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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-11, filed 01/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-13 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Seitz (US3400494) in view of Tsuchida (US6112355), Evers (US20200078940), Hashish (US9370871) and Sanders (US 20200189068 A1).
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:
Measuring mechanism in claim 7
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz (US3400494) in view of Tsuchida (US6112355), Evers (US20200078940), Hashish (US9370871) and Sanders (US 20200189068 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Seitz discloses an underwater polishing system (Column 2, lines 50-60 “Accordingly, referring to the figures, there is shown an apparatus, according to the present invention, in which a tank 110 contains a lubricating material 113 contained within for providing lubrication during the machining operations on a work piece 125. Located within the lubricating solution 113 is a work piece holding device 122 for securing and guiding work piece 125 during the cutting and grinding operations. Disposed at one end of holding device 122 is a pulley 114 containing an endless hollow cord 116 which is woven of abrasion resistant fibres and filled with a plurality of free abrasive particles.”), comprising:
a tank (Figure 1 Element 110) that is configured to store a liquid (Figure 1 Element 113); wherein the tank includes:
a tank body (Figure 1 Element 110);
a circulating pipe configured to circulate the liquid in the tank (Figure 1 Elements 104 and 106);
a polishing machine (Column 4, lines 42-45 “The abrasive cord 116 need not have a circular cross-section but may be a flat belt or triangular to perform either cutting or grinding, or both.”) that includes a first rotating roller (Figure 1 Element 111), a second rotating roller (Figure 1 Element 114), and a polishing tool (Figure 1 Element 116) bridged to the first rotating roller and the second rotating roller (Figure 1 shows polishing tool 116 between the first 111 and second rotating rollers 114), and in which at least a part of the second rotating roller and at least a part of the polishing tool are immersed in the liquid stored in the tank (Figure 1 Polishing tool 116 and second rotating roller 114 are at least partially submerged in liquid 113).
Seitz fails to explicitly disclose a straightening plate in the tank body, wherein the straightening plate divides the tank body into two regions; and
wherein the circulating pipe is open to two points on a bottom surface of the tank body (Seitz does disclose the circulating pipe is open to two points on the tank body);
Wherein the pump is in a path of the circulating pipe and is configured to return the liquid to the bottom surface of the tank (Seitz does disclose a pump (102) and separator (105) that returns liquids to the tank, Pump 102 is in the slurry and lubricant circulation portion but not in the portion where just the lubricant is returned to the tank (106))
a robot that includes an arm portion configured to hold a workpiece (Seitz does disclose a carriage 128 which holds workpiece 125), which is an object to be machined, and that is configured to operate the arm portion and move at least a part of the held workpiece from an outside of the tank into the liquid stored in the tank and from the liquid stored in the tank to the outside of the tank; and
in a state where the workpiece is held by the arm portion of the robot, at least the part of the second rotating roller and at least the part of the polishing tool of the polishing machine are immersed in the liquid stored in the tank (Seitz does disclose polishing tool 116 and second rotating roller 114 are immersed in liquid 113 of tank 110 when the workpiece 125 is held by carriage 128),
the held workpiece is polished by operating the arm portion of the robot and pressing the held workpiece against the polishing tool (Seitz does disclose carriage 128 urges workpiece 125 against polishing tool 116. Column 3, lines 5-8 “Shaft 127 may be suitably geared to carriage 128 to travel along the stationary rack 126 of holding piece 122 so as to urge work piece 125 against the abrasive cord at a predetermined cutting rate.”), and
by the straightening plate, a flow of the liquid toward a traveling direction frontward side of the polishing tool is formed in a polishing point where the polishing tool is in contact with the workpiece (The direction of flow is determined by the location of the fluid entering and exiting the tank. A flow entering the tank at the frontward side of the polishing tool and exiting at the opposite side of the polishing tool would be interpreted to flow toward the frontward side).
Tsuchida teaches a washing apparatus for immersed workpieces (Abstract and Column 1, Field Of The Invention) comprising a straightening plate (Figure 2 Element 5) in the tank body, wherein the straightening plate divides the tank body into two regions (Column 3, lines 13-21 “To render the rising flow of the washing liquid 3 uniform and parallel, a straightening vane 5 including multiple through-holes 5a is provided inside the inner vessel 2A and above the liquid-supply pipe 4. The straightening vane 5 consists of a plate of synthetic resin in which the through-holes are drilled at a desired size. Although the illustrated example includes only one straightening vane 5, multiple such vanes may be provided at appropriate intervals. In this case, the size of through-holes may be the same or different.” The straightening plate 5 divides the tank between a region in which the fluid flow into the tank and a region in which the fluid introduced into the tank flows past the straightening plate toward the polishing tool and where the fluid exits the tank and enters the circulating pipe, the portion of the tank below 5 is the first region, while the remainder of the tank and flow space towards 8 and 9 form the second region); and
a circulating pipe (Figure 2 Elements 4 and 8, 9) configured to circulate the liquid in the tank (Column 2, line 65- Column 3, line 7 “A liquid-supply pipe 4 that supplies a washing liquid is provided in the internal bottom portion of the inner vessel 2A in such a way that its ejection opening 4a faces downward. The liquid-supply pipe 4 is connected to a liquid source (not shown) that supplies tap water, purified water, a washing solution, or a chemical agent. The washing liquid 3 ejected downward from the ejection opening 4a of the liquid supply pipe 4 collides against the bottom of the vessel, changes its course, then rises through the vessel before overflowing from the upper end of a vessel wall.” Column 3, lines 27-32 “A discharge opening 8, through which the washing liquid overflowing from the inner vessel 2A is discharged, is formed in the bottom wall of the outer vessel 2B, and the discharge opening 8 is connected to a recovery tank 10 via a recovery pipe 9. The washing liquid collected in the recovery tank 10 can be purified and recycled.” Column 5, lines 53-57 “The washing liquid 3 is continuously supplied to the inside of the inner vessel 2A through the liquid-supply pipe 4 provided at the bottom of the vessel, and then rises through the inner vessel 2A to overflow from the upper end of the vessel wall.”), wherein the circulating pipe is open to two points on a bottom surface of the tank body (Figure 2 Elements 4 and 9 are open on two points on a bottom surface of the tank body).
The circulating pipe includes:
A first pipe (8 and 9) that opens to a first point of the two points on the bottom surface in a first region of the two regions divided by the straightening plate (8 and 9, allow for liquid from the upper side of the straightening plate 5 in Fig. 2 to exit the tank); and
A second pipe (4) that opens to a second point of the two points on the bottom surface in a second region of the two regions divided by the straightening plate (second region being Below straightening plate 5 where pipe 4 is located),
The first pipe (8 and 9) is configured to suck the liquid from the tank body (the first pipe is an exit pipe capable of sucking liquid from the tank body to recovery tank 10), and
The second pipe (4) is configured to discharge the liquid to the tank body (Col 2 Line 65- Col 3 Line 3 “A liquid-supply pipe 4 that supplies a washing liquid is provided in the internal bottom portion of the inner vessel 2A in such a way that its ejection opening 4a faces downward. The liquid-supply pipe 4 is connected to a liquid source (not shown) that supplies tap water, purified water, a washing solution, or a chemical agent”);
Wherein a pump is configured to provide liquid to the bottom surface of the tank body (See Col 3 Line 1-3 “The liquid-supply pipe 4 is connected to a liquid source (not shown) that supplies tap water, purified water, a washing solution, or a chemical agent.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seitz to incorporate the teachings of Tsuchida to provide a straightening plate dividing the tank body into two regions and a circulating pipe open to two points on opposite sides of the straightening plate and on the bottom surface of the tank body. Doing so would allow the fluid entering the tank to flow through a straightening plate and be rendered uniform and parallel before reaching the polishing tool then exiting the tank to be recirculated.
Evers teaches a robot polishing system (Abstract), comprising:
a robot (Figure 1 Element 12) that includes an arm portion (Figure 1 Element 16) configured to hold a workpiece (Column 16 “The industrial robot 12 has an articulating arm 16 that moves a tool head 18 in accordance with programming. In the shown embodiment, the tool head 18 is a gripper specifically designed to lift a particularly shaped object 20 for finishing.”), which is an object to be machined (Workpiece 20 is an object for finishing), and that is configured to operate the arm portion and move at least a part of the held workpiece from an outside of the polishing area to the polishing tool and from the polishing tool to the outside of the polishing area (Figures 1 and 2 shows the held workpiece 20 is moved around the workspace and into and out of the polishing area of polishing tool 40. Paragraph 0025 “Referring to FIG. 4 in conjunction with FIG. 3, it will be understood that a workspace is configured by mounting the industrial robot 12 upon the dynamic platform assembly 14 and positioning the work surfaces 41 of the finishing machines 40 in reach of the industrial robot.”); and
a polishing machine (Paragraph 0023 “The finishing machines 40 have working surfaces 41 capable of finishing some element of the object 20 being manipulated by the industrial robot 12. For example, the finishing machines 40 can be a grinding machine and a belt sander for removing burrs from the object 20.”) that includes a first rotating roller (See Evers Annotated Figure 2 below), a second rotating roller (See Evers Annotated Figure 2 below), and a polishing tool (See Evers Annotated Figure 2 below) bridged to the first rotating roller and the second rotating roller (See Evers Annotated Figure 2 below), wherein
the held workpiece is polished by operating the arm portion of the robot and pressing the held workpiece against the polishing tool (Figure 2 shows the arm portion pressing the workpiece against the polishing tool).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seitz in view of Tsuchida to incorporate the teachings of Evers to provide a robot having an arm portion configured to press a held workpiece against a polishing tool bridged between a first and second rotating roller. Doing so would allow the workpiece to be held for polishing while an operator remains a safe distance from the polishing machine.
Hashish teaches an underwater machining system (Abstract), comprising:
a tank (Figure 7 Element 122) that is configured to store a liquid (Figure 7 Element 123);
a robot (Figure 7 Element 112) that includes an arm portion configured to hold a workpiece (Column 10, lines 4-7 “The robotic motion system 112 may include an end effector 115, such as a gripper, at the working end thereof for selectively gripping the workpiece 114 for manipulation opposite the fluid jet.” Figure 7 shows Workpiece 114 is held by a gripper 115 of the robot), which is an object to be machined, and that is configured to operate the arm portion and move at least a part of the held workpiece from an outside of the tank into the liquid stored in the tank and from the liquid stored in the tank to the outside of the tank (Column 10, lines 10-14 “The tank 122 is positioned within the working envelope of the multi-axis robotic motion system 112 to enable the workpiece 114 to be at least partially submerged under fluid 123 (e.g., water) within the tank 122 during workpiece processing operations” Figures 4-7 show the arm portion of the robot moves workpiece 114 in and out of the tank 122 during the processing of the workpiece); and
the held workpiece is machined by operating the arm portion of the robot and pressing the held workpiece against the machining tool (Column 9, line 65 to Column 10, line 4 “The fluid jet cutting system 110 includes a multi-axis robotic motion system 112 , such as an industrial multiaxial robotic arm, which is configured to manipulate a workpiece 114 (e.g., composite aircraft parts) within a working envelope of the motion system 112 defined by its range of motion to be processed by a high pressure fluid jet (e.g., waterjet or abrasive waterjet).” The arm portion of robot 112 manipulates the workpiece 114 for processing by machining tools 118 and 119).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seitz in view of Tsuchida and Evers to incorporate the teachings of Hashish to further provide a robot including an arm portion configured to hold a workpiece and move the workpiece into and out of a tank for processing. Doing so would allow the workpiece to be precisely positioned by a robot during machining and allow operators to maintain a safe distance from the fluid tank and machining tools.
Finally, Sanders discloses similar apparatus circulating abrasive fluid, wherein a pump (154) is in a path of the circulating pipe after a filter (152).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Seitz as modified to include a pump and control valve to deliver fluid from the filter of Seitz back to tank as doing so would allow for an operator to control or adjust the pressure of the circulating system, See Para [0062] of Sanders.
PNG
media_image1.png
894
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Seitz in view of Tsuchida, Evers, and Hashish teaches the underwater polishing system according to claim 1 but fail to explicitly teach wherein
the first rotating roller is a driving roller and the second rotating roller is a driven roller. (Seitz does teach in column 2, line 70 to Column 3, line 4 “Pulley 114, which receives cord 116 from pulley 111 after the machining of work piece 125, is connected to 3 shaft 127 which is trunnioned on one end of holding piece 122 and driven by a conventional motor or other drive means (not shown) at a constant or at a variable rate depending on the type of material to be machined” And Evers teaches in Paragraph 0023 “For example, the finishing machines 40 can be a grinding machine and a belt sander for removing burrs from the object 20 .” Further Evers Annotated Figure 2 shows the first rotating roller connected to what is interpreted to be a motor for driving the roller)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify the first rotating roller to be a driving roller and the second rotating roller to be a driven roller. Since such a modification would involve a rearrangement of parts. A rearrangement of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Changing the driving roller and driven roller would be required when determining where to position the motor for driving the roller. Making the first rotating roller a driving roller would allow the motor driving the roller to be positioned away from the robot arm and prevent the motor from contacting or interfering with positioning of the workpiece during polishing. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the relative positioning of components is a design choice required to fit the components in a space without interference.
Regarding claim 5, Seitz in view of Tsuchida, Evers, and Hashish teaches the underwater polishing system according to claim 1, further comprising: a filter configured to purify the liquid circulating in the tank (Seitz Figure 1 Element 105 is a separator and filter. Seitz column 3, line 66 to Column 4, line 10 disclose the pump for circulating the fluid in the tank and the separator and filter 105 for purifying the liquid circulating in the tank).
Regarding claim 8, Seitz in view of Tsuchida, Evers, and Hashish teaches the underwater polishing system according to claim 1, wherein
the arm portion that holds the workpiece includes a force sensor (Evers paragraph 0024 “The working surface 41 of each finishing machine 40 creates some force that acts upon the object 20 being finished. The crossed roller rotary table 36 rotates the industrial robot 12 into an orientation so that when the finishing machine 40 acts upon the object 20, the force is capable of being counteracted by the active contact flange 32. ...As a result, the programmed force at which a finishing machine engages an object is dynamically maintained.”).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz in view of Tsuchida, Evers, Hashish, and Sanders as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida (JPS63267155).
Regarding claim 3, Seitz in view of Tsuchida, Evers, and Hashish teaches the underwater polishing system according to claim 1 but fails to explicitly teach wherein
An entirety of the polishing tool is immersed in the liquid in the tank to perform polishing.
Yoshida teaches an underwater polishing system (NPL-U page 1, lines 3-5 “CONSTITUTION: A polishing device is filled with a polishing liquid 13, in which pulleys 8a, 8b, 8c which are connected by a belt 10 of polyurethane, etc. are immersed to cause the flowing movement of the liquid.”) wherein an entirety of the polishing tool is immersed in the liquid in the tank to perform polishing (Figure 1 polishing tool 10 is completely immersed in liquid 13 of tank 1. NPL-U page 1, lines 5-8 “Then, the form and set position of the pulley 8a is adjusted so as to obtain the desired shape of the face to be polished of a polished object 2. And, the belt 10 is moved on the pulley 8 causing the polishing liquid 13 to flow, and a rotary shaft 5 on which the polished object 2 is mounted is rotated at a very low speed by a motor 4.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seitz in view of Tsuchida, Evers, and Hashish to incorporate the teachings of Yoshida to provide a polishing tool completely immersed in the liquid in the tank to perform polishing. Doing so would allow the shape of the face of the polishing tool to be adjusted to a desired shape and also allow the movement of the polishing tool to create a flow of liquid across the face of the workpiece.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz in view of Tsuchida, Evers, Hashish and Sanders as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Toshiro (JP2525892)
Regarding claim 6, Seitz in view of Tsuchida, Evers, and Hashish teaches the underwater polishing system according to claim 5 but fails to explicitly teach
a cylindrical rotating brush located upstream of the filter and configured to clean a surface of the polishing tool.
Toshiro teaches a belt polishing system comprising a cylindrical rotating brush (Figure 3 Element 22) configured to clean a surface of the polishing tool (NPL-V page 7, paragraph 6 “In the cleaning liquid tank 21, a scrubber roll 22 that is brought into rolling contact with the polishing belt 18 is disposed on the side where the polishing belt 18 attached to the rotary tool 11 exits from the cleaning liquid. The scrubber roll 22 has a brush shape and removes grinding dust and the like adhering to the polishing belt 18.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seitz in view of Tsuchida, Evers, and Hashish to incorporate the teachings of Toshiro to provide a cylindrical rotating brush upstream of the filter to clean the surface of the polishing tool. Doing so would allow the loose debris to be scrubbed from the polishing tool into the filter and prevent the debris from scratching the workpiece during polishing.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz in view of Tsuchida, Evers, Hashish and Sanders as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Fukuda (WO2017188239).
Regarding claim 7, Seitz in view of Tsuchida, Evers, and Hashish teaches the underwater polishing system according to claim 1 but fails to explicitly teach
a measuring mechanism configured to measure a polishing amount of the workpiece. Evers does teach in paragraph 0020 “The low-friction linear slide 28 is connected to an active contact flange 32 that governs its linear movements. The active contact flange 32 is a computer-controlled device that can expand and contract in one operational direction while always providing a constant pressure in that operational direction. The operational direction of the active contact flange 32 is shown by arrow 34.” And paragraph 0024 “The working surface 41 of each finishing machine 40 creates some force that acts upon the object 20 being finished. The crossed roller rotary table 36 rotates the industrial robot 12 into an orientation so that when the finishing machine 40 acts upon the object 20, the force is capable of being counteracted by the active contact flange 32. ...As a result, the programmed force at which a finishing machine engages an object is dynamically maintained.” Contact flange 32 may be interpreted as a mechanism which measures an amount of polishing of the workpiece by measuring the force between the polishing tool and the workpiece and controlling the positioning of the robot to dynamically maintain the force. Fukuda has been recited to further teach that the polishing amount may also be measured by a displacement sensor contacting the workpiece to measure the change in a size of the workpiece.
Fukuda teaches a machine tool system (Abstract) comprising a measuring mechanism (This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a base, slider, measuring device and measuring control unit, with corresponding algorithm [See FIG. 8 and corresponding paragraphs 0071-0073 of instant application], to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof; Figure 1 Element 70, (NPL-W page 12, paragraph 4 “The control device 700 controls driving of various motors (Z-axis motor 11, main shaft motor 24, X-axis motor 31, grinding wheel motor 41), control of the amount of coolant supplied from the coolant supply device 60, and work by the sizing device 70”) configured to measure a polishing amount of the workpiece (NPL-W page 4, paragraph 1 “The sizing device 70 is provided so as to be in contact with the workpiece W on the opposite side of the grinding wheel 40 across the table 10. The sizing device 70 measures the outer diameter of the workpiece W ground by the grinding wheel 40.” Page 22, paragraph 5 “When the grinding condition determination unit 1550 determines that the outer diameter of the workpiece W has reached the predetermined dimension D1 based on the measurement result by the sizing device 70…” Last paragraph of page 25 and ending on page 26 “When the grinding condition determination unit 1750 determines that the outer diameter of the workpiece W has reached the predetermined dimension D1 based on the measurement result by the sizing device 70 and the position of the grinding wheel base 30 in the X-axis direction…”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seitz in view of Tsuchida, Evers, and Hashish to incorporate the teachings of Fukuda to provide a measuring mechanism configured to measure a polishing amount of the workpiece by measuring a change in a dimension of the workpiece by contact with a displacement sensor. Doing so would allow the change in the dimensions of the workpiece to be measured during polishing to account for potential errors in the force due to wear on the belt and change in tension.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evers (US20200078940) in view of Seitz (US3400494), Tsuchida (US6112355), Hashish (US9370871), and Sanders (US 20200189068 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Evers discloses a polishing method (Abstract), comprising:
a workpiece holding step of holding (Paragraph 0016 “The industrial robot 12 has an articulating arm 16 that moves a tool head 18 in accordance with programming. In the shown embodiment, the tool head 18 is a gripper specifically designed to lift a particularly shaped object 20 for finishing. The industrial robot 12 is controlled by a programmable computer controller 22 that can be preprogrammed with complex movement patterns for the articulating arm 16.” And Paragraph 0018 “The industrial robot 12 is programmed to lift the object 20 in need of finishing and manipulate the object 20 in accordance with its position-versus-time programming.”), by an arm portion of a robot, a workpiece, which is an object to be machined (Robot 12 has an arm portion 18 holding workpiece 20 for machining);
a polishing machine driving step of driving a polishing tool that is bridged to a first rotating roller and a second rotating roller of a polishing machine (Paragraph 0023 “The finishing machines 40 have working surfaces 41 capable of finishing some element of the object 20 being manipulated by the industrial robot 12. For example, the finishing machines 40 can be a grinding machine and a belt sander for removing burrs from the object 20.” See Evers Annotated Figure 2. Element 40 is interpreted to be a belt sander having a first rotating roller, a second rotating roller, and a polishing tool bridged between the rollers and driven to provide polishing); and
a polishing step of polishing the held workpiece by operating the arm portion of the robot and pressing the held workpiece against the polishing tool (Figure 2 shows a step of robot 12 operating arm portion 18 to press workpiece 20 against polishing tool 40).
Evers fails to explicitly disclose an underwater polishing method, comprising a liquid storing step of storing a liquid in a tank, wherein the tank includes:
a tank body; and
a straightening plate in the tank body, wherein the straightening plate divides the tank body into two regions;
a circulating step of circulating, by a circulating pipe, the liquid in the tank, wherein the circulating pipe is open to two points on a bottom surface of the tank body; and
a polishing step of polishing the held workpiece by operating the arm portion of the robot and pressing the held workpiece against the polishing tool, in a state where the workpiece is held by the arm portion of the robot, at least a part of the second rotating roller and at least a part of the polishing tool of the polishing machine are immersed in the liquid stored in the tank, wherein
by the straightening plate, a flow of the liquid toward a traveling direction frontward side of the polishing tool is formed in a polishing point where the polishing tool and the workpiece are in contact with each other.
Seitz teaches an underwater polishing method (Abstract), comprising:
a workpiece holding step of holding, by a workpiece holding device, a workpiece, which is an object to be machined (Column 2, lines 54-57 “Located within the lubricating solution 113 is a work piece holding device 122 for securing and guiding work piece 125 during the cutting and grinding operations.”);
a polishing machine driving step of driving a polishing tool that is bridged to a first rotating roller and a second rotating roller of a polishing machine (Column 2, line 70 to Column 3, line 4 “Pulley 114, which receives cord 116 from pulley 111 after the machining of work piece 125, is connected to shaft 127 which is trunnioned on one end of holding piece 122 and driven by a conventional motor or other drive means (not shown) at a constant or at a variable rate depending on the type of material to be machined.”);
a liquid storing step of storing a liquid in a tank (Column 2, lines 50-54 “Accordingly, referring to the figures, there is shown an apparatus, according to the present invention, in which a tank 110 contains a lubricating material 113 contained within for providing lubrication during the machining operations on a work piece 125.”), wherein the tank includes:
a tank body (Figure 1 Element 110); and
a circulating step of circulating, by a circulating pipe (Figure 1 Elements 104 and 106), the liquid in the tank (Column 3, line 66 - Column 4, line 1 “Another advantage according to the invention is that the abrasive particles may be collected at the bottom of tank 110 by conduit 104 together with the byproducts of the cutting and grinding operation and separated by separator 105 in any number of conventional ways and be reinserted back into the abrasive cord. Separator 105 removes the abrasive articles from the lubricant 113 and the byproducts of the grinding and cutting operation and returns the lubricant back into the bath through conduit 106”); and
a polishing step of polishing the held workpiece by operating the workpiece holding device and pressing the held workpiece against the polishing tool (Column 3, lines 55-58 “Shaft 127 may be suitably geared to carriage 128 to travel along the stationary rack 126 of holding piece 122 so as to urge work piece 125 against the abrasive cord at a predetermined cutting rate.”), in a state where the workpiece is held by the workpiece holding device, at least a part of the second rotating roller and at least a part of the polishing tool of the polishing machine are immersed in the liquid stored in the tank (As shown in Figure 1, workpiece 125 is held by carriage 128 of workpiece holding device 122, and at least part of second rotating roller 114 and polishing tool 116 are immersed in the liquid 113 stored in tank 110).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Evers to incorporate the teachings of Seitz to provide a step of storing a liquid in a liquid tank; and a step of polishing the workpiece by pressing the held workpiece against a polishing tool bridged to a second rotating roller immersed in the liquid stored in the tank. Doing so would allow the workpiece to be polished while in a lubricating fluid that dissipates heat and reduces lattice deformation of the workpiece surfaces during polishing.
Evers in view of Seitz fails to teach a straightening plate in the tank body, wherein the straightening plate divides the tank body into two regions;
a circulating step of circulating, by a circulating pipe, the liquid in the tank, wherein the circulating pipe is open to two points on a bottom surface of the tank body; and wherein
by the straightening plate, a flow of the liquid toward a traveling direction frontward side of the polishing tool is formed in a polishing point where the polishing tool is in contact with the workpiece (The direction of flow is determined by the location of the fluid entering and exiting the tank. A flow entering the tank at the frontward side of the polishing tool and exiting at the opposite side of the polishing tool would be interpreted to flow toward the frontward side).
Tsuchida teaches a scrub-washing method (Abstract and Column 1, Field Of The Invention) comprising a straightening plate (Figure 2 Element 5) in the tank body, wherein the straightening plate divides the tank body into two regions (Column 3, lines 13-21 “To render the rising flow of the washing liquid 3 uniform and parallel, a straightening vane 5 including multiple through-holes 5a is provided inside the inner vessel 2A and above the liquid-supply pipe 4. The straightening vane 5 consists of a plate of synthetic resin in which the through-holes are drilled at a desired size. Although the illustrated example includes only one straightening vane 5, multiple such vanes may be provided at appropriate intervals. In this case, the size of through-holes may be the same or different.” The straightening plate 5 divides the tank between a region in which the fluid flow into the tank and a region in which the fluid introduced into the tank flows past the straightening plate toward the polishing tool and where the fluid exits the tank and enters the circulating pipe, the portion of the tank below 5 is the first region, while the remainder of the tank and flow space towards 8 and 9 form the second region);
a circulating step of circulating, by a circulating pipe (Figure 2 Elements 4 and 9), the liquid in the tank (Column 2, line 65- Column 3, line 7 “A liquid-supply pipe 4 that supplies a washing liquid is provided in the internal bottom portion of the inner vessel 2A in such a way that its ejection opening 4a faces downward. The liquid-supply pipe 4 is connected to a liquid source (not shown) that supplies tap water, purified water, a washing solution, or a chemical agent. The washing liquid 3 ejected downward from the ejection opening 4a of the liquid supply pipe 4 collides against the bottom of the vessel, changes its course, then rises through the vessel before overflowing from the upper end of a vessel wall.” Column 3, lines 27-32 “A discharge opening 8, through which the washing liquid overflowing from the inner vessel 2A is discharged, is formed in the bottom wall of the outer vessel 2B, and the discharge opening 8 is connected to a recovery tank 10 via a recovery pipe 9. The washing liquid collected in the recovery tank 10 can be purified and recycled.” Column 5, lines 53-57 “The washing liquid 3 is continuously supplied to the inside of the inner vessel 2A through the liquid-supply pipe 4 provided at the bottom of the vessel, and then rises through the inner vessel 2A to overflow from the upper end of the vessel wall.”), wherein the circulating pipe is open to two points on a bottom surface of the tank body (Figure 2 Elements 4 and 9 are open on two points on a bottom surface of the tank body), wherein The circulating pipe includes:
A first pipe (8 and 9) that opens to a first point of the two points on the bottom surface in a first region of the two regions divided by the straightening plate (8 and 9, allow for liquid from the other side of the straightening plate to exit the tank); and
A second pipe (4) that opens to a second point of the two points on the bottom surface in a second region of the two regions divided by the straightening plate (Below straightening plate 5),
The first pipe (8 and 9) is configured to suck the liquid from the tank body (the first pipe is an exit pipe capable of sucking liquid from the tank body to recovery tank 10), and
The second pipe (4) is configured to discharge the liquid to the tank body (Col 2 Line 65- Col 3 Line 3 “A liquid-supply pipe 4 that supplies a washing liquid is provided in the internal bottom portion of the inner vessel 2A in such a way that its ejection opening 4a faces downward. The liquid-supply pipe 4 is connected to a liquid source (not shown) that supplies tap water, purified water, a washing solution, or a chemical agent”);
Wherein the pump is in a path of the circulating pipe and is configured to return the liquid to the bottom surface of the tank (Seitz does disclose a pump (102) and separator (105) that returns liquids to the tank, Pump 102 is in the slurry and lubricant circulation portion but not in the portion where just the lubricant is returned to the tank (106))
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Evers in view of Seitz to incorporate the teachings of Tsuchida to provide a straightening plate dividing the tank body into two regions and a circulating step of circulating the liquid in the tank by a circulating pipe open to two points on either side of the separation plate on the bottom surface of the tank body. Doing so would allow the fluid entering the tank to flow through a straightening plate and be rendered uniform and parallel before reaching the polishing tool then exiting the tank to be recirculated.
Hashish teaches an underwater machining method, comprising:
a workpiece holding step of holding, by an arm portion of a robot, a workpiece, which is an object to be machined (Column 10, lines 4-7 “The robotic motion system 112 may include an end effector 115, such as a gripper, at the working end thereof for selectively gripping the workpiece 114 for manipulation opposite the fluid jet.” Figure 7 shows Workpiece 114 is held by a gripper 115 of the robot);
a liquid storing step of storing a liquid in a tank (Figure 7 liquid 123 is stored in tank 122); and
a machining step of machining the held workpiece by operating the arm portion of the robot and pressing the held workpiece against the machining tool, in a state where the workpiece is held by the arm portion of the robot, at least a part of the machining tool are immersed in the liquid stored in the tank (Column 10, lines 10-14 “The tank 122 is positioned within the working envelope of the multi-axis robotic motion system 112 to enable the workpiece 114 to be at least partially submerged under fluid 123 (e.g., water) within the tank 122 during workpiece processing operations” Figures 4-7 show the arm portion of the robot moves workpiece 114 in and out of the tank 122 during the processing of the workpiece).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Evers in view of Seitz and Tsuchida to incorporate the teachings of Hashish to provide a step of a robot arm holding a workpiece and operating the arm to press the workpiece against an at least partially immersed machining tool. Doing so would allow the robot arm to immerse the workpiece into the fluid tank while an operator remains a safe distance from the machining tools and splashing of the fluid.
Regarding claim 11, Evers in view of Seitz, Tsuchida, and Hashish teaches the underwater polishing method according to claim 9, wherein
in the polishing step, the flow of the liquid toward a rotating direction frontward side of the second rotating roller is formed in the polishing point where the polishing tool is in contact with the workpiece (Seitz Column 3, line 72 to Column 4, line 1 “Separator 105 removes the abrasive articles from the lubricant 113 and the byproducts of the grinding and cutting operation and returns the lubricant back into the bath through conduit 106.” Figure 1 shows the fluid flows from conduit 106 in a direction toward the frontward side of the polishing tool where the workpiece and polishing tool contact each other). (Claim 9, last 3 lines recite the limitation “…a flow of the liquid toward a traveling direction frontward side of the polishing tool is formed in a polishing point where the polishing tool and the workpiece are in contact with each other.”. Claim 11 recites “…the flow of the liquid toward a rotating direction frontward side of the second rotating roller is formed in the polishing point where the polishing tool and the workpiece are in contact with each other.” As understood from Paragraphs 0061-0064 and Figure 5 of the Instant Application, the flow is formed in the polishing point where the polishing tool and the workpiece are in contact with each other toward the direction in which the frontward side of the polishing tool travels and the frontward side of the second rotating roller rotates. As modified by Evers in view of Seitz, Tsuchida, and Hashish, the second rotating roller rotates in the counter-clockwise direction and therefore the traveling direction and flow would be from the right side to the left side of the tank)
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evers in view of Seitz, Tsuchida, Hashish and Sanders as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yoshida (JPS63267155).
Regarding claim 10, Evers in view of Seitz, Tsuchida, and Hashish teaches the underwater polishing method according to claim 9 but fails to explicitly teach wherein
in the polishing step, the first rotating roller, the second rotating roller, and the polishing tool of the polishing machine are immersed in the liquid.
Yoshida teaches an underwater polishing method (NPL-U page 1, lines 3-5 “CONSTITUTION:A polishing device is filled with a polishing liquid 13, in which pulleys 8a, 8b, 8c which are connected by a belt 10 of polyurethane, etc. are immersed to cause the flowing movement of the liquid.”) wherein in the polishing step, the first rotating roller, the second rotating roller, and the polishing tool of the polishing machine are immersed in the liquid (Figure 1 polishing tool 10 is completely immersed in liquid 13 of tank 1. NPL-U page 1, lines 5-8 “Then, the form and set position of the pulley 8a is adjusted so as to obtain the desired shape of the face to be polished of a polished object 2. And, the belt 10 is moved on the pulley 8 causing the polishing liquid 13 to flow, and a rotary shaft 5 on which the polished object 2 is mounted is rotated at a very low speed by a motor 4.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Evers in view of Seitz, Tsuchida, and Hashish to incorporate the teachings of Yoshida to provide, in the polishing step, the first rotating roller, the second rotating roller, and the polishing tool of the polishing machine are immersed in the liquid. Doing so would allow the shape of the face of the polishing tool to be adjusted to a desired shape and also allow the movement of the polishing tool to create a flow of liquid across the face of the workpiece.
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evers in view of Seitz, Tsuchida, Hashish and Sanders as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Fukuda (WO2017188239).
Regarding claim 12, Evers in view of Seitz, Tsuchida, and Hashish teaches the underwater polishing method according to claim 9 but fail to explicitly teach
a polishing amount measuring step of taking out the workpiece held by the arm portion of the robot from the liquid in the tank and measuring a polishing amount of the workpiece, after the polishing step. (Hashish does teach a step of removing the workpiece from the tank after processing and inspecting the workpiece, but does not explicitly teach inspecting includes measuring a polishing amount of the workpiece. Column 11, lines 49-54 “In some embodiments, an inspection station may be located outside of the tank 122 within the working envelope defined by the range of motion of the multi-axis robotic motion system 112 to enable inspection of the workpiece 114 prior to or after submersion and processing within the tank 122.”)
Fukuda teaches a polishing method wherein a polishing amount measuring step of measuring a polishing amount of the workpiece, after the polishing step (NPL-W page 17, paragraphs 5 and 6 “Grinding is performed sequentially in four steps: roughing, semi-finishing, finishing and spark-out. The machine tool 1001 rotates the grinding tool 1041 in a state where the feed of the grinding wheel platform 30 in the X-axis direction is stopped at the time of sparking out. It should be noted that the traverse speed in the Z-axis direction of the table 10 in each step, the number of times of traverse grinding, and the amount of movement (cutting amount) of the grindstone table 30 in the X-axis direction after one traverse grinding is completed, It is predetermined.
The depth of cut during rough machining is greater than the depth of cut during intermediate finishing, and the depth of cut during intermediate finishing is greater than the depth of cut during finishing. The machine tool 1001 rotates the grinding tool 1041 in a state where the feed of the grinding wheel platform 30 in the X-axis direction is stopped at the time of sparking out. The sizing device 70 measures the outer diameter of the workpiece W after the traverse feed in the Z-axis direction of the table 10 is completed until the next traverse feed is started.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Evers in view of Seitz, Tsuchida, and Hashish to incorporate the teachings of Fukuda to provide a step of measuring the polishing amount of the workpiece after the polishing step. Doing so would allow the workpiece to be inspected after the polishing step to determine if polishing is complete or additional polishing is required.
Regarding claim 13, Evers in view of Seitz, Tsuchida, Hashish, and Fukuda teaches the underwater polishing method according to claim 12, further comprising (NPL-W page 22, paragraph 5 “When the grinding condition determination unit 1550 determines that the outer diameter of the workpiece W has reached the predetermined dimension D1 based on the measurement result by the sizing device 70, the grinding condition determination unit 1550 changes the feed rate of the grindstone table 30 and starts the rough machining. Transition to finishing. Similarly, when the grinding condition determination unit 1550 determines that the outer diameter of the workpiece W has reached the predetermined dimension D2 (D2 <D1), the grinding speed determination unit 1550 changes the feed rate of the grindstone table 30 and performs the intermediate finishing process to the finishing process. Migrate to When the grinding condition determining unit 1550 determines that the outer diameter of the workpiece W has reached the predetermined dimension D3 (D3 <D2), the grinding condition determining unit 1550 stops the feed of the grindstone table 30, and shifts from finishing to sparking out. The dimension D3 corresponds to a desired outer diameter of the workpiece W after grinding.”):
a pre-polishing measuring step of measuring a dimension before polishing of the workpiece held by the arm portion of the robot before the polishing step (NPL-W teaches measuring dimension D1 of the workpiece then performing the next machining step), wherein
in the polishing amount measuring step, the polishing amount is calculated based on a result that is obtained in the pre-polishing measuring step (NPL-W further teaches performing the next machining step until measuring dimension D2 of the workpiece). As taught by Fukuda in the rejection of claim 12, sequential steps of polishing are performed and measurements between each step require measuring the change in a dimension of the workpiece. The measurement of D2 is calculated based on the measurement D1 obtained in the machining step preceding the measurement of D2. The measurement of D1 is interpreted to be a pre-polishing step, followed by a polishing step then a polishing amount measuring step in which D2 is calculated based on D1 obtained in the pre-polishing step.
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 Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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 at (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 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.
/T.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights