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 Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments filed on November 7, 2025, has been entered and made of record.
Currently Pending Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4
Independent Claim(s) 1
Amended Claim(s) 1
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks made in an Amendment received on November 7, 2025.
In view of amendments filed on November 7, 2025, the Applicant has submitted updated drawing sheets adding descriptive text labels to figures 3 and 4; thus, there are no further objections to the drawings. Regarding the claims, the Applicant has amended claim 1 to specify that, during the second superposition step, the centers of the bores of the first component are aligned with the additional component in the position for assembly. Additionally, the amendments specify that, during the second evaluation step, the centers of the bores are aligned based on the superimposing. However, the Examiner maintains the existing rejections under 35 USC 103 and argues that Tartar teaches aligning the holes of the first component with an additional component in the position for assembly, which would involve aligning the centers of the bores.
The Applicant argued (on Remarks page 6) that the cited art does not disclose the amended content of claim 1. Specifically, the amended content discloses that the centers of the bores of the first component and an additional component are aligned for an assembled configuration. The Applicant then discussed that Tartar teaches creating a 3D model of a first hole and measuring the location and size of additional holes and therefore concluded that Tartar does not teach the amended content of claim 1.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Col. 3, Tartar teaches that the first component 10 already contains drilled hole sets 18, 20, and 22 (lines 22-25). Tatar’s method involves using a metrology device to capture the location of the drilled hole sets 18, 20, and 22 (lines 31-40) and the measurements of the mating surfaces between the components (lines 40-44). This way, the hole locations from the first component 18, 20, and 22 can be used for determining the hole locations of the additional component 30, 32, and 34 when the two are aligned for assembly. This process would involve assuring that the centers of the holes of the first component are aligned with the centers of the hole locations of the additional component to be drilled, because Tartar states that the hole sets from the first component are aligned to the exact relative location on the additional component when determining where to drill the mating holes in the second component (Col. 3, lines 52-62 “The full-size matching hole sets 30, 32 and 34 are drilled in component 12 with reference to CAD models of the assembly using the benchmark indicia 26 for exact relative location of the holes based on the measured location data from the metrology device 24. An exact fitted match to hole sets 18, 20 and 22 in the assembled structural assembly 10 is thereby created.”).
Additionally, Chalupa teaches storing hole points as coordinates in 0083 and drilling at the coordinate location. Thus, hole sites represent the centers of the bores, because it is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that drilling a hole at a coordinate would involve drilling at the center of the bore (CMU further supports this logic by showing the process of aligning a drill with the center of where a hole is to be drilled). Therefore, the hole sites used by Chalupa in the evaluation steps in 0076 are centers.
Finally, the Applicant discussed (Remarks page 7, paragraph 2-4) how Chalupa, Ansari, and CMU fail to teach the second superposition step where the centers of the bores of the first component and an additional component are aligned for an assembled configuration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalupa et al. (US 2002/0054795 A1), hereafter Chalupa, in view of Ansari (US 2016/0326808 A1), Tatar (US 9921566 B1), and CMU (“Drilling Your First Hole” cs2n.org/u/mp/badge pages/350 with WayBack Machine Publication date of April 22, 2021 having the link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210422140202/https://www.cs2n.org/u/mp/badge pages/350), and further in view of.
Regarding claim 1, Chalupa teaches a method for assisting with the positioning of a drill bit for boring a component (Abstract “An improved drilling machine and drilling method will allow rapid configuration and calibration.”), carried out with a machine tool having a control unit (See control unit 210 of Fig. 4), a drill head bearing the drill bit and at least one optical sensor secured to the drill head (Fig. 3 shows the drilling device with a drill bit 160 and a camera 175 mounted just above the drill bit.), wherein said method comprises:
for a first component (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0045 “It allows the mini-driller to operate in various locations along the workpiece, on any of several workpieces, or to allow pairs or groups of mini-drillers to work on a single workpiece in distinct locations.” The workpiece is considered a first component.), capturing in a first capturing step, during which said or each optical sensor captures at least one image of the first component including a face to be drilled on which at least two notable points are identified (Paragraph 0075 “the camera 175 on the end effector 150 then scans the work piece surface for expected reference features or monuments.” The camera images the face of the component, and reference features or monuments are notable points.),
superimposing in a first superposition step, during which the control unit digitally superposes the digital representation thus calculated and a digital design representation of the first component including centers of bores to be created (Paragraph 0075 “From the position on the jig, the mini-driller real-time controller requests the hole sites for the work piece on the jig as well as the offset information and, in response, the numeric control server then sends the hole sites for the model to the mini-driller 260.08.” As discussed in the background 0010, hole sites are often stored in CAD drawings or models of workpieces, and in 0083, Chalupa shows that hole sites can be saved as a single point, which would be the center of the bore to be created. In 0076, the hole sites and offset information are used so that the hole sites can be translated to the physical workpiece, which would involve superposing the digital representation (images of physical workpiece) with the digital design representation (the hole site information). Additionally, Chalupa teaches measuring the offsets between the hole positions and reference features in 0076, which would require understanding the orientation relationship of the scanned workpiece and the hole site information.) (Note that Tatar also teaches this limitation in detail. Tatar teaches comparing measurements of bore locations on imaged components to official CAD models of the components saved in a database, and the components are superposed using a benchmark indicia. See Tatar Col. 4, lines 12-34.),
evaluating in a first evaluation step, during which the control unit evaluates a distance of each center from a plurality of notable points on the face of the first component (Paragraph 0076 “Once the camera locates the reference features, it measures offsets between expected positions and found positions of the reference features and creates the appropriate mathematical transform 260.24. Once the appropriate transform exists to correct the position of the hole sites in light of reference features, the protocols become the same as that for the instance where the reference features are precisely where anticipated.” As shown in the discussion about calibration (See 0083 and Fig. 12), Chalupa teaches that hole sites, which are the digital design representation, are saved as coordinates marking where the hole will be drilled. Thus, the hole locations are centers.), and
positioning in a first positioning step, during which, based on the images of the face of the first component transmitted live (Paragraph 0062 “The real-time controller 210 is the heart of this invention and comprises a stand-alone central processing unit capable of directing all actions of the mini-driller.” The real-time controller performs operations live.) by the or each optical sensor and of the distances thus evaluated, the control unit orders the drill head to move until it is vertically in line with the center of each bore to be created in the first component (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0052 “a second servo-driven gear translates the end effector 150 along the y-axis, along the y-rail 121 engaging the y-actuator rail 122.” The effector holding the drill head moves vertically as ordered by the control unit.) and orders the drilling of the first component by the drill bit (Paragraph 0077 “the controller 210 executes the drilling program drilling all holes within the zone appropriate to the sized cutter 260.33 and then proceeds to another hole cutter and the appropriate holes 260.34.”),
wherein there is at least one additional component (Paragraph 0045 “It allows the mini-driller to operate in various locations along the workpiece, on any of several workpieces, or to allow pairs or groups of mini-drillers to work on a single workpiece in distinct locations. In turn, this allows a manufacturer to marshal his mini-driller resources on a particular subassembly as will allow the speediest completion of a single airframe, or, alternately as will allow the most efficient production of several airframes, as the manufacturers needs dictate.”), and wherein the method further comprises:
for the first component, after the first positioning step,
capturing in a second capturing step, during which said or each optical sensor captures at least one image of the first component including the drilled face (Paragraph 0075 “the camera 175 on the end effector 150 then scans the work piece surface for expected reference features or monuments.” The camera images the face of the component. As said in 0045, this process can be done for more than one workpiece.), and
for each additional component,
capturing in a third capturing step, during which said or each optical sensor captures at least one image of the additional component including the face to be drilled, on which at least two notable points are identified (Paragraph 0075 “the camera 175 on the end effector 150 then scans the work piece surface for expected reference features or monuments.” The camera images the face of the component, and the reference features are notable points. As said in 0045, this process can be done for more than one workpiece.),
evaluating in a second evaluation step, during which the control unit evaluates a distance of each center from a plurality of notable points on the face of the additional component (Paragraph 0076 “Once the camera locates the reference features, it measures offsets between expected positions and found positions of the reference features and creates the appropriate mathematical transform 260.24. Once the appropriate transform exists to correct the position of the hole sites in light of reference features, the protocols become the same as that for the instance where the reference features are precisely where anticipated.” As said in 0045, this process can be done for more than one workpiece. Chalupa teaches this process of evaluating distances using reference features, but does not teach that this step occurs when the centers of the bores of the first and additional component(s) are aligned. See the rationale using Tartar below.)
positioning in a second positioning step, during which, based on the images of the face of the additional component transmitted live (Paragraph 0062 “The real-time controller 210 is the heart of this invention and comprises a stand-alone central processing unit capable of directing all actions of the mini-driller.” The real-time controller performs operations live.) by the or each optical sensor and of the distances thus evaluated, the control unit orders the drill head to move until it is vertically in line with the center of each bore to be created in the additional component (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0052 “a second servo-driven gear translates the end effector 150 along the y-axis, along the y-rail 121 engaging the y-actuator rail 122.” The effector holding the drill head moves vertically as ordered by the control unit.) and orders the drilling of the additional component by the drill bit (Paragraph 0077 “the controller 210 executes the drilling program drilling all holes within the zone appropriate to the sized cutter 260.33 and then proceeds to another hole cutter and the appropriate holes 260.34.”).
Although Chalupa teaches the first superposing, evaluating, and positioning steps for the first workpiece, Chalupa uses image scans of the workpiece for making comparisons to stored digital hole site data and CAD models of workpieces. Thus, Chalupa teaches using image scans rather than digitizing the workpiece into calculated digital representation such as a 3D model. More specifically, Chalupa fails to teach digitizing in a first digitization step, during which the control unit calculates a digital representation of the first component from the or each image thus captured.
However, Ansari teaches digitizing in a first digitization step, during which the control unit calculates a digital representation of the first component from the or each image thus captured (FIG. 7A-7B; Paragraph 0013 “The method may also include comparing the placement of the cutting element on the drill bit body to the placement of a visual representation of the cutting element relative to an image of the computer-generated, three-dimensional model of the drill bit in real-time.” The three-dimensional model is the digital design representation, and the drill bit body is the first component. The three-dimensional model is used to assist in the precise placement of cutting elements onto the drill bit body. Paragraph 0021 “the cameras 404, 406 may be used to capture one or more three-dimensional images of, for example, a drill bit component”).
Chalupa and Ansari are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same fields of drilling and assembling components with aid from a real-time controller. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chalupa to incorporate the teachings of Ansari to calculate a digital design representation of the first component, such as a 3D model (Ansari, Paragraph 0013). Doing so allows for a model of the first component to be compared to an existing digital design representation, as recognized by Ansari (Paragraph 0013). This rational can be applied to the second digitization step and the third digitization step of claim 1. (Also note that Tartar teaches methods of using a metrology device for measuring workpieces and storing digital data about the measurements and coordinates related to a benchmark indicia, which allows digital representations to be superposed/oriented relative to. Tartar also teaches representing components using CAD. See Col. 3, lines 22-62.).
Although Chalupa in view of Ansari teaches the methods of digitizing, superposing, and evaluating for the first component along with teaching that these steps are applicable to multiple components, Chalupa fails to teach superposing two components together in an assembled configuration when evaluating hole positions for the additional component(s). More specifically, Chalupa fails to teach superimposing in a second superposition step, during which the control unit digitally superposes the digital representation of the first drilled component and the digital representation of the additional component thus calculated and the centers of the bores of the first component and an additional component are aligned for an assembled configuration, and Chalupa fails to teach the second evaluation step occurs when the centers of the bores are aligned based on the superimposing.
superimposing in a second superposition step, during which the control unit digitally superposes the digital representation of the first drilled component and the digital representation of the additional component thus calculated and the centers of the bores of the first component and an additional component are aligned for an assembled configuration (Fig. 5; Col. 3, line 26 “Then, as shown in FIG. 5, a metrology device 24 such as a laser tracker, photogrammetry system or portable coordinate measurement machine, is employed to identify the location of a benchmark indicia 26 which orients the entire environment of the structural assembly 10 for relative positioning of the component 12. The benchmark indicia 26 may be a standard index point such as a master assembly hole defined in three-dimensional (3D) computer aided design CAD) modeling of the structural assembly which provides an entire 3D definition of the environment. That location is then stored in a memory as will be described in greater detail subsequently. The metrology device 24 is them employed to measure the location and size of the hole sets 18, 20 and 22 relative to the benchmark indicia 26 and that data is also stored.” A CAD model of the structural assembly—first component which is already drilled—is digitally superposed to the relative position for assembly with the component 12—a second component to be drilled based on the location of holes in the structural assembly.),
evaluating in a second evaluation step, during which the control unit evaluates a distance of each center from a plurality of notable points on the face of the additional component and when the centers of the bores are aligned based on the superimposing (Col. 5, “The metrology device 24 is them employed to measure the location and size of the hole sets 18, 20 and 22 relative to the benchmark indicia 26 and that data is also stored. Example measurements resulting may be an I, J, K unit vector for each hole within the environment, an X, Y, Z location for surface points on each mating surface within the environment, and an X, Y, Z representation of all part to part mating edges within the environment.”).
Chalupa and Tatar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because both teach methods of drilling holes in multiple components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chalupa’s teachings by superposing additional components in the position for assembly as part of determining hole locations for the additional component. This modification would apply the match drilling technique taught by Tatar to allow for the hole locations in the additional component to be aligned for the purpose of assembly with the first component. This process allows for machining parts outside of production lines with high accuracy and repeatability (Tatar Col. 2, lines 20-27 “The process allows machining of the features of the component outside of the production line which will remove the process from the build critical path providing improved accuracy and repeatability of the manufacturing process. Additionally, the process provides enhanced reparability and maintainability for operators to fabricate additional matching parts as needed.”).
Additionally, Chalupa and Tartar both teach evaluating the precise location of holes and ordering the drill head to drill new holes in components, but they do not specifically mention that the drill head is aligned with the center of each bore to be created. When discussing calibration in 0083 and Fig. 12, Chalupa teaches that hole sites are determined as coordinates, and it is fundamental to drilling that a hole would be drilled from the center of the indicated hole location. CMU provides further evidence for this, because CMU teaches aligning a drill head to be in line with the center of each bore to be created (Page 12 Step 5 “Hold the Hand Drill and place the tip of the drill bit end to the center hole. Use both of your hands if needed to stabilize the drill and begin drilling through the center hole until it makes it completely through the material.”).
Chalupa and CMU are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both related to drilling components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chalupa and Tatar to incorporate the teachings of CMU to ensure that the drill head is in line with the center of each bore to be created when drilling holes. Doing so would ensure the created bore to be in the precise location intended when positioning the drill head and not to be misaligned as recognized by CMU (Page 16).
Regarding claim 2, Chalupa, Tatar, and CMU fail to teach wherein, before the first capturing step, said method involves a marking in a uniqueness step, during which the face of the first component to be drilled is rendered unique by putting notable points on said face.
However, Ansari teaches wherein, before the first capturing step, said method involves a marking in a uniqueness step, during which the face of the first component to be drilled is rendered unique by putting notable points on said face (Paragraph 0028 “measurement point markers are placed on the actual element prior to imaging and the locations of the measurement point markers are identified using the cameras to construct an image based on a comparison of measurement points on the actual part in relation to the reference points.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chalupa as in claim 1 to further incorporate the teachings of Ansari to mark the first component to be drilled with notable points. Doing so would allow for markings to be used as reference points needed for the imaging process and generation of a digital design representation of the component being assembled (Ansari Paragraph 0028), rather than using features already present on the component as Chalupa teaches.
Regarding claim 4, Chalupa, Tatar, and CMU fail to teach wherein, before the third capturing step, said method involves marking in a uniqueness step, during which the face of each additional component to be drilled is rendered unique by putting notable points on said face.
However, Ansari teaches wherein, before the third capturing step, said method involves marking in a uniqueness step, during which the face of each additional component to be drilled is rendered unique by putting notable points on said face (Paragraph 0028 “measurement point markers are placed on the actual element prior to imaging and the locations of the measurement point markers are identified using the cameras to construct an image based on a comparison of measurement points on the actual part in relation to the reference points.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chalupa as in claim 1 to further incorporate the teachings of Ansari to mark the first component to be drilled with notable points. Doing so would allow for markings to be used as reference points needed for the imaging process and generation of a digital design representation of the component being assembled (Ansari Paragraph 0028), rather than using features already present on the component as Chalupa teaches.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crothers (US 8,010,226 B2) teaches a method and drilling apparatus for conforming multiple components during aircraft assembly. The method involves measuring a first component and modifying additional components based on the first measurement data. Additionally, Crothers teaches aligning the drill head with the center of the bore holes; see Fig. 5B.
Szarski et al. (US 10,646,930 B2) teaches a method and drilling apparatus for performing matched drilling on mating components. A camera mounted on the drilling device captures images of workpieces which are temporarily fastened together in the position for assembly using a template. The controller compares features of the template at multiple positions and calculates matching hole patterns for drilling the components.
White et al. (US 9,770,765 B2) teaches a tool for match-drilling for multiple components.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC JAMES SHOEMAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6605. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am to 5pm ET.
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, JENNIFER MEHMOOD, can be reached at (571)272-2976. 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.
/Eric Shoemaker/
Patent Examiner
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664