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 Amendment
1. Amendments filed 11/19/2025 have been entered, wherein claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 11-12, 17, 19-22, 24, 39, 42 and 44-48 are pending. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 11-12, 17, 19-22, 24, 39, 42 and 44-48 have been examined herein. The previous claim objections and 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn except for those maintained below. This action is Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2025 was filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12, 20, 21 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the language recites “wherein the polish dispensing system is mounted”. However, the term “polish dispensing system” lacks proper antecedent basis because this term was deleted from claim 1. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “wherein the [[polish dispensing system is]] polish container, polish dispenser, and coupler are mounted”.
Regarding claim 20, the language recites “the low fluid level”. However, the term “low fluid level” lacks proper antecedent basis because this term was deleted from claim 1. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “[[the]] a low fluid level”.
Claim 21 is rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 46, the language recites the term “the polish container line, the polish container, and the coupler”. However, the term “the polish container line” lacks proper antecedent basis because this term has not yet been introduced. Additionally, it is not precisely clear if the “polish container line” is the same or different from the “coupler”. As best understood by the examiner, the coupler is the polish container line. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “[[the polish container line,]] the polish container[[,]] and the coupler”, wherein the term “coupler” is the same as the polish container line.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. Although claim 44 includes at least one mental process of detecting the defect on the surface, this claim recites at least one additional element of an image detecting device, moving a robotic abrading unit proximate the detected defect, the robotic abrading unit comprising: an abrasive tool; and a polish dispenser; dispensing a low-viscosity polish onto the surface, proximate the defect, using a nozzle of the polish dispenser; abrading the surface by contacting the layer of clear coat with the abrasive tool; removing the polish from the surface; and after the abrading operation, imaging the surface which provides a practical application and significantly more because the actions are based on the detected defect.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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, 4, 6, 8, 17, 19, 39 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (DE 102017213143) (see translation previously attached on 11/6/2024) in view of Robinson et al. (US Patent 6062952), hereinafter Robinson, and further in view of Boler (US PGPUB 20120288623).
Regarding claim 1, Schulz teaches a robotic repair unit (fig. 2), comprising:
a motive robotic arm (fig. 2);
a force control unit coupled to the motive robotic arm (Schulz teaches the robot has a force and/or torque sensor. As a result, a sensor system is provided by means of which a grinding and/or polishing process can be carried out autonomously with the aid of the robot, as a result of which a component can be ground and/or polished fully automatically (last 7 lines of page 5 of the attached translation of Schulz). Therefore, Schulz teaches the robot includes a force control unit which is coupled to the motive robotic arm);
an abrasive tool (fig. 2, tool 3) coupled to the force control unit (fig. 2), wherein the robotic repair unit is configured to execute an abrasive operation on an area of a worksurface, using the abrasive tool (second and third paragraphs on page 6 of the attached translation);
a polish container (cartridge 9, see annotated fig. 2 below) filled with a polish (lines 1-4 at the top of page 8 of the attached translation; Schulz teaches the cartridge contains a processing medium),
PNG
media_image1.png
525
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a polish dispenser mounted to the robotic repair unit (see annotated fig. 2 above, exit opening 12 of the media line 11 is being interpreted as the polish dispenser which is mounted to the robotic repair unit), wherein the polish dispenser is configured to dispense polish proximate the area of the worksurface (second and third paragraphs on page 6 of the attached translation); and
a coupler that connects the polish container to the polish dispenser (see annotated fig. 2 above, media line 11 is being interpreted as the coupler which connects the polish container to the polish dispenser).
Schulz does not explicitly teach a low viscosity polish, as defined in paragraph 0066 of the instant specification,
wherein the low viscosity polish comprises a petroleum distillate and an aluminum oxide mineral.
However, Robinson teaches a planarization process with abrasive polishing slurry which includes a slurry that is an inert mechanical polishing slurry (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 2), wherein the slurry includes a viscosity of 9 centipoise (col. 11, lines 35-38). Overall, Robinson teaches it is known to use a low viscosity polish (9 centipoise), wherein the low viscosity polish is chemically inert with respect to the work surface (inert mechanical polishing slurry).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schulz to incorporate the teachings of Robinson to provide a low viscosity polish. Specifically, it would have been obvious to use the 9 centipoise polishing slurry of Robinson in the device of Schulz. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known polishing solution for another known polishing solution to obtain the predictable results of aiding in the abrading process. Additionally, doing so would continue to allow the device to function as intended and provide a processing medium for the abrading process, which promotes quality of the workpiece.
Schulz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the low viscosity polish comprises a petroleum distillate and an aluminum oxide mineral.
However, Boler teaches an abrasion process for abrading a workpiece which includes abrading a workpiece with an abrasive dust mixture 32 and an abrading tool 34 [0018], wherein the abrasive dust mixture may include one or more abrasive powders, one or more aliphatic hydrocarbons, an emulsifier, and water [0018]. Additionally, Boler teaches the suitable abrasive include aluminum oxide [0019]. Boler also teaches that suitable aliphatic hydrocarbons include kerosene and other types of petroleum distillates [0020]. Overall, Boler teaches a polish which comprises petroleum distillate and an aluminum oxide mineral [0018-0020].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schulz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Boler to provide wherein the low viscosity polish comprises a petroleum distillate and an aluminum oxide mineral. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include petroleum distillate and aluminum oxide mineral in the polishing slurry of Schulz, as modified. Doing so would provide a mechanical abrasion component of the slurry, which promotes abrasion as intended. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to function as intended and abrade the workpiece.
Regarding claim 2, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schulz, as modified, teaches wherein the polish container is mounted to the motive robotic arm (fig. 2 of Schulz).
Regarding claim 4, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schulz, as modified, teaches a pump and a motor configured to drive the pump (page 3 of the attached translation of Schulz, lines 6-8; Schulz teaches the pumping means comprises a pump and a pump motor).
Regarding claim 6, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schulz, as modified, teaches further comprising an end effector (fig. 2 of Schulz), wherein the abrasive tool is coupled to the end effector (fig. 2 of Schulz), and wherein the end effector is coupled to the force control unit (fig. 2 of Schulz).
Regarding claim 8, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schulz, as modified, teaches wherein the polish container and the coupler are disposable (Schulz teaches the cartridge can be a disposable cartridge (first two lines on page 4 of the attached translation of Schulz). Additionally, the polish container and the coupler of Schulz, as modified, are capable of being disposed).
Regarding claim 17, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schulz, as modified, teaches wherein the coupler comprises a fluid line (media line 11 of Schulz).
Regarding claim 19, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schulz, as modified, teaches wherein the polish container is configured to be mounted on a tool side of the force control unit (Schulz, as modified, teaches the robot has a force and/or torque sensor. As a result, a sensor system is provided by means of which a grinding and/or polishing process can be carried out autonomously with the aid of the robot, as a result of which a component can be ground and/or polished fully automatically (last 7 lines of page 5 of the attached translation of Schulz). Therefore, Schulz, as modified, teaches the robot includes a force control unit. In fig. 2 of Schulz, the cartridge 9 is mounted adjacent to the tool 3. Overall, Schulz, as modified, teaches wherein the cartridge 9 is mounted on a tool side (same side as the tool) of the force control unit (wherein the robot includes a force control unit)).
Regarding claim 39, Schulz teaches a robotic repair unit (fig. 2), comprising:
a robotic arm (fig. 2) with a force control unit (Schulz teaches the robot has a force and/or torque sensor. As a result, a sensor system is provided by means of which a grinding and/or polishing process can be carried out autonomously with the aid of the robot, as a result of which a component can be ground and/or polished fully automatically (last 7 lines of page 5 of the attached translation of Schulz). Therefore, Schulz teaches the robot includes a force control unit which is coupled to the robotic arm) coupled to an end effector containing an abrasive tool (fig. 2, tool 3), wherein the robotic repair unit is configured to conduct an abrasive repair operation on a surface using the abrasive tool (second and third paragraphs on page 6 of the attached translation, the robotic repair unit of Schulz is capable of conducting an abrasive repair operation on a surface using the abrasive tool); and
a self-contained polish dispensing system (fig. 2) configured to dispense a polish on a worksurface (Schulz teaches a processing medium is configured to be dispensed on a worksurface; first four lines on page 8 of the attached translation of Schulz), wherein the self-contained polish dispensing system comprises:
a dispenser (see annotated fig. 2 below, exit opening 12 of the media line 11 is being interpreted as the dispenser); and
PNG
media_image2.png
525
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a polish container (cartridge 9, see annotated fig. 2 above) coupled to the dispenser (fig. 2, the cartridge 9 is coupled to the exit opening 12 via the media line 11), and wherein the polish container is mounted to the robotic repair unit (fig. 2, last 7 lines on page 3 of the attached translation, Schulz teaches the cartridge is designed such that it can be decoupled from the end effector by means of a clip connection),
wherein the polish container is a single-use polish container (Schulz teaches the cartridge can be a disposable cartridge (first two lines on page 4 of the attached translation of Schulz). Additionally, the polish container of Schulz is capable of being used as a single-use polish container).
Schulz does not explicitly teach wherein the processing medium is a low viscosity polish, as defined in paragraph 0066 of the instant specification,
wherein the low viscosity polish comprises an aluminum oxide mineral and a petroleum distillate.
However, Robinson teaches a planarization process with abrasive polishing slurry which includes a slurry that is an inert mechanical polishing slurry (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 2), wherein the slurry includes a viscosity of 9 centipoise (col. 11, lines 35-38). Overall, Robinson teaches it is known to use a low viscosity polish (9 centipoise), wherein the low viscosity polish is chemically inert with respect to the work surface (inert mechanical polishing slurry).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schulz to incorporate the teachings of Robinson to provide a low viscosity polish. Specifically, it would have been obvious to use the 9 centipoise chemically inert polishing slurry of Robinson in the device of Schulz. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known polishing solution for another known polishing solution to obtain the predictable results of aiding in the abrading process. Additionally, doing so would continue to allow the device to function as intended and provide a processing medium for the abrading process, which promotes quality of the workpiece.
Schulz, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein the low viscosity polish comprises an aluminum oxide mineral and a petroleum distillate.
However, Boler teaches an abrasion process for abrading a workpiece which includes abrading a workpiece with an abrasive dust mixture 32 and an abrading tool 34 [0018], wherein the abrasive dust mixture may include one or more abrasive powders, one or more aliphatic hydrocarbons, an emulsifier, and water [0018]. Additionally, Boler teaches the suitable abrasive include aluminum oxide [0019]. Boler also teaches that suitable aliphatic hydrocarbons include kerosene and other types of petroleum distillates [0020]. Overall, Boler teaches a polish which comprises petroleum distillate and an aluminum oxide mineral [0018-0020].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schulz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Boler to provide wherein the low viscosity polish comprises an aluminum oxide mineral and a petroleum distillate. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include petroleum distillate and aluminum oxide mineral in the polishing slurry of Schulz, as modified. Doing so would provide a mechanical abrasion component of the slurry, which promotes abrasion as intended. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to function as intended and abrade the workpiece.
Regarding claim 42, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 39. Additionally, Schulz, as modified, teaches wherein the polish container is mounted on a tool side of the force control unit of the robotic arm (Schulz, as modified, teaches the robot has a force and/or torque sensor. As a result, a sensor system is provided by means of which a grinding and/or polishing process can be carried out autonomously with the aid of the robot, as a result of which a component can be ground and/or polished fully automatically (last 7 lines of page 5 of the attached translation of Schulz). Therefore, Schulz, as modified, teaches the robot includes a force control unit. In fig. 2 of Schulz, the cartridge 9 is mounted adjacent to the tool 3. Overall, Schulz, as modified, teaches wherein the cartridge 9 is mounted on a tool side (same side as the tool) of the force control unit of the robotic arm (wherein the robot includes the force control unit)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (DE 102017213143) (see translation previously attached on 11/6/2024) in view of Robinson et al. (US Patent 6062952), hereinafter Robinson, and further in view of Boler (US PGPUB 20120288623), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrison et al. (WO 2014063146), hereinafter Morrison.
Regarding claim 11, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Schulz, as modified, teaches the device includes a pumping device which is adapted to convey the processing medium from the cartridge to the outlet opening of the media line, wherein the pumping means comprises a pump and a pump motor (page 3 of the attached translation of Schulz, first 6 lines).
Schulz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the polish container changes volume as the low viscosity polish is dispensed.
However, Morrison teaches a propellantless aerosol fluid dispensing system for dispensing a fluid material (abs). Additionally, Morrison teaches the system includes a compressor 18 for compressing chamber 12 (page 10, lines 13-14), wherein a pouch 30 is located in first pressurizable chamber 12. Pouch 30 is a sealed pouch 30 is a sealed pouch including a nozzle 36. Pressure acting on the surface of pouch 30 drives the fluid contained in pouch 30 through the nozzle when the nozzle is manipulated in a manner that opens valve 34 (page 11, line 15 – page 12, line 3). Additionally, Morrison teaches during use, fluid pressure in pressurizable chamber 12 will, when fluid is flowing out of pouch 30, compress pouch 30. As pouch 30 compresses, opposing walls 322 and 324 move towards each other (page 15, lines 12-14). Overall, Morrison teaches wherein the polish container changes volume as the fluid is dispensed (Morrison teaches the pouch compresses when the fluid is dispensed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schulz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Morrison to provide wherein the polish container changes volume as the low viscosity polish is dispensed. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate Morrison’s pneumatic dispenser (including the compressor configuration and pouch for holding the liquid) for the pumping device of Schulz. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known dispensing mechanism configuration (pneumatic dispenser of Morrison including a compressor) for another known dispensing mechanism configuration (pumping device of Schulz) to obtain the predictable results of selectively dispensing the polish.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (DE 102017213143) (see translation previously attached on 11/6/2024) in view of Robinson et al. (US Patent 6062952), hereinafter Robinson, and further in view of Boler (US PGPUB 20120288623), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greer (US PGPUB 20120034854).
Regarding claim 12, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Schulz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the polish dispensing system is mounted such that gravity provides some pressure needed for the polish to flow from the polish container to the dispenser.
However, Greer teaches a liquid polish dispenser (fig. 2) for a surface finishing power tool including a container attachment mechanism, product delivery tube 228 and a nozzle 230 [0043]. Additionally, Greer teaches container attachment mechanism 226 is positioned so that the opening of container 234 is oriented downward during normal operation, e.g., fluid inside container 234 drains downward when connected to dispenser 220 and the tool is horizontal and finishing disk 104 is directed downward, substantially as shown. Thus, gravity assists in draining liquid polish from the bottle so that there is effectively more usable volume in the container that with a conventional siphon straw system, and less product is wasted. This can save on product costs as well as reduce waste. Also, the pump being at the bottom is subjected to a higher head pressure from the liquid so that the pump operates more efficiently [0052]. Overall, Greer teaches wherein the polish dispensing system is mounted such that gravity provides some pressure needed for the polish to flow from the polish container to the dispenser (Greer teaches gravity assists in draining liquid polish from the bottle [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schulz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Greer to provide wherein the polish dispensing system is mounted such that gravity provides some pressure needed for the polish to flow from the polish container to the dispenser. Specifically, it would have been obvious to orient the dispensing system of Schulz, as modified, such that gravity assists in draining polish from the container as taught by Greer. Doing so provides effectively more usable volume of the container and less product is wasted [0052 of Greer]. Additionally, doing so promotes savings on product costs and reduces waste [0052 of Greer].
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (DE 102017213143) (see translation previously attached on 11/6/2024) in view of Robinson et al. (US Patent 6062952), hereinafter Robinson, and further in view of Boler (US PGPUB 20120288623), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent 6402478), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 20, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Schulz, as modified, does not explicitly teach further comprising a sensor for detecting the low fluid level, wherein the sensor comprises a weight sensor, an optical sensor, or a volumetric sensor.
However, Zhang teaches a sensing device and method for fluids. Additionally, Zhang teaches sensors are known to determine the fluid level in a container with the use of reflection of a light signal or to determine volume by weight change in weight of the container as it empties (col. 1, lines 38-41). Zhang also teaches a controller in the form of a microprocessor and memory circuit (fig. 2b, col. 3, lines 24-27). Overall, Zhang teaches it is known to provide a sensor for detecting a low fluid level, wherein the sensor comprises a weight sensor (sensor for determining volume by weight change in weight of container), and to provide a controller to control the operations.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schulz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to provide a sensor for detecting a low fluid level, wherein the sensor comprises a weight sensor, and a controller to control the operations. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the weight sensor teachings of Zhang to provide a weight sensor for detecting a fluid level of the cartridge of Schulz and the controller teachings of Zhang to provide a controller for controlling the operations. Doing so would prevent down time of processing operations by being able to predict when the cartridge will be empty. Additionally, doing so would allow the operator to replace the cartridge during slow times, which prevents future down times during the operating process, in order to increase working efficiency. Providing a controller would allow the device to function as intended and direct the operations of the sensors of Schulz and Zhang.
Regarding claim 21, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 20. Additionally, Schulz, as modified, teaches wherein the weight sensor is the force control unit of the robotic repair unit (see above rejection of claim 20, wherein the incorporated weight sensor is interpreted as part of the force control unit of the robotic repair unit).
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (DE 102017213143) (see translation previously attached on 11/6/2024) in view of Robinson et al. (US Patent 6062952), hereinafter Robinson, and further in view of Boler (US PGPUB 20120288623), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuchs (DE 4222766).
Regarding claim 22, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Schulz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the low viscosity polish is free of silicones.
However, Fuchs teaches a polishing machine for surfaces which has water based cutting fluid fed to rotating absorbing disc rotated over surface. The rotating polishing head is fed with a metered supply of the water based cutting fluid (abs). Additionally, Fuchs teaches the water-mixed grinding paste is free of wax or silicone (lines 18-20 on page 3 of the attached translation). Fuchs teaches wax and silicone lead to sticking and bonding/darning of the polishing medium (sponge) (lines 18-20 on page 3 of the attached translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schulz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Fuchs to provide wherein the low viscosity polish is free of silicones. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the polish of Schulz, as modified, to be free of silicones. Doing so would prevent sticking and bonding/darning of the polishing medium (lines 18-20 on page 3 of the attached translation of Fuchs). Additionally, doing so would prevent the processing tool from being clogged with the silicone, which promotes uniform processing of the work surface.
Regarding claim 24, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Schulz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the low viscosity polish is free of wax compounds.
However, Fuchs teaches a polishing machine for surfaces which has water based cutting fluid fed to rotating absorbing disc rotated over surface. The rotating polishing head is fed with a metered supply of the water based cutting fluid (abs). Additionally, Fuchs teaches the water-mixed grinding paste is free of wax or silicone (lines 18-20 on page 3 of the attached translation). Fuchs teaches wax and silicone lead to sticking and bonding/darning of the polishing medium (sponge) (lines 18-20 on page 3 of the attached translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schulz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Fuchs to provide wherein the low viscosity polish is free of wax compounds. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the polish of Schulz, as modified, to be free of wax compounds. Doing so would prevent sticking and bonding/darning of the polishing medium (lines 18-20 on page 3 of the attached translation of Fuchs). Additionally, doing so would prevent the processing tool from being clogged with the wax compounds, which promotes uniform processing of the work surface.
Claims 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (DE 102017213143) (see translation previously attached on 11/6/2024) in view of Robinson et al. (US Patent 6062952), hereinafter Robinson, and further in view of Boler (US PGPUB 20120288623), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gullicks et al. (US PGPUB 20160175861), hereinafter Gullicks.
Regarding claim 45, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Schulz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the dispenser is a pneumatic dispenser comprising an air inlet and a nozzle configured to atomize the low-viscosity polish.
However, Gullicks teaches a nozzle assembly, system and related methods which includes a nozzle assembly for spray guns (abstract). The nozzle assembly generally include a fluid outlet extending along the fluid axis, the fluid outlet including a fluid aperture and a fluid side wall defining the fluid aperture, an atomizing aperture adjacent the fluid side wall, an atomizing inlet configured to receive a pressurized gas, and an adjustment member located on the nozzle assembly movable between an atomizing and a non-atomizing position (abstract). Overall, Gullicks teaches wherein the dispenser is a pneumatic dispenser comprising an air inlet (atomizing inlet configured to receive a pressurized gas) and a nozzle configured to atomize the low-viscosity polish (atomizing aperture).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schulz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Gullicks to provide wherein the dispenser is a pneumatic dispenser comprising an air inlet and a nozzle configured to atomize the low-viscosity polish. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Gullicks to provide a nozzle that is adjustable between an atomizing and a non-atomizing position. Doing so would provide increased utility by providing an adjustable nozzle between an atomizing and a non-atomizing position.
Regarding claim 46, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Schulz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the polish container line, the polish container, and the coupler comprise single-use plastic.
However, Schulz additionally teaches the cartridge can be a disposable cartridge (first two lines on page 4 of the attached translation of Schulz).
Additionally, Gullicks teaches a nozzle assembly, system and related methods which includes a nozzle assembly for spray guns (abstract), wherein the spray head assembly can be molded from plastic and discarded after each application [0004]. The components of the nozzle assembly are made from disposable materials (e.g. plastics) and are intended to be disposed of after a single use [0074].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schulz, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Schulz and Gullicks to provide wherein the polish container line, the polish container, and the coupler comprise single-use plastic. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the polish container and the nozzle (of Schulz, which includes outlet 12 and carrier 11 of Schulz) are intended to be disposed of after a single use and are made of disposable materials such as plastic.
In summary, Schulz, as modified, teaches wherein the polish container line, the polish container (of Schulz), and the coupler (of Schulz which include structure 11 of nozzle assembly of fig. 2 of Schulz) comprise single-use plastic (see above combination).
As best understood by the examiner, in light of the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the prior art teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (DE 102017213143) (see translation previously attached on 11/6/2024) in view of Robinson et al. (US Patent 6062952), hereinafter Robinson, and further in view of Boler (US PGPUB 20120288623), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekiya (US PGPUB 20190011298).
Regarding claim 47, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Schulz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the low-viscosity polish comprises glycerin.
However, Sekiya teaches a processing apparatus for abrading a workpiece, wherein the apparatus includes a polishing wheel 30, wherein a liquid delivery passageway delivers a liquid to the workpiece during processing [0026]. The liquid may be an alkaline mixture in which a water-soluble organic material such as glycerin is dissolved therein [0026].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schulz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Sekiya to provide wherein the low-viscosity polish comprises glycerin. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include glycerin in the polish of Schulz, as modified. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known polish formula component for another known polish formula component to obtain the predictable results of providing a polish to aid in abrading the workpiece. Additionally, doing so would provide increased utility to the operator by customizing the polish to the desired workpiece and process for the desired results.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (DE 102017213143) (see translation previously attached on 11/6/2024) in view of Robinson et al. (US Patent 6062952), hereinafter Robinson, and further in view of Boler (US PGPUB 20120288623), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ozaki et al. (US PGPUB 20160107291), hereinafter Ozaki.
Regarding claim 48, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Schulz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the low-viscosity polish comprises mineral oil.
However, Ozaki teaches a workpiece grinding method which includes a water-soluble grinding fluid, wherein the grinding fluid includes an extreme pressure agent for increasing the lubricity of the grinding wheel surface to reduce the grinding wheel wear, wherein the extreme pressure agent is a sulfide mineral oil [0048].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schulz, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Ozaki to provide wherein the low-viscosity polish comprises mineral oil. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include sulfide mineral oil in the polish of Schulz, as modified. Doing so would provide an extreme pressure agent for increasing the lubricity of the abrasive tool surface to reduce the abrasive tool wear [0048 of Ozaki].
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimbara et al. (US Patent 5394654), hereinafter Shimbara, in view of Schulz (DE 102017213143) (see translation previously attached on 11/6/2024) in view of Robinson et al. (US Patent 6062952), hereinafter Robinson, and further in view of Chan et al. (US PGPUB 20180028898), hereinafter Chan.
Regarding claim 44, Shimbara teaches a method of repairing a defect in a layer of clear coating on a surface (fig. 1, col. 3, lines 25-38; intercoating), the method comprising:
detecting the defect on the surface using an image detecting device (col. 1, lines 45-55);
moving a robotic abrading unit proximate the detected defect (fig. 1, wet sanding station L3; sanding robots r4 to r6 with sanding tools T1 to T3; col. 5, lines 5-23), the robotic abrading unit comprising:
an abrasive tool (sanding tools T3); and
abrading the surface by contacting the layer of clear coat with the abrasive tool (col. 5, lines 24-31);
removing the polish from the surface (at water washing station, col. 4, lines 8-12).
Although Shimbara teaches the sanding is wet sanding, Shimbara does not explicitly teach
a polish dispenser;
dispensing a low-viscosity polish onto the surface, proximate the defect, using a nozzle of the polish dispenser; and
after the abrading operation, imaging the surface.
However, Schulz teaches a robotic abrading unit which includes a polish dispenser (see annotated fig. 2 below); and
PNG
media_image2.png
525
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
dispensing a polish onto the surface using a nozzle of the polish dispenser (Schulz teaches a processing medium is configured to be dispensed on a worksurface; first four lines on page 8 of the attached translation of Schulz, wherein the exit opening 12 is interpreted as the nozzle of the polish dispenser).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimbara to incorporate the teachings of Schulz to provide a polish dispenser and dispensing a polish onto the surface, proximate the defect, using a nozzle of the polish dispenser. Specifically, it would have been obvious to conduct the wet sanding (as taught by Shimbara) via dispensing a polish onto the surface using a nozzle of the polish dispenser (as taught by Schulz). Doing so would provide explicit structure to achieve wet sanding as desired by Shimbara. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to function as a wet sander as intended by Shimbara.
Shimbara, as modified, does not explicitly teach
a low-viscosity polish (as defined in paragraph 0066 of the instant specification);
after the abrading operation, imaging the surface.
However, Robinson teaches a planarization process with abrasive polishing slurry which includes a slurry that is an inert mechanical polishing slurry (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 2), wherein the slurry includes a viscosity of 9 centipoise (col. 11, lines 35-38). Overall, Robinson teaches it is known to use a low viscosity polish (9 centipoise), wherein the low viscosity polish is chemically inert with respect to the work surface (inert mechanical polishing slurry).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Shimbara, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Robinson to provide a low viscosity polish. Specifically, it would have been obvious to use the 9 centipoise polishing slurry of Robinson in the device of Shimbara, as modified. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known polishing solution for another known polishing solution to obtain the predictable results of aiding in the abrading process. Additionally, doing so would continue to allow the device to function as intended and provide a processing medium for the abrading process, which promotes quality of the workpiece.
Shimbara, as modified, does not explicitly teach
after the abrading operation, imaging the surface.
However, Chan teaches a method of measuring and abrading a workpiece, wherein after the abrading/grinding, the workpiece is subjected to additional scanning/measuring to verify the results were achieved (fig. 13, step 218, [0070]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Shimbara, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Chan to provide after the abrading operation, imaging the surface. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify Shimbara, as modified, such that the surface is further subjected to inspection/imaging after abrading in order to verify the desired results were achieved. Doing so would promote increased quality of the workpiece by verifying the desired results.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23 and 29 of copending Application No. 17/904,812 in view of Schulz (DE 102017213143) and Robinson et al. (US Patent 6062952), hereinafter Robinson, and further in view of Boler (US PGPUB 20120288623).
Instant Application 17/904,810
CoPending Application 17/904,812
(Currently Amended) A robotic repair unit, comprising:
23. (Currently Amended) A robotic repair unit comprising:
a robotic arm;
a robotic arm comprising:
a force control unit;
a force control unit,
an abrasive tool coupled to the force control unit,
an end effector coupled to the force control unit and configured to move with respect to the force control unit; an abrasive tool coupled to the end effector;
a polish container filled with a low viscosity polish,
a fluid container coupled to the fluid dispenser
a polish dispenser mounted to the robotic repair unit, wherein the polish dispenser is configured to dispense polish proximate the area of the worksurface; and
a self-contained fluid dispensing system configured to dispense a fluid on a worksurface, wherein the self-contained fluid dispensing system comprises: a fluid dispenser mounted to the robotic arm and positioned proximate the abrasive tool;
19. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the polish container is configured to be mounted on a tool side of the force control unit.
29. (Currently Amended) The robotic repair unit of claim 23, wherein the fluid container is mounted on a tool side of the force control unit of the robotic arm.
Claim 23 of Copending Application 17/904,812 does not explicitly teach
a motive robotic arm;
a force control unit coupled to the motive robotic arm;
an abrasive tool coupled to the force control unit, wherein the robotic repair unit is configured to execute an abrasive operation on an area of a worksurface, using the abrasive tool;
a polish container filled with a low viscosity polish, wherein the low viscosity polish comprises a petroleum distillate and an aluminum oxide mineral.
However, Schulz teaches
a motive robotic arm (fig. 2);
a force control unit coupled to the motive robotic arm (Schulz teaches the robot has a force and/or torque sensor. As a result, a sensor system is provided by means of which a grinding and/or polishing process can be carried out autonomously with the aid of the robot, as a result of which a component can be ground and/or polished fully automatically (last 7 lines of page 5 of the attached translation of Schulz). Therefore, Schulz teaches the robot includes a force control unit coupled to the motive robotic arm);
an abrasive tool coupled to the force control unit, wherein the robotic repair unit is configured to execute an abrasive operation on an area of a worksurface, using the abrasive tool (second and third paragraphs on page 6 of the attached translation);
a polish container (cartridge 9, see annotated fig. 2 below) filled with a polish (lines 1-4 at the top of page 8 of the attached translation; Schulz teaches the cartridge contains a processing medium).
Additionally, Robinson teaches a low viscosity polish (9 centipoise, col. 11, lines 35-38).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claim 23 of the copending application to incorporate the teachings of Schulz and Robinson to provide a motive robotic arm;
a force control unit coupled to the motive robotic arm;
an abrasive tool coupled to the force control unit, wherein the robotic repair unit is configured to execute an abrasive operation on an area of a worksurface, using the abrasive tool;
a polish container filled with a low viscosity polish.
Doing so would allow the robot to function as intended and operate on worksurfaces. Additionally, doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known polishing agent for another known polishing agent to obtain the predictable results of aiding in abrading.
Claim 23 of Copending Application 17/904,812, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein the low viscosity polish comprises a petroleum distillate and an aluminum oxide mineral.
However, Boler teaches an abrasion process for abrading a workpiece which includes abrading a workpiece with an abrasive dust mixture 32 and an abrading tool 34 [0018], wherein the abrasive dust mixture may include one or more abrasive powders, one or more aliphatic hydrocarbons, an emulsifier, and water [0018]. Additionally, Boler teaches the suitable abrasive include aluminum oxide [0019]. Boler also teaches that suitable aliphatic hydrocarbons include kerosene and other types of petroleum distillates [0020]. Overall, Boler teaches a polish which comprises petroleum distillate and an aluminum oxide mineral [0018-0020].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified claim 23 of the copending application, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Boler to provide wherein the low viscosity polish comprises a petroleum distillate and an aluminum oxide mineral. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include petroleum distillate and aluminum oxide mineral in the polishing slurry. Doing so would provide a mechanical abrasion component of the slurry, which promotes abrasion as intended. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to function as intended and abrade the workpiece.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 39 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 23 of copending Application No. 17/904,812 in view of Schulz (DE 102017213143) and Robinson et al. (US Patent 6062952), hereinafter Robinson, and further in view of Boler (US PGPUB 20120288623).
39. (Currently Amended) A robotic repair unit, comprising:
23. (Currently Amended) A robotic repair unit comprising:
a robotic arm with a force control unit coupled to an end effector containing an abrasive tool,; and
a robotic arm comprising: a force control unit,effector coupled to the force control unit and configured to move with respect to the force control unit; an abrasive tool coupled to the end effector;
a self-contained polish dispensing system configured to dispense a low viscosity polish on a worksurface, wherein the self-contained polish dispensing system comprises:
And a self-contained fluid dispensing system configured to dispense a fluid on a worksurface, wherein the self-contained fluid dispensing system comprises:
a dispenser; and
a fluid dispenser mounted to the robotic arm and positioned proximate the abrasive tool;
a polish container coupled to the dispenser.
a fluid container coupled to the fluid dispenser
Claim 23 of Copending Application 17/904,812 does not explicitly teach
wherein the robotic repair unit is configured to conduct an abrasive repair operation on a surface using the abrasive tool
a polish container filled with a low viscosity polish
and wherein the polish container is mounted to the robotic repair unit;
and wherein the polish container is a single-use polish container, and wherein the low viscosity polish comprises an aluminum oxide mineral and a petroleum distillate.
However, Schulz teaches
wherein the robotic repair unit is configured to conduct an abrasive repair operation on a surface using the abrasive tool (second and third paragraphs on page 6 of the attached translation)
a polish container (cartridge 9, see annotated fig. 2 below) filled with a polish (lines 1-4 at the top of page 8 of the attached translation; Schulz teaches the cartridge contains a processing medium)
and wherein the polish container is mounted to the robotic repair unit (fig. 2), and
wherein the polish container is a single-use polish container (Schulz teaches the cartridge can be a disposable cartridge (first two lines on page 4 of the attached translation of Schulz)).
Additionally, Robinson teaches a low viscosity polish (9 centipoise, col. 11, lines 35-38)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claim 23 of the copending application to incorporate the teachings of Schulz and Robinson to provide
wherein the robotic repair unit is configured to conduct an abrasive repair operation on a surface using the abrasive tool
a polish container filled with a low viscosity polish
and wherein the polish container is mounted to the robotic repair unit, and wherein the polish container is a single-use polish container.
Doing so would allow the robot to function as intended and operate on worksurfaces. Additionally, doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known polishing agent for another known polishing agent to obtain the predictable results of aiding in abrading.
Claim 23 of Copending Application 17/904,812, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein the low viscosity polish comprises an aluminum oxide mineral and a petroleum distillate.
However, Boler teaches an abrasion process for abrading a workpiece which includes abrading a workpiece with an abrasive dust mixture 32 and an abrading tool 34 [0018], wherein the abrasive dust mixture may include one or more abrasive powders, one or more aliphatic hydrocarbons, an emulsifier, and water [0018]. Additionally, Boler teaches the suitable abrasive include aluminum oxide [0019]. Boler also teaches that suitable aliphatic hydrocarbons include kerosene and other types of petroleum distillates [0020]. Overall, Boler teaches a polish which comprises petroleum distillate and an aluminum oxide mineral [0018-0020].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified claim 23 of the copending application, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Boler to provide wherein the low viscosity polish comprises a petroleum distillate and an aluminum oxide mineral. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include petroleum distillate and aluminum oxide mineral in the polishing slurry. Doing so would provide a mechanical abrasion component of the slurry, which promotes abrasion as intended. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to function as intended and abrade the workpiece.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant disagrees with the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of record and submits that all of the rejections should be withdrawn (page 7 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections of record were not addressed in their entirety. The respective 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been maintained. See above for more details.
Applicant argues Schulz in view of Robinson fails to teach the amended language of claims 1 and 39. However, Robinson and Schulz alone were not relied upon to teach the amended language. Rather, Schulz (DE 102017213143) (see translation previously attached on 11/6/2024) in view of Robinson et al. (US Patent 6062952), hereinafter Robinson, and further in view of Boler (US PGPUB 20120288623) was relied upon to teach the amended language. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Robinson is non-analogous art because it is not in the same field of endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor faced (page 9 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Robinson is in the same field of endeavor, wherein the field of endeavor is interpreted as abrasion, and abrasively processing a workpiece. Therefore, Robinson is in the same field of endeavor. See above rejection, wherein Boler was additionally relied upon, for more details.
Applicant argues claims depending from claim 1 and 39 are allowable by virtue of dependency because the additionally cited prior art fails to remedy the deficiencies of Schulz in view of Robinson. However, Claims 1 and 39 have been rejected over Schulz in view of Robinson and further in view of Boler. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Regarding claim 44, Applicant argues Shimbara teaches away from the claimed embodiment. Specifically, Applicant argues Shimbara’s teaching of difficulty to find fine defects is teaching away (page 12 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Shimbara teaches “Though this problem may be overcome by automatically detecting a defective part by the use of a TV camera or the like” (col. 1, lines 32-35). Therefore, Shimbara teaches it is known to use an image detecting device to detect a defect on the surface. Additionally, Shimbara’s teachings of the defective marks are detected by a detecting means such as comprising a TV camera reads on the limitation of “detecting the defect on the surface using an image detecting device”. That is, Shimbara’s teachings indirectly detect the defect by detecting the marks via the TV camera. This interpretation qualifies under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI). Additionally, the language does not specify the defect type that is detected. Therefore, Shimbara’s marks themselves can be interpreted as defects. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Shimbara teaches an embedded fluid handling workflow tailored to water based wet sanding and does not teach dispensing a polish. However, Schulz was relied upon to dispensing a polish. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues no articulated reason was provided as to incorporating the teachings of Schulz (page 13 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Shimbara teaches “wet sanding” but does not teach the specific structure of how the liquid is applied to the work surface to result in “wet sanding”. That is, Shimbara does not teach explicitly how the liquid is applied, the liquid delivery structures, and the liquid reservoirs. Schulz was relied upon to teach an explicit manipulator including how the liquid is applied, the liquid delivery structures and the liquid reservoirs. The motivation to combine was providing explicit structure to achieve wet sanding as desired by Shimbara, wherein Shimbara does not teach the explicit structure. Additionally, including the explicit structure of Schulz would allow the device to function as intended, wherein without explicit structure, it is not precisely clear how the device functions. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues no articulated reason was provided as to incorporating the teachings of Robinson (page 14 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Robinson was relied upon to teach a known polish, which was substituted for the known polish of Shimbara, as modified, through simple substitution (MPEP 2143). That is, Robinson’s polish is a polish used in an abrading process of a workpiece which is then substituted for another known polish used in an abrading process of a workpiece, wherein the predictable results include using a known polish to aid in an abrading process of a workpiece. Additionally, the prior art as modified is still capable of performing as intended and providing a processing medium (polish) for the abrading process. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the lack of motivation for incorporating the teachings of Trenholm. However, Trenholm is no longer relied upon. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues no motivation is provided when incorporating the teachings of Chan and that general quality control aspirations are not a substitute reasoned motivation (page 14 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Chan is also directed towards abrading a workpiece, wherein Chan was relied upon to teach a verification step of verifying the results were achieved after the abrading/grinding. These teachings of additional scanning/measuring to verify the results were achieved were incorporated in order to promote increased quality of the workpiece by verifying the desired results. Chan’s verification teachings are not “generic quality control aspirations”. Rather, Chan’s verification teachings are explicit quality control actions that are taken in order to verify the desired results are achieved. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues The Office has not explained why a POSITA would re-sequence Shimbara’s mark detection/wet sanding/ wash process to arrive at the claimed language and that no connective rationale is provided. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Rationales for the incorporation of teachings from each of the teaching references were provided. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues “common sense” and design choice are improper. However, neither “common sense” nor design choice was relied upon to arrive at the claimed invention. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Robinson and Chan are non-analogous art (page 16 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner disagrees with the narrow interpretation of field of endeavor. Instead, the examiner notes the field of endeavor to be abrasively processing a workpiece with a tool. Under this interpretation of the field of endeavor, Robinson is also directed towards abrasively processing a workpiece with a tool. Additionally, Chan is also directed towards abrasively processing a workpiece with a tool. “The field of endeavor is ‘not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus with a given field’” (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I.)). Additionally, the examiner notes Robinson and Chan are also appropriately classified in B24B, as is the instant invention.
Applicant argues the teachings conflict and change in principle of operation. Specifically, Applicant argues Shimbara’s teachings and Trenholm’s teachings conflict. However, as noted above, Trenholm is no longer relied upon. Additionally, as noted above, the markings of defects can themselves be interpreted as defects themselves, thereby teaching detecting the defect on the surface as claimed. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Shimbara’s wet sanding uses water and this conflicts with the teachings of Robinson and Schulz. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Shimbara does not explicitly teach water during sanding and only teaches that the sanding is “wet sanding”. Overall, Shimbara does not provide explicit details into the functioning of the “wet sanding”. Robinson and Schulz were relied upon to teach a processing medium in order to explicitly achieve the “wet sanding” as desired. The teachings of Robinson and Schulz were not incorporated through bodily incorporation. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues changing the mark detection backbone with specular defect imaging (Trenholm) and substituting water wet sanding with nozzle dispensed polish fundamentally changes the functioning of the line (page 18 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. As mention above, Shimbara does not explicitly teach “water” wet sanding and only teaches “wet sanding”. Additionally, Trenholm is no longer relied upon as the term “specular” is no longer included in the claim language. Overall, Shimbara, as modified, is capable of achieving the intended purpose of providing a marking station L1, a mark detecting station L2, a sanding station L3, and a water washing station L4. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the proposed modifications would render Shimbara’s system unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Shimbara, as modified, is capable of achieving the intended purpose of providing a marking station L1, a mark detecting station L2, a sanding station L3, and a water washing station L4. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the proposed modifications is a change in fundamental mode of operation, not an incremental optimization. However, Shimbara, as modified, remains capable of achieving the intended purpose of providing a marking station L1, a mark detecting station L2, a sanding station L3, and a water washing station L4. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the teachings of Chan and Trenholm conflict (page 19 of Applicant’s remarks). However, Trenholm is no longer relied upon. Additionally, Shimbara, as modified, remains capable of achieving the intended purpose of providing a marking station L1, a mark detecting station L2, a sanding station L3, and a water washing station L4. See above rejection for more details.
The double patenting rejections have been updated and maintained. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
8. 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 MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723