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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 February, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-14, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II, and Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 28 February, 2025.
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.
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 support body, a displacement device, a control element, engagement elements, and a detection device in claim 1.
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 1 recites:
“a support body”. This limitation is interpreted 35 USC 112(f) as a backing pad and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [Pg. 16] of the specification of the instant application);
“displacement device”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as an anthropomorphic robot and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [Pg.10] of the specification of the instant application);
“a control element”. This limitation is interpreted 35 USC 112(f) as a control surface with third engagement elements and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [Pg. 11] of the specification of the instant application);
“a detection device”. This limitation is interpreted 35 USC 112(f) as a movement sensor, accelerometer, rotation sensor, encoder, limit position sensor, and a force sensor and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [Pg. 14-15] of the specification of the instant application);
“a first engagement element” and “a second engagement element”. These limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as Velcro and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [pg. 10] of the specification of the instant application).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a control system”. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the control system to be synonymous with the control station. However, for clarity of the record and to be consistent with the specification and previous claims, examiner suggests to modify “the control system” as “the control station”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bosio (US 2021/0178549, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 1, Bosio teaches an apparatus (Fig .1) to verify the presence, or the absence, of an abrasive element (Ref. 20, Fig. 2A) in a machine for finishing surfaces (Ref. 100, Fig. 1), said machine comprising:
a support body (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) configured to removably engage said abrasive element (Fig. 2A), said support body and said abrasive element being (Fig. 2B), respectively, provided, at respective engagement surfaces (Ref. 15&25, Fig. 2B) with first and second engagement elements configured to move from an engagement configuration (Fig. 2A) to a disengagement configuration (Fig. 2B), and vice versa ([0060]);
a displacement device (Ref. 40, Fig. 1, [0044]) configured to move said support body according to at least 1 degree of freedom ([0043]);
wherein the apparatus provides a control system (Ref. 120,&70, Fig. 13-17) comprising at least a control device (Ref. 120,&70, Fig. 13-17) for verifying the presence, or the absence, of said abrasive element at said support body ([0065]);
wherein the control device comprises a control element (Ref. 75, 72, 73, & 76, Fig. 17) having a control surface (Ref. 75, Fig. 17);
wherein said displacement device (40) is arranged to bring said support body (10), or the abrasive element (20) constrained to the same, if present, into contact with said control surface (75) of said control element and to cause a movement of said support body (Fig. 18, [0048]);
wherein said control surface is provided with third engagement elements (Ref. 76, Fig. 17) arranged to engage with the first engagement elements (16) provided at the engagement surface of the support body (15&25, [0050]);
wherein a detection device (Ref. 85, Fig. 13-17, [0049]) is configured to detect if an engagement between said third engagement elements of the control surface (76) and the first engagement elements of said support body (16) has taken place by detecting during said movement of said support body by said displacement device ([0049], describes the first support body (16) is movable from the thirds support body (76) and detection device (85) is used to detect force on the elements) that in order to move the support body it is necessary to apply a force greater than a predetermine threshold value, or that also the control element is moved ([0049] describes detecting a force on the element and sending the value to the control device to adjust the motor of the control element to move the third support body (76), Fig. 17).
Regarding Claim 2, Bosio teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein said detection device is configured to detect the force applied by said displacement device on said support body, or said control element ([0049]), to move said support body with respect to said control element (Fig. 17-18), after having brought said support body, or the abrasive element constrained to the same, if present, into contact with said control element ([0049-0050]).
Regarding Claim 3, Bosio teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein said control element is operatively connected free to move to a fixed base body (Ref. 71, Fig. 17, [0050]), and wherein said detection device is configured to detect displacement of said control element with respect to said fixed base body caused by said movement of said support body with respect to said control element, after having brought said support body, or the abrasive element constrained to the same, if present, into contact with said control element ([0049]).
Regarding Claim 4, Bosio teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein said detection device is selected from the group consisting of: a force sensor ([0049] describes a force sensor); a movement sensor; an accelerometer; a rotation sensor; an encoder; a limit position sensor; or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 5, Bosio teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein a stop element (Ref. 74, Fig. 18, [0050]) is, furthermore, provided configured to stop said movement of said control element with respect to said fixed base body (Fig. 18 shows the stop element stopping the control element movement in reciprocating and lateral movement), and to cause said first engagement elements to be disengaged from said third engagement elements (Fig. 17-18).
Regarding Claim 6, Bosio teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further teaches wherein said stop element is configured to move said control element back to a starting position (Fig. 17) with respect to said fixed base body (Fig. 3, [0051] describes a tightening position vs a releasing position, examiner notes that fig. 17 is an embodiment of fig. 3 that is the same except for the detection device (85)).
Regarding Claim 7, Bosio teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein said control element is configured to translate with respect to said fixed base body (Fig. 17-18 show arrows of movement), and wherein said displacement device is arranged to cause said support body to translate along a predetermined translation direction (Fig. 18).
Regarding Claim 8, Bosio teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein said control element is configured to rotate about a first predetermined rotation axis with respect to said fixed base body (Fig. 6 shows the control element rotating about an axis with respect to said fixed base), and wherein said displacement device is arranged to cause said support body to rotate about a second predetermined rotation axis (Ref. 11, [0044], Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 9, Bosio teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further teaches wherein said fixed base body is hollow (Fig. 18) and is a stem (Ref. 72, Fig. 18) is provided having an end (Ref. 73b, Fig. 18) slidingly mounted within said fixed hollow base body and another end (Ref. 73a, Fig. 18) fixed to said control element (Fig. 18), said detection device being arranged to detect the displacement of said control element by detecting of the displacement of said stem (fig. 18 shows the detection device at the end of the stem)
Regarding Claim 10, Bosio teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein said first and second engagement elements are arranged to snap engage one with the other (Fig. 2A-B, [0056-0057]).
Regarding Claim 12, Bosio teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein said displacement device is an anthropomorphic robot having a number of degrees of freedom set between 2 and 6 ([0043] describes an anthropomorphic robot with 5 or 6 degrees of freedom).
Regarding Claim 15, Bosio teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein a processing unit (Ref. 275&300, Fig. 16-18) is, furthermore, provided configured to receive and elaborate the data detected by said detection device ([0049&165]).
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 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bosio (US 2021/0178549, previously presented).
Regarding claim 11, Bosio teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the first and second engagement elements comprise portions of hook and loop structure arranged to reversibly mutually engage with each other. However, Bosio teaches it is old and well known in the art that Velcro (hook and loop structure) is an obvious variant of the threaded connection (16&26) to attach the support head to the abrasive disk ([0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first and second engagement elements, as taught by Bosio, to be Velcro given that it is well known in the art that hook and loop structures are a known obvious variant to the current threaded first and second engagement elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(a) rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 February, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant has amended the claim to recite “…in order to move the support body it is necessary to apply a force than a predetermine threshold value, or that also the control element is moved.” changing the scope of the claim, thereby necessitating reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that Bosio fails to teach the limitation “the detection device is configured to detect if an engagement between said third engagement elements of the control surface and the first engagement elements of said support body has taken place by detecting during said movement of said support body by said displacement device that in order to move the support body it is necessary to apply a force greater than a predetermine threshold value, or that also the control element is moved” has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied Bosio to the 35 USC 102 rejection above. Bosio teaches wherein a detection device (Ref. 85, Fig. 13-17, [0049]) is configured to detect if an engagement between said third engagement elements of the control surface (76) and the first engagement elements of said support body (16) has taken place by detecting during said movement of said support body by said displacement device ([0049], describes the first support body (16) is movable from the thirds support body (76) and detection device (85) is used to detect force on the elements) that in order to move the support body it is necessary to apply a force greater than a predetermine threshold value, or that also the control element is moved ([0049] describes detecting a force on the element and sending the value to the control device to adjust the motor of the control element to move the third support body (76), Fig. 17). Examiner notes that given the detection device being a force sensor, as taught in Bosio, the force sensor would detect the axial movement of the third engagement surface as there would be less force transmitted as it moved away from the first engagement sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Allen (5,733,171), Naderer (2019/0152015), and Ryan (2015/0020369) teach an apparatus with an abrasive element and detecting the presence or absence of the abrasive elements and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
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
Prosecution Insights