 Figs. 3 and 4) operates in a control routine (“Detecting and using the sanding force 128 as a feedback measurement” [0091]) to maintain the sanding contact force (128 Paragraph 0091), such that the force adjuster (190 Figs. 3 and 4) moves the sanding head in relation to the robot to compensate for deviations (“a feedback measurement, also enables the system 100 to selectively adjust, or vary, the sanding force 128, and in turn the sanding pressure 122, to achieve a particular actual material removal rate 160 corresponding to the model material removal rate 124 desired for a particular location on the surface 202 or a particular portion of the sanding path 148.” [0092]) between the sanding route (“sanding path 148 (FIG. 4)” [0136]) and the surface of the part.
Merriam-Webster defines “closed loop” as: “:an automatic control system in which an operation, process, or mechanism is regulated by feedback”. Aubin further discloses, the sanding contact force 128 specifically relies on feedback. “Detecting and using the sanding force 128 as a feedback measurement” [0091]). Aubin’s operation operates consistent with Merriam-Webster’s definition of “closed loop”. However, Aubin does not disclose the operation is done in specifically a closed-loop control routine.
Naderer, in an analogous sanding machine (1 Fig. 1) and teaches wherein the similar configuration force adjuster (20 Fig. 1) is specifically configured to conduct a closed loop (Paragraph 0009) control routine to adjust the amount of contact force (“closed-loop controlling the contact force according to a predeterminable force progression” Paragraph 0009) applied by the sanding head to maintain constant sanding pressure (“closed-loop control device ensures--on contact between a tool which is mounted on the holder and a surface” Paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Aubin et al. as modified with the closed loop control routine as taught by Naderer for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, for improving the response of the system and to mitigate deviations to ensure consistency.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights