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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the phrase “based upon the at least one of” in the third to last line should read “based upon at least one of”.
In claim 3, the claim should end in a period.
In claim 8, “the detected the rotational velocity” should read “the detected rotational velocity”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-4, 17-18, and 20 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.
Regarding claims 3-4, claim 3 recites “a processor configured to compare the rotational velocity of the backup pad to a commanded speed of the random orbital tool to determine a slip ratio”. This subject matter is nowhere described in the specification as originally filed. The specification does not describe any comparison of rotational velocity, any commanded speed, or any slip ratio or determination thereof. In fact, none of the terms “compare,” “commanded speed”, or “slip ratio” appear anywhere in the specification as originally filed. What is a commanded speed and how is it compared to the rotational velocity? What is a slip ratio and how is it determined? There is nothing in the specification to indicate these claimed functions were present in the claimed system at the time of filing. Therefore, claim 3 (and claim 4 dependent therefrom) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, and are therefore rejected under 112a.
Regarding claim 17, the specification as originally filed does not describe adjusting tool-path velocity based on the detected rotational velocity of the backup pad. The specification as originally filed generally describes that the tool-path velocity may be controlled on page 10, lines 10-15. However, the specification does not describe adjusting tool path velocity based on the detected rotational velocity of the backup pad as claimed. Applicant’s remarks additionally point to paragraph [0049] of the PGPub as providing support for this claim. However, nothing in this paragraph describes controlling the tool-path velocity. While the specification may provide support for generally controlling tool-path velocity, the specification does not describe any particular basis for this control, let along basing this control on the detected rotational velocity of the backup pad as claimed. Therefore, claim 17 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, and are therefore rejected under 112a.
Regarding claim 18, the specification as originally filed does not describe that the robotic device pauses abrading when the rotational velocity of the backup pad falls below a minimum setpoint. There is no discussion of pausing abrading the specification, and no mention of a minimum setpoint for the rotational velocity. Applicant’s remarks point to paragraphs [0047-0048] and [0007] of the PGPub as providing support for this claim. Paragraphs [0047-0048], which correspond to page 8, lines 13-29 of the originally filed specification, do not describe pausing abrading and do not describe a minimum setpoint of rotational velocity. The only “minimum” discussed is in relation to a desired force rather than a rotational velocity. Paragraph [0007] of the PGPub, which corresponds to the paragraph starting at page 2, line 13 of the original specification, generally describes robotic sanding control systems and makes no mention of pausing abrading or a minimum setpoint for rotational velocity. Therefore, claim 18 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, and are therefore rejected under 112a.
Regarding claim 20, the specification as originally filed does not describe adjusting pressure responsive to changes in the detected rotational velocity exceeding a predetermined threshold. There is no description in the original specification of any “threshold,” let alone a threshold of “changes in the detected rotational velocity” as recited in claim 20. Applicant points to paragraphs [0046-0048] of the PGPub as providing support for this claim. Paragraphs [0046-0048], which correspond to page 8, lines 3-29 of the originally filed specification, do generally describe controlling pressure responsive to changes in the detected rotational velocity (“If RPM changes[,] the control system 200 via the controller 202 can change pressure”). However, this in no way describes “changes in the detected rotational velocity exceeding a predetermined threshold.” There is no threshold described here and no discussion of exceeding a threshold of changes in detected rotational velocity. Therefore, claim 20 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, and are therefore rejected under 112a.
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 2-8, 13-16, and 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “the sensor further comprises one or more of an encoder, a high speed camera, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a force transducer, and a torque transducer.” However, claim 1 already recites the sensor comprises a tachometer or an inertial sensor. It is unclear how the sensor of claim 1, which is claimed as a singular element (tachometer or inertial sensor), “further comprises” one or more of an encoder, a high speed camera, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a force transducer, and a torque transducer. While it is clear from applicant’s specification that multiple sensors may be used in the repair system, the wording of claim 1 recites a single sensor, that sensor being a tachometer or inertial sensor. It is unclear how that tachometer or inertial sensor can also be an encoder, high speed camera, etc. This is made further unclear by the fact that the claimed camera appears to be a specific embodiment of the claimed “optical device” which measures a debris pattern, rather than rotational velocity (original spec page 11, lines 1-9 describes the camera takes an image of the swarf pattern rather than measuring rotational velocity). This makes it unclear if the “sensor” as recited in claim 2 is intended to limit the sensor of claim 1, or if it may also limit the “optical device” of claim 1. Are multiple sensors necessary to meet the claim? How can the sensor which is defined as a tachometer in claim 1 also be a gyroscope? For the purposes of this examination, claim 2 will be read as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “a processor configured to compare the rotational velocity of the backup pad to a commanded speed of the random orbital tool to determine a slip ratio.” As detailed in the 112a rejection above, the specification does not describe a processor configured to carry out this function, making it unclear what structure or function is being defined here. What is a commanded speed and how does it relate to the claimed repair system? What is a slip ratio? How is the processor configured to perform the claimed comparison? For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claim 4 is rejected as indefinite due to its dependency upon rejected claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the sensor comprises a force transducer configured to detect vibration of the backup pad.” Similarly to claim 2 as described in the rejection above, it is unclear the sensor of claim 1, which is claimed as a tachometer or inertial sensor, can be a “force transducer” as recited in claim 5. While a force transducer may arguably be considered a further limitation of the claimed inertial sensor, it is unclear how the senser may be a tachometer and a force transducer, as these are completely separate types of sensors. In other words, how can the sensor which is defined as a tachometer in claim 1 also be a force transducer? It is unclear if the “force transducer” of claim 1 is intended to further limit the “tachometer…or an inertial sensor” of claim 1, only the alternatively claimed inertial sensor of claim 1, or if the force transducer is intended to provide a sensor separate to that claimed in claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claims 6-8 each recite “an optical device” and claims 6-7 recite “a debris pattern”. However, claim 1 already provides antecedent basis for an optical device and a debris pattern as an alternative to the claimed control based on the measured rotational velocity. It is unclear if the debris pattern and optical device recited in claims 6-8 are the same or different from the debris pattern and optical device recited in claim 1. It is further unclear if this recitation in claims 6-8 now requires the debris pattern and optical device which was an optional alternative in claim 1. In other words, in the case where the control based on measured rotational velocity is selected in claim 1, it is unclear if the debris pattern and optical device recited in claims 6-8 is now required by the claim, or if these are merely limitations to an unselected alternative. For the purposes of this examination, these claims will be read as further limiting the optional alternative debris pattern and optical device recited in claim 1.
Further regarding claims 6-7, the claims recite “the sensor is configured to measure…a debris pattern on the substrate using an optical device positioned to image the debris pattern.” However, claim 1 establishes that the sensor is a tachometer or an inertial sensor for detecting rotational velocity. Therefore, the “sensor” as recited in claims 6-7 appears to be inconsistent with the sensor recited in claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, “the sensor” in claims 6-7 will be read as further limiting the optional alternative debris pattern and optical device recited in claim 1.
Claims 13-14 each recite the limitation "the tool stack". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purposes of this examination “the tool stack” will be read as “the random orbital tool”.
Claims 15-16 each recite “an optical device”. However, claim 12 already provides antecedent basis for an optical device as an alternative to the claimed control based on the measured rotational velocity. It is unclear if the optical device recited in claims 15-16 are the same or different from the optical device recited in claim 12. It is further unclear if this recitation in claims 15-16 now requires the debris pattern and optical device which was an optional alternative in claim 12. In other words, in the case where the control based on measured rotational velocity is selected in claim 9, it is unclear if the debris pattern and optical device recited in claims 15-16 is now required by the claim, or if these are merely limitations to an unselected alternative. For the purposes of this examination, these claims will be read as further limiting the optional alternative debris pattern and optical device recited in claim 12.
Further regarding claim 16, the claim recites “The method of claim 12, is measured by”. This is confusingly worded and unclear. It is unclear what measurement is being referred to here. What does it mean to measure the method? The claim later recites “a swarf pattern.” It is unclear if the swarf pattern is the same or different from the debris pattern recited in claim 12, as these terms are synonymous. For the purposes of this examination, claim 16 will be read as further limiting the measurement of the debris pattern recited in claim 12 as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Claim 19 recites “an inertial sensor”. However, claim 1 already recites “an inertial sensor”, making it unclear if claim 19 is referring to the same sensor or not. For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be read as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recite adjusting pressure “responsive to changes in the detected rotational velocity exceeding a predetermined threshold.” It is unclear what “changes in the detected rotational velocity exceeding a predetermined threshold” means. Is there a maximum degree of change in rotational velocity, which triggers a response of adjusting pressure? Is there a maximum number of times that the rotational velocity changes to trigger the response? Is the predetermined threshold a threshold of the detected rotational velocity rather than a change in rotational velocity? As detailed in the 112a rejection above, applicant’s specification does not describe this limitation, which contributes to the confusing scope of the claim. For the purposes of this examination, the threshold of claim 20 will be read as a threshold of the detected rotational velocity which changes during abrasion.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 1-8, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney (US 5077941, previously cited) in view of Bonnet (US 2017/0095900, previously cited), Arcona (US 2008/0032601, previously cited), and Gile (US 4926337, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Whitney teaches a robotic paint repair system comprising a consumable abrasive product (60) configured to abrade a substrate (10); a tool (52) configured to drive the consumable abrasive product along the substrate (col 4, lines 29-31); a backup pad configured to couple with the consumable abrasive product (col 4, lines 41-44; “flexible backing”); a robotic device (50) configured to manipulate the tool (col 4, lines 29-31); a pressure regulating apparatus (including motors 66-70) mountable to the robotic device and configured to apply a desired pressure to the consumable abrasive product (col 6, lines 29-37; force is adjusted by elements 66-70); a sensor (56) positioned and arranged to detect a rotational velocity of the backup pad itself, the sensor comprising a tachometer (as described col 4, lines 34-35), and a pressure controller (62) configured to control the pressure regulating apparatus to apply the desired pressure based upon the at least one of the measured rotational velocity of the backup pad (col 5, lines 35-66; applied pressure is determined in part based on the measured disc speed ω) or (although Whitney teaches the following limitations, note that the control based on debris pattern measurement and optical device is claimed as an alternative to the control based on rotational velocity and thus only one of the claimed alternatives is necessary to meet the claim) a debris pattern from the substrate that results from abrading (col 5, lines 11-40), the debris pattern being measured by an optical device (58; col 4, lines 34-36).
Whitney does not teach the tool being a random orbital tool having a rotational axis offset from a motor drive axis of the tool so as to provide a passive degree of freedom for random orbital motion of the backup pad. Bonnet teaches a robotic abrasive system (fig 3) including a random orbital tool (8, fig 3 with the axes shown in fig 1; [0054]) configured to drive an abrasive in a random orbital motion with a backup pad (3; fig 1) having a rotational axis (6) offset from a motor drive axis (5) of the random orbital tool so as to provide a passive degree of freedom for random orbital motion of the backup pad when driven by the random orbital tool ([0019-0020]). It is obvious to use a known technique to known device to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143 D). Therefore, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a random orbital sander in the repair system of Whitney, including a rotational axis of the backup pad offset from a motor drive axis so as to provide a passive degree of freedom for random orbital rotation of the backup pad, as such random orbital tools are known in the art to have increased abrasive power while limiting marks in the workpiece.
Whitney does not teach the measured rotational velocity being the rotational velocity of the backup pad distinct from a speed of the drive shaft. Arcona teaches an abrasive system including a random orbital tool and a sensor ([0034], [0068]; sensors 110-130 measure both orbital and rotational RPM). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sensor of Whitney to measure a speed of the backup pad distinctly from the speed of the drive shaft, as monitoring this variable and adjusting the operation based on the measurement allows consistent surface quality to be achieved as taught by Arcona ([0068]).
Whitney does not the tachometer being directed at visual indicia on the backup pad. However, it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. (D)). Gile teaches a sensor for rotational velocity comprising a tachometer (80) directed at visual indicia on the rotating surface (fig 2 at 82). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to direct the tachometer of Whitney at visual indicia on the backup pad, as this achieves the predictable result of allowing the rotation to generate a pulse signal which can be read as a rotational velocity as taught by Gile (col 5, lines 13-19).
Regarding claim 2, Whitney, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Whitney further teaches the sensor further comprises (as best understood, this claim is claiming the use of an additional sensor different from the tachometer) a force transducer (col 3, lines 15-16; “force sensor”).
Regarding claim 3, Whitney, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Whitney does not teach a processor configured to compare the rotational velocity of the backup pad to a command speed of the random orbital tool to determine a slip ratio. Arcona further teaches an abrasive system including a processor (“controller”) configured to compare the rotational velocity of the backup pad ([0038-0039]; “rotational speed”) to a commanded speed of the random orbital tool to determine a slip ratio (Arcona describes comparing a measured value such as rotational speed to a predetermined limit, which is akin to the claimed commanded speed as best understood; note that there is no positive recitation of determining a slip ratio). It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. (D)). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a processor configured to compare the rotational velocity of the backup pad to a command speed of the random orbital tool to determine a slip ratio in the system of Whitney, as this achieves the predictable result of allowing the system to determine a malfunction of the system as taught by Arcona ([0038-0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Whitney, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as described above. Gile further teaches the visual indicia (included on the backing pad of Whitney according to the modification described in the rejection of claim 1 above) comprise a plurality of spaced apart lines at predetermined increments around the periphery of the surface (as broadly claimed, the lines forming mark 82 are spaced apart by an increment at the periphery as shown in fig 2 of Gile).
Regarding claim 5, Whitney, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Whitney does not teach the sensor comprises a force transducer configured to detect vibration of the backup pad resulting from an off-axis center of mass of the backup pad or the consumable abrasive product. Arcona further teaches an abrasive system including a sensor (as best understood, the sensor of claim 5 is additional to the sensor recited in claim 1; see 112b rejection above) comprising a force transducer configured to detect vibration ([0037], [0040]) of the backup pad resulting from an off-axis center of mass of the backup pad or the consumable abrasive product (off-axis center of mass is present due to the orbital movement of the tool). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a force transducer configured to detect vibration of the backup pad of Whitney resulting from an off-axis center of mass of the backup pad or the consumable abrasive product, as detecting vibrations allows the system to automatically adjust parameters in response to a measured vibration as taught by Arcona ([0037], [0040]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Whitney, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Whitney further teaches the optical device (58) is positioned to image the debris pattern (as shown in fig 6) and measure a spatial frequency (col 5, lines 11-14; determines “relative widths” of the pattern on the surface) of the debris pattern and intensity differences within the debris pattern (col 5, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 8, Whitney, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Whitney further teaches a robotic controller (64) configured to change an operation or a parameter related to manipulation of the combination of the consumable abrasive product, the random orbital tool, and the backup pad by the robotic device (as shown in fig 6, the robotic controller moves all of these elements) based on data derived from the detected rotational velocity of the backup pad or the debris pattern measured by the optical device (col 5, lines 24-40; col 6, lines 18-37).
Regarding claim 17, Whitney, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Whitney further teaches the robotic device adjusts tool-path velocity (col 1, lines 59-62). Whitney does not explicitly describe adjusting the tool-path velocity based on the detected rotational velocity of the backup pad. However, as Whitney describes that both the tool-path velocity and rotational velocity of the backup pad are parameters which affect the surface finish on the substrate (col 1, line 66-col 2, line 22) and rotational speed is sensed in order to enact controls to affect the operation of the tool (col 5, lines 35-66), it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the tool path velocity adjustment of Whitney based on the detected rotational velocity of the backup pad, achieving the predictable result of controlling the surface finish on the substrate.
Regarding claim 18, Whitney, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Whitney does not teach the robotic device pauses abrading when the rotational velocity of the backup pad falls below a minimum setpoint. Arcona further teaches a sanding device pauses abrading ([0039]; “controller may shut down”) when the rotational velocity of the backup pad falls below a minimum setpoint ([0038-0039] describe that minimum and maximum limits to measured values including rotational velocity may be used to control the device and shut down upon falling outside the limits). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robotic device of Whitney to pause abrading when the rotational velocity falls below a minimum setpoint, as this prevents the device from operating during a malfunction as taught by Arcona ([0038-0039]).
Regarding claim 19, Whitney, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Whitney as modified further teaches the backup pad includes an off-axis center of mass (when the random orbital configuration of Bonnet is employed as described in the rejection of claim 1, the backup pad is off-axis from the motor drive axis; Bonnet fig 1), to generate a beating signal (function achieved by the orbital nature of the tool) detectable by an inertial sensor (note that the claim does not positively recite an inertial sensor in the system; as the beating signal resulting from the orbital configuration is capable of being detected by an inertial sensor, the claimed structure is met).
Regarding claim 20, Whitney, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Whitney further teaches the pressure controller adjusts pressure in real time responsive to changes in the detected rotational velocity which changes during abrasion (col 6, lines 2-12; applied pressure is determined in part based on the measured disc speed ω). Whitney does not teach the control being responsive to the rotational velocity exceeding a predetermined threshold. Arcona further teaches controlling a sanding device responsive to a rotational velocity of the backup pad exceeding a predetermined threshold ([0038-0039] describe that minimum and maximum limits to measured values including rotational velocity may be used to control the device). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robotic device of Whitney to adjust pressure in response to the rotational velocity exceeding a predetermined threshold, as this prevents the device from operating during a malfunction as taught by Arcona ([0038-0039]).
Claim(s) 9-10, 12, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney (US 5077941, previously cited) in view of Bonnet (US 2017/0095900, previously cited) and Arcona (US 2008/0032601, previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Whitney teaches a method of abrading a substrate to perform a repair, comprising: providing a robotic system, the system comprising a backup pad (col 4, lines 41-44; “flexible backing”), a compliant force control configured to apply a pressure to the backup pad (col 6, lines 29-37; force is controlled by elements 66-70), a tool (52) configured to, when actuated, cause the backup pad to rotate against a substrate (col 4, lines 29-31), and a consumable abrasive product (60) configured to couple with the backup pad (col 4, lines 41-44); actuating the tool and causing the consumable abrasive product to contact the substrate (col 6, lines 29-37); detecting a rotational velocity of the backup pad itself using a sensor (56) positioned and arranged to sense rotation of the backup pad (col 4, lines 34-35) and controlling a pressure applied to the consumable abrasive by the compliant force control from the robotic device based on the detected rotational velocity of the backup pad (col 8, lines 6-16).
Whitney does not teach the tool being a random orbital tool having a rotational axis offset from a motor drive axis of the tool so as to provide a passive degree of freedom from random orbital motion of the backup pad. Bonnet teaches a robotic abrasive system (fig 3) including a random orbital tool (8, fig 3 with the axes shown in fig 1; [0054]) with a backup pad (3; fig 1) having a rotational axis (6) offset from a motor drive axis (5) of the random orbital tool so as to provide a passive degree of freedom for random orbital motion of the backup pad when driven by the random orbital tool ([0019-0020]). It is obvious to use a known technique to known device to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143 D). Therefore, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a random orbital sander in the repair method of Whitney, including a rotational axis of the backup pad offset from a motor drive axis so as to provide a passive degree of freedom for random orbital rotation of the backup pad, as such random orbital tools are known in the art to have increased abrasive power while limiting marks in the workpiece.
Whitney does not teach the measured rotational velocity of the backup pad being distinct from a speed of a drive shaft of the tool (although Bonnet renders obvious the use of a random orbital motion which has distinct rotations of the drive shaft and backup pad). Arcona teaches an abrasive system including a random orbital tool and a sensor ([0034], [0068]; sensors 110-130 measure both orbital and rotational RPM). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the sensor of Whitney to measure a speed of the backup pad distinctly from the speed of the drive shaft, as monitoring this variable and adjusting the operation based on the measurement allows consistent surface quality to be achieved as taught by Arcona ([0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Whitney, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Whitney further teaches the rotational velocity of the backup pad is determined from sensor data that is not derived from a motor drive-shaft speed of the random orbital tool (as detailed in the rejection of claim 9 above, Arcona renders obvious the use of a distinct sensor for the backup pad separate from a motor drive shaft; Arcona [0034], [0068]).
Regarding claim 12, Whitney, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Whitney further teaches changing an operation or a parameter related to manipulation of the tool by the robotic device based on data derived from the detected rotational velocity of the backup pad (col 5, lines 35-66; applied pressure is determined in part based on the measured disc speed ω) or (although Whitney teaches the following limitations, note that the control based on debris pattern measurement and optical device is claimed as an alternative to the control based on rotational velocity and thus only one of the claimed alternatives is necessary to meet the claim) a debris pattern measured by an optical device (58) imaging the substrate (col 5, lines 24-40; col 6, lines 18-37).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Whitney, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as described above. Whitney further teaches the debris pattern is measured by the optical device (58) configured to determine a spatial frequency (col 5, lines 11-14; determines “relative widths” of the pattern on the surface) of a swarf patter and intensity differences within a swarf pattern formed on the substrate (col 5, lines 1-6).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney, Bonnet, and Arcona as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gile (US 4926337, previously cited).
Regarding claims 11, Whitney, as modified, teaches all the elements of claim 9 as described above. Whitney further teaches the rotational velocity of the backup pad is detected by a tachometer (col 4, lines 34-35). Whitney does not teach the tachometer observes a plurality of visual indicia on the backup pad. However, it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. (D)). Gile teaches a method of sensing rotational velocity in a grinding system comprising detecting rotational velocity using a tachometer directed at visual indicia on the periphery of the measured surface (fig 2 at 82). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to direct the tachometer of Whitney at visual indicia on the periphery of the backup pad of Whitney, as this achieves the predictable result of allowing the rotation to generate a pulse signal which can be read as a rotational velocity as taught by Gile (col 5, lines 13-19).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney, Bonnet, and Arcona as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Takada (US 6558226, previously cited).
Regarding claims 13-14, Whitney teaches all the elements of claim 9 as described above. Whitney does not teach detecting a vibrational response of the random orbital tool using a force transducer positioned within the tool and determining a beating signal indicative of the rotational velocity of the backup pad resulting from an off-axis center of mass of at least one component of the random orbital tool. Takada teaches a method of abrading a surface including detecting a vibrational response of the random orbital tool using a force transducer positioned within the tool (col 6, lines 48-49; accelerometer) and determining a beating signal indicative of the rotational velocity of the backup pad resulting from an off-axis center of mass of at least one component of the random orbital tool (col 6, lines 38-42; rotational velocity causes vibration due to orbital motion of the tool stack). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the pressure of Whitney by measuring a beating signal with a force transducer within the tool stack to determine a vibrational response due to an off axis center of mass, as this allows the system to maintain the vibrations to within a safe level as taught by Takada (col 6, lines 38-49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 Mar 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments have overcome the previous rejections under 112b. While the previous 112b rejections have been overcome, the current amendments raise new issues under 112b as detailed in the rejections above. Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, applicant argues that Whitney, Bonnet, and Arcona do not address certain claimed features, with particular attention paid to the backup pad having a passive degree of freedom, a sensor for detecting the rotational velocity of the backup pad distinct from a drive-shaft speed, and a pressure controller that uses the measured rotational velocity to control pressure. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the above rejection, Whitney teaches an abrasive tool with a pressure controller that adjusts pressure based on a measured velocity of the backup pad. While Whitney does not teach the tool is a random orbital tool with the backup pad having a passive degree of freedom, such a random orbital tool is widely known in the art as taught by Bonnet. While these references alone teach a rotational measurement of a backup pad and using it to control pressure, and render obvious the use of a random orbital tool, they do not explicitly differentiate between a measurement of the backup pad rotation distinct from the orbital rotation caused by rotation of the drive axis. However, Arcona explicitly teaches that it is known to measure the rotational speed of the backup pad distinctly from the rotational speed of the drive shaft in an orbital tool. Therefore, the prior art as a whole renders obvious the argued features of the claimed invention. Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to incorporate Arcona’s sensing into the system of Whitney. However, the rejection is not based on incorporating the sensor of Arcona into the system of Whitney. The tachometer of Whitney already provides the claimed tachometer structure capable of measuring rotational speed of the backup pad. Arcona is provided to teach that a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to direct that sensor to measure rotational speed of the backup pad when used with an orbital tool. Applicant argues that the rotational velocity measurement is central to the invention. However, this does not negate the teachings of the prior art which describe that this type of measurement is well-known.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the response that the prior art does not teach using a debris pattern as defined in amended claim 1. However, this limitation is claimed as an alternative to the claimed control based on the measured velocity and thus need not be taught by the prior art to render the claims obvious. Furthermore, Whitney explicitly describes an optical device for measuring debris on the surface of the workpiece. There is no structural distinction between the claimed debris pattern measurement and the debris pattern measurement of Whitney.
Applicant argues that the claimed combination yields non-obvious functional results. However, based on the teachings of the prior art and as described in the rejections above, the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, as the prior art fully describes the claimed functions and structure.
Applicant argues that the specification provides adequate support for new claims 17-20. However, as detailed in the 112a rejections above, the specification as originally filed lacks adequate support for claims 3-4, 17-18, and 20.
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 MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights