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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Amendments filed 8/25/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 1-9, 12, 23-24, 28-29 and 33-36 are pending. Accordingly, claims 1-9, 12, 23-24, 28-29 and 33-36 have been examined herein.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Force control 230
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites “force control 230 unit”. However, element 230 does not appear in the figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed 8/23/2022 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to PRO 62/981,058 is ineffective because the attempt to incorporate the subject matter is occurring after the filing date of the application which is the filing date of the PCT. Therefore, the attempt to incorporate the subject matter of PRO 62/981,058 is considered new matter. Please correct the specification accordingly. An example of correction includes amending the specification to read “
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23, line 9, “the worksurface” should read “[[the]] a worksurface” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 23, line 11, “a worksurface” should read “[[a]] the worksurface” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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 1-9, 12, 23-24, 28-29 and 33-36 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 1, the language recites “wherein the end effector is moveable relative to the force control unit”… “and a second configuration in which the end effector is not aligned with the force control unit”. However, it is not precisely clear what is required by the term “not aligned”. As best understood by the examiner, the end effector is always aligned with the force control unit. If the language is meant to require the end effector rotating into alignment and out of alignment with regards to the worksurface, it is not clear how the end effector is moveable relative to the force control unit as the end effector moves relative to the worksurface. Specifically, with regards to fig. 1 of the instant application, it appears the end effector rotates via the wrist of the robot, wherein the force control unit 124 is mounted to the end effector 136. Therefore, it is not clear how the end effector is movable relative to the force control unit between an aligned and not aligned position, wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from a worksurface while the end effector is aligned. As best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as requiring the end effector to be movable between an aligned position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface to a not aligned position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface, wherein the end effector is movable relative to the alignment of the force control unit and the worksurface.
Claims 2-9, 12 and 33-36 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 23, the language recites “an end effector coupled to the force control unit and movable relative to the force control unit” … “in which the end effector is aligned with the force control unit and a second configuration in which the end effector is not aligned with the force control unit”. However, it is not precisely clear what is required by the term “not aligned”. As best understood by the examiner, the end effector is always aligned with the force control unit. If the language is meant to require the end effector rotating into alignment and out of alignment with regards to the worksurface, it is not clear how the end effector is moveable relative to the force control unit as the end effector moves relative to the worksurface. Specifically, with regards to fig. 1 of the instant application, it appears the end effector rotates via the wrist of the robot, wherein the force control unit 124 is mounted to the end effector 136. Therefore, it is not clear how the end effector is movable relative to the force control unit between an aligned and not aligned position, wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from a worksurface while the end effector is aligned. As best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as requiring the end effector to be movable between an aligned position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface to a not aligned position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface, wherein the end effector is movable relative to the alignment of the force control unit and the worksurface.
Claims 24 and 28-29 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 34, the language recites “not aligned with the force control unit”. However, it is not precisely clear what is required by the term “not aligned”. As best understood by the examiner, the end effector is always aligned with the force control unit. If the language is meant to require the end effector rotating into alignment and out of alignment with regards to the worksurface, it is not clear how the end effector is moveable relative to the force control unit as the end effector moves relative to the worksurface. Specifically, with regards to fig. 1 of the instant application, it appears the end effector rotates via the wrist of the robot, wherein the force control unit 124 is mounted to the end effector 136. Therefore, it is not clear how the end effector is movable relative to the force control unit between an aligned and not aligned position, wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from a worksurface while the end effector is aligned. As best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as requiring the end effector to be movable between an aligned position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface to a not aligned position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface, wherein the end effector is movable relative to the alignment of the force control unit and the worksurface.
Regarding claim 35, the language recites “out of alignment with the force control unit”. However, it is not precisely clear what is required by the term “out of alignment”. As best understood by the examiner, the end effector is always aligned with the force control unit. If the language is meant to require the end effector rotating into alignment and out of alignment with regards to the worksurface, it is not clear how the end effector is moveable relative to the force control unit as the end effector moves relative to the worksurface. Specifically, with regards to fig. 1 of the instant application, it appears the end effector rotates via the wrist of the robot, wherein the force control unit 124 is mounted to the end effector 136. Therefore, it is not clear how the end effector is movable relative to the force control unit between an aligned and not aligned position, wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from a worksurface while the end effector is aligned. As best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as requiring the end effector to be movable between an aligned position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface to a not aligned position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface, wherein the end effector is movable relative to the alignment of the force control unit and the worksurface, wherein the second end effector is out of alignment with the worksurface and the force control unit when the first end effector is in alignment with the worksurface and the force control unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2021164298), hereinafter Zhang, in view of Hane et al. (US PGPUB 20200398424), hereinafter Hane.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a robotic abrading system (fig. 1) comprising:
a motive robotic arm (fig. 1);
an end effector (fig. 1, including polishing wheel 13);
an abrasive tool (polishing wheel 13) coupled to the end effector (fig. 1), wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from a worksurface (fig. 1, polishing wheel 13 is configured to contact and remove material from a worksurface); and
a fluid dispensing system (fig. 1) comprising:
a fluid container (liquid storage tank 5), wherein the fluid container is mounted upstream of the end effector (fig. 1), at a location separate from the end effector (fig. 1);
a fluid dispenser configured to dispense fluid on the worksurface (fig. 1, nozzle 12), wherein the fluid dispenser is mounted to the end effector (fig. 1);
a fluid coupler coupling the fluid container to the fluid dispenser (fig. 1, supply pipe 7).
Zhang does not explicitly teach
a force control unit coupled to the motive robotic arm;
an end effector coupled to the force control unit, wherein the end effector is movable relative to the force control unit between a first configuration in which the end effector is aligned with the force control unit and a second configuration in which the end effector is not aligned with the force control unit;
wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from a worksurface while the end effector is in the first configuration; and
wherein the fluid container is mounted upstream of the force control unit.
However, Hane teaches a robot system which includes a robotic arm (fig. 2), wherein the robot system includes a tool 44, a driving section 46 configured to rotate the tool [0022], a six axis force sensor 32 [0023] and a controller/processor [0088], wherein the processor controls the robot [0090], wherein the controller/processor and force sensor are together interpreted as a force control unit. Hane teaches the end effector includes the base, tool and driving section [0022]. Additionally, Hane teaches
a force control unit coupled to the motive robotic arm (six axis force sensor 32 and processor);
an end effector coupled to the force control unit (fig. 2).
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 Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Hane to provide
a force control unit coupled to the motive robotic arm;
an end effector coupled to the force control unit
wherein the fluid container is mounted upstream of the force control unit and the end effector.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the force sensor and processor of Hane into the device of Zhang, wherein the polishing wheel is configured to remove material when the end effector is aligned with the force sensor and the worksurface, wherein the force sensor is incorporated at the end of the arm of Zhang between the tool and the arm (as taught by Hane) thereby providing wherein the fluid container of Zhang is mounted upstream of the incorporated force control unit. Doing so would allow the robot of Zhang, as modified, to function as a force controlled robot, which promotes quality and accuracy of the workpiece processing. Additionally, doing so would prevent damage to the workpiece due to excessive force.
In summary, Zhang, as modified, teaches
a force control unit coupled to the motive robotic arm (force control unit as incorporated from Hane);
an end effector (of Zhang) coupled to the force control unit (incorporated force control unit of Hane), wherein the end effector is movable relative to the force control unit between a first configuration in which the end effector is aligned with the force control unit and a second configuration in which the end effector is not aligned with the force control unit (The end effector is movable between an aligned position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface to a not aligned position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface, wherein the end effector is movable relative to the alignment of the force control unit and the worksurface. As best understood by the examiner, in view of the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the prior art teaches the claimed limitation);
wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from a worksurface while the end effector is in the first configuration (the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from the worksurface when the end effector is aligned); and
wherein the fluid container is mounted upstream of the force control unit (incorporated force control unit of Hane).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein the fluid dispensing system is self-contained on the motive robotic arm (fig. 1 of Zhang).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Zhang, as modified, teaches and further comprising: a pump (supply pump 6 of Zhang).
Regarding claim 34, Zhang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein the end effector is rotatable relative to the force control unit between a first angular position in which the end effector is aligned with the force control unit and a second angular position in which the end effector is not aligned with the force control unit (The end effector is rotatable between an aligned first angular position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface to a not aligned second angular position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface, wherein the end effector is movable relative to the alignment of the force control unit and the worksurface. As best understood by the examiner, in view of the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the prior art teaches the claimed language).
Regarding claim 36, Zhang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein the robotic abrading system comprises a single fluid dispenser (nozzle 12 of Zhang, fig. 1).
Claims 4-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2021164298), hereinafter Zhang, in view of Hane et al. (US PGPUB 20200398424), hereinafter Hane, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrison et al. (WO 2014063146), hereinafter Morrison.
Regarding claims 4-5, Zhang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Zhang, as modified, does not explicitly teach “single-use components”, wherein the fluid container is a liner, and wherein the liner is disposable.
However, Morrison teaches a propellantless aerosol fluid dispensing system for dispensing a fluid material (abs). Additionally, Morrison teaches the system includes wherein the fluid container is a liner, and wherein the liner is disposable (figs. 1 and 2, disposable pouch 30, page 5 of the attached WO document, last 4 lines). Overall, Morrison teaches it is known to use single-use disposable components in the fluid system, wherein the single-use disposable components are capable of being disposed and replaced.
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 Zhang, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Morrison to provide wherein the fluid container and the fluid coupler are disposable single-use elements, wherein the fluid container is a liner, and wherein the liner is disposable. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute the disposable pouch of Morrison for the fluid container of Zhang and provide wherein the fluid coupler is also disposable. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known fluid reservoir (pouch of Morrison) for another known fluid reservoir (container of Zhang) to obtain the predictable results of providing a fluid reservoir for holding fluid. Additionally, doing so would promote cleanliness and time savings by replacing the components when empty.
In summary, Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein the fluid container and the fluid coupler are single-use components configured to be replaced when the fluid container is depleted (The examiner notes the term “single-use” and “configured to be replaced” are intended use statements that do not alter the required structure. However, Zhang, as modified, now teaches wherein the fluid container and the fluid coupler are disposable elements. The disposable elements are also capable of providing a single-use component configured to be replaced when the fluid container is depleted), wherein the fluid container is a liner, and wherein the liner is disposable (see incorporated teachings of Morrison).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Zhang, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein the fluid container comprises a port configured to receive a source of compressed air.
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 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). Overall, Morrison teaches wherein the fluid container (fig. 2, reusable container 10 and pouch 30) comprises a port (fig. 2, aperture 27) configured to receive a source of compressed air (Morrison teaches compressor 18 operates to direct compressed air through aperture 27 (page 12 of the WO doc, lines 13-15).
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 Zhang, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Morrison to provide wherein the fluid container comprises a port configured to receive a source of compressed air. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute the fluid container of Morrison (including compressor, pouch and reusable container) for the fluid container and pump of Zhang, wherein the fluid container of Morrison is attached to the nozzle of Zhang. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known reservoir and pump assembly (Morison’s compressor, pouch and reusable container) for another known reservoir and pump assembly (Zhang’s fluid container and pump) to obtain the predictable results of providing a fluid reservoir and pumping means to selectively disperse the contents of the fluid reservoir.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Zhang, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the fluid dispensing system comprises a disposable nozzle that couples to the fluid dispenser.
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 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). Morrison teaches wherein the fluid dispensing system comprises a disposable nozzle (nozzle 36, wherein the nozzle is capable of being disposed) that couples to the fluid dispenser (fig. 2).
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 Zhang, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Morrison to provide wherein the fluid dispensing system comprises a disposable nozzle that couples to the fluid dispenser. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the nozzle teachings of Morrison onto the fluid dispenser of Zhang. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one nozzle configuration for another nozzle configuration to obtain the predictable results of providing a nozzle for dispensing the fluid. Additionally, including the nozzle would allow the fluid to be more precisely directed.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2021164298), hereinafter Zhang, in view of Hane et al. (US PGPUB 20200398424), hereinafter Hane, and further in view of Morrison et al. (WO 2014063146), hereinafter Morrison, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Rudolph (US PGPUB 20170245721).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Zhang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 5. Zhang, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein the fluid dispensing system is mounted such that gravity provides some pressure needed for fluid to flow from the fluid container to the fluid dispenser, wherein the fluid dispensing system is mounted such that gravity provides all of the pressure needed for the fluid to flow from the fluid container to the fluid dispenser.
However, Rudolph teaches a system for delivering fluid to a processing surface [0001]. Specifically, Rudolph teaches an apparatus (fig. 14) which includes a fluid bag/source 143, a fluid management system 146 and a fluid transit conduit 145. Rudolph teaches the fluid management system connects a position just below the handle with a device receiving fluid from the bottom of the fluid source such that the flow rate of fluid and the pressure of fluid being flowed forward to the fluid introduction port can be controlled by the operator. This includes not applying any pressure so that all pressure originates solely from the weight of the fluid in the gravitational field [0066]. Fluid 51 is stored in a fluid source 143 above the height of contact area 120 for gravity feed, as shown in fig. 14 [0071]. Overall, Rudolph teaches wherein the fluid dispensing system (fig. 14) is mounted such that gravity provides some pressure needed (paragraphs 0066 and 0071) for fluid to flow from the fluid container (fig. 14, fluid source 143) to the fluid dispenser (port 22), wherein the fluid dispensing system (fig. 14) is mounted such that gravity provides all of the pressure needed (paragraphs 0066 and 0071) for fluid to flow from the fluid container (fig. 14, fluid source 143) to the fluid dispenser (port 22).
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 Zhang, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Rudolph to provide wherein the fluid dispensing system is mounted such that gravity provides some pressure needed for fluid to flow from the fluid container to the fluid dispenser, wherein the fluid dispensing system is mounted such that gravity provides all of the pressure needed for fluid to flow from the fluid container to the fluid dispenser. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the fluid dispensing system of Zhang and mount the fluid container of Zhang such that gravity provides all of the pressure needed for the fluid to flow from the fluid container of Zhang to the fluid dispenser. Doing so would decrease maintenance by not having to maintain any pumping means to supply pressure, which promotes longevity of the system. Additionally, doing so promotes less power consumption which promotes cost savings.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2021164298), hereinafter Zhang, in view of Hane et al. (US PGPUB 20200398424), hereinafter Hane, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent 6402478), hereinafter Zhang ‘478.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Zhang, as modified, does not explicitly teach further comprising a sensor for detecting a low fluid level, wherein the sensor comprises a weight sensor, an optical sensor, or a volumetric sensor.
However, Zhang ‘478 teaches a sensing device and method for fluids. Additionally, Zhang ‘478 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). Overall, Zhang ‘478 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), an optical sensor (sensor for detecting reflection of a light signal. However, because the limitation recites the term “or”, the prior art is not required to teach this limitation), or a volumetric sensor (Because the limitation recites the term “or”, the prior art is not required to teach this limitation).
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 Zhang, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Zhang ‘478 to provide a sensor for detecting a low fluid level, wherein the sensor comprises a weight sensor. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the weight sensor teachings of Zhang ‘478 to provide a weight sensor for detecting a fluid level of the container of Zhang. Doing so would prevent down time of processing operations by being able to predict when the container will be empty. Additionally, doing so would allow the operator to replace the container during slow times, which prevents future down times during the operating process, in order to increase working efficiency.
Claims 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2021164298), hereinafter Zhang, in view of Hane et al. (US PGPUB 20200398424), hereinafter Hane, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hampson et al. (US PGPUB 20170106393), hereinafter Hampson.
Regarding claim 33, Zhang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein the end effector is a first end effector (fig. 1 of Zhang).
Zhang, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the robotic abrading system comprises a second end effector, and wherein a second abrasive tool is coupled to the second end effector.
However, Hampson teaches a robotic end effector and method of processing a workpiece, wherein the system includes two robotic end effectors (fig. 4), wherein the two robotic end effectors operation is coordinated [0038].
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 Zhang, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Hampson to provide wherein the robotic abrading system comprises a second end effector, and wherein a second abrasive tool is coupled to the second end effector. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Hampson and provide the system of Zhang, as modified, with two robotic end effectors, wherein the two robotic end effectors operation is coordinated, wherein the second end effector is the same structure and tool as the first end effector of Zhang. Doing so would provide increased utility of the system to work on larger workpieces. Additionally, doing so would promote time savings by coordinating the operations of the two robots to split workload.
Regarding claim 35, Zhang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Zhang, as modified, teaches
wherein the end effector is a first end effector (fig. 1 of Zhang).
Zhang, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the robotic abrading system further comprises a second end effector coupled to the force control unit; and
wherein the first and second end effectors are configured to rotate with respect to the force control unit such that when the first end effector is in alignment with the force control unit, the second end effector is out of alignment with the force control unit.
However, Hampson teaches a robotic end effector and method of processing a workpiece, wherein the system includes two robotic end effectors (fig. 4), wherein the two robotic end effectors operation is coordinated [0038].
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 Zhang, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Hampson to provide wherein the robotic abrading system further comprises a second end effector coupled to the force control unit; and
wherein the first and second end effectors are configured to rotate with respect to the force control unit such that when the first end effector is in alignment with the force control unit, the second end effector is out of alignment with the force control unit.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Hampson and provide the system of Zhang, as modified, with two robotic end effectors, wherein the two robotic end effectors operation is coordinated, wherein the second end effector is the same structure, force sensor and tool as the first end effector of Zhang, as modified. Doing so would provide increased utility of the system to work on larger workpieces. Additionally, doing so would promote time savings by coordinating the operations of the two robots to split workload.
In summary, Zhang, as modified, teaches
wherein the end effector is a first end effector (original end effector of Zhang, as modified), and wherein the robotic abrading system further comprises a second end effector (additional end effector via incorporated teachings of Hampson, wherein the second end effector has the same structure, force sensor and tool as the first end effector) coupled to the force control unit (the combination of both force sensors from each of the first and second end effector is interpreted as the force control unit); and
wherein the first and second end effectors are configured to rotate with respect to the force control unit (the respective tools of the respective end effectors are configured to rotate with respect to the force control unit) such that when the first end effector is in alignment with the force control unit, the second end effector is out of alignment with the force control unit (the system of Zhang, as modified, is capable of when the first end effector is in alignment with the force control unit via the first end effector processing the workpiece, the second end effector is out of alignment with the force control unit via the second end effector not actively processing the workpiece. As best understood by the examiner, in view of the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the prior art teaches the claimed language).
Claims 23 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (DE 102017213143) (see translation previously attached on 2/20/2025) in view of Hane et al. (US PGPUB 20200398424), hereinafter Hane.
Regarding claim 23, Schulz teaches a robotic repair unit (fig. 2) comprising:
a robotic arm (fig. 2) comprising:
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), and an end effector (fig. 2, end effector 1); and
an abrasive tool (fig. 2, grinding tool 3, first paragraph on page 9 of the attached translation) coupled to the end effector (fig. 2), wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from the worksurface (fig. 2, the grinding tool 3 is capable of contacting and removing material from the worksurface); and
a self-contained fluid dispensing system (fig. 2) configured to dispense a fluid 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 fluid dispensing system comprises:
a single fluid dispenser (see annotated fig. 2 below, exit opening 12 of the media line 11 is being interpreted as the fluid dispenser) mounted to the end effector and positioned proximate the abrasive tool (see annotated fig. 2 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
525
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a fluid container (cartridge 9, see annotated fig. 2 above; last paragraph on page 2 of the attached translation) coupled to the fluid dispenser (fig. 2, the cartridge 9 is coupled to the exit opening 12 via the media line 11), wherein the fluid container (cartridge 9) is mounted at or upstream of the force control unit (As noted above, Schulz teaches the robotic system includes a force control unit. The term “at” does not require any specific structural or spatial relationship. Therefore, the cartridge 9 is interpreted as being mounted “at” the force control unit. The prior art is not required to teach the term “upstream” because the language recites the term “or”), separate from the end effector (because the fluid container is a different structure from the end effector, the fluid container is mounted separate from the end effector); and
a fluid coupler coupling the fluid container to the fluid dispenser (media line 11 couples the fluid container 9 to the exit opening 12).
Schulz does not explicitly teach the end effector coupled to the force control unit and movable relative to the force control unit between a first configuration in which the end effector is aligned with the force control unit and a second configuration in which the end effector is not aligned with the force control unit;
wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from the worksurface while the end effector is in the first configuration.
However, Hane teaches a robot system which includes a robotic arm (fig. 2), wherein the robot system includes a tool 44, a driving section 46 configured to rotate the tool [0022], a six axis force sensor 32 [0023] and a controller/processor [0088], wherein the processor controls the robot [0090], wherein the controller/processor and force sensor are together interpreted as a force control unit. Hane teaches the end effector includes the base, tool and driving section [0022]. Additionally, Hane teaches the end effector is coupled to the force control unit (fig. 2, end effector coupled to force sensor 32).
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 Hane to provide the end effector is coupled to the force control unit. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate Hane’s configuration of force sensor, controller, driving section and rotatable tool. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended by explicitly teaching a known location of the force sensor, wherein Schulz does not teach the location of the force sensor. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to function as a force controlled robot, as intended by Schulz, which promotes quality and accuracy.
In summary, Schulz, as modified, teaches
the end effector coupled to the force control unit (as incorporated from Hane) and movable relative to the force control unit between a first configuration in which the end effector is aligned with the force control unit and a second configuration in which the end effector is not aligned with the force control unit (The end effector is movable between an aligned position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface to a not aligned position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface, wherein the end effector is movable relative to the alignment of the force control unit and the worksurface. As best understood by the examiner, in view of the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the prior art teaches the claimed language);
wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from the worksurface while the end effector is in the first configuration (The abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove the material while the end effector is in the aligned position).
Regarding claim 28, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 23. Additionally, Schulz, as modified, teaches wherein the dispenser comprises a disposable nozzle (fig. 2, the end portion of the media line 11 is interpreted as a nozzle having the outlet opening 12. The nozzle and media line 11 are capable of being disposed).
Regarding claim 29, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 23. Additionally, Schulz, as modified, teaches wherein the fluid container is mounted on a tool side of the force control unit of the robotic arm (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 (as incorporated from Hane) of the robotic arm).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (DE 102017213143) (see translation previously attached on 2/20/2025) in view of Hane et al. (US PGPUB 20200398424), hereinafter Hane, as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Morrison et al. (WO 2014063146), hereinafter Morrison.
Regarding claim 24, Schulz, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 23. Schulz, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the fluid container comprises a fluid liner which is configured to contain the fluid to be 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 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). Overall, Morrison teaches wherein the fluid container comprises a fluid liner which is configured to contain the fluid to be dispensed (figs. 1 and 2, disposable pouch 30, page 5 of the attached WO document, last 4 lines).
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 fluid container comprises a fluid liner which is configured to contain the fluid to be dispensed. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute the fluid container of Morrison (including compressor, pouch and reusable container) for the cartridge and pump of Schulz, wherein the fluid container of Morrison is attached to the media line 11 of Schulz. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known reservoir and pump assembly (Morison’s compressor, pouch and reusable container) for another known reservoir and pump assembly (Schulz’s cartridge 9 and pumping means 10) to obtain the predictable results of providing a fluid reservoir and pumping means to selectively disperse the contents of the fluid reservoir.
Double Patenting
8. 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.
Claim 23 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of copending Application No. 17/904,810 in view of Schulz (DE 102017213143) (see translation previously attached on 2/20/2025) and further in view of Hane et al. (US PGPUB 20200398424), hereinafter Hane.
Instant application 17/904,812
Copending Application 17/904,810
23. (Currently Amended) A robotic repair unit comprising:
1. (Currently Amended) A robotic repair unit, comprising:
a robotic arm comprising:
a motive robotic arm;
a force control unit,
a force control unit coupled to the motive robotic arm;
an end effector coupled to the force control unit and
(claim 6) further comprising an end effector, wherein the abrasive tool is coupled to the end effector, and wherein the end effector is coupled to the force control unit.
and an abrasive tool coupled to the end effector; and
(claim 6) further comprising an end effector, wherein the abrasive tool is coupled to the end effector, and wherein the end effector is coupled to the force control unit.
a dispensing system configured to dispense a fluid on a worksurface,
a polish dispenser mounted to the robotic repair unit, wherein the polish dispenser is configured to dispense polish proximate the area of the worksurface;
a fluid container coupled to the fluid dispenser; and
a polish container filled with a low viscosity polish,
A fluid coupler coupling the fluid container to the fluid dispenser
A coupler that connects the polish container to the polish dispenser
Claims 1 and 6 of the copending application do not explicitly teach
an end effector movable relative to the force control unit between a first configuration in which the end effector is aligned with the force control unit and a second configuration in which the end effector is not aligned with the force control unit; and
wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from the worksurface while the end effector is in the first configuration; and
a self-contained fluid dispensing system
wherein the self-contained fluid dispensing system comprises:
a single fluid dispenser mounted to the end effector and positioned proximate the abrasive tool; and
a fluid container coupled to the fluid dispenser, wherein the fluid container is mounted at or upstream of the force control unit, separate from the end effector.
However, Schulz teaches an end effector (fig. 2) which includes a self-contained fluid dispensing system (fig. 2)
wherein the self-contained fluid dispensing system comprises:
a single fluid dispenser mounted to the end effector and positioned proximate the abrasive tool (see annotated fig. 2 below, wherein exit opening 12 is interpreted as the fluid dispenser and mounted to the robotic arm and positioned proximate the abrasive tool 3)); and
PNG
media_image2.png
525
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a fluid container coupled to the fluid dispenser (fig. 2), wherein the fluid container (cartridge 9) is mounted at or upstream of the 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. The term “at” does not require any specific structural or spatial relationship. Therefore, the cartridge 9 is interpreted as being mounted “at” the force control unit. The prior art is not required to teach the term “upstream” because the language recites the term “or”), separate from the end effector (because the fluid container is a different structure from the end effector, the fluid container is mounted separate from the end effector).
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 claims 1 and 6 of the copending application to incorporate the teachings of Schulz to provide a self-contained fluid dispensing system
wherein the self-contained fluid dispensing system comprises:
a single fluid dispenser mounted to the end effector and positioned proximate the abrasive tool; and
a fluid container coupled to the fluid dispenser, wherein the fluid container is mounted at or upstream of the force control unit, separate from the end effector.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the fluid dispensing configuration of Schulz. Doing so would allow fluid to be dispensed to the work surface as intended which promotes quality of the workpiece.
Claims 1 and 6 of the copending application, as modified, do not explicitly teach
an end effector movable relative to the force control unit between a first configuration in which the end effector is aligned with the force control unit and a second configuration in which the end effector is not aligned with the force control unit; and
wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from the worksurface while the end effector is in the first configuration.
However, Hane teaches the end effector is configured to move with respect to the force control unit between a first aligned position and a second not aligned position (fig 2, tool 44 of the end effector is configured to move into aligned and not aligned positions with respect to worksurface).
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 claims 1 and 6 of the copending application, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Hane to provide the end effector an end effector movable relative to the force control unit between a first configuration in which the end effector is aligned with the force control unit and a second configuration in which the end effector is not aligned with the force control unit; and
wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from the worksurface while the end effector is in the first configuration.
Doing so would allow the device to function as intended and provide an explicit location of the force sensor. Additionally, doing so would allow the tool to process the workpiece.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 23 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 39 of copending Application No. 17/904,810 in view of Schulz (DE 102017213143) (see translation previously attached on 2/20/2025) and further in view of Hane et al. (US PGPUB 20200398424), hereinafter Hane.
Instant application 17/904,812
Copending Application 17/904,810
23. (Currently Amended) A robotic repair unit comprising:
39. (Currently Amended) A robotic repair unit, comprising:
a robotic arm comprising:
a robotic arm
a force control unit,
with a force control unit
an end effector coupled to the force control unit
a robotic arm with a force control unit coupled to an end effector containing an abrasive tool
and an abrasive tool coupled to the end effector; and
a robotic arm with a force control unit coupled to an end effector containing an abrasive tool
a self-contained fluid dispensing system configured to dispense a fluid on a worksurface,
And a self-contained polish dispensing system configured to dispense a low viscosity polish on a worksurface,
wherein the self-contained fluid dispensing system comprises:
wherein the self-contained polish dispensing system comprises:
a fluid dispenser mounted to the robotic arm and positioned proximate the abrasive tool; and
a dispenser;
a fluid container coupled to the fluid dispenser.
And a polish container coupled to the dispenser,
Claim 39 of the copending application does not explicitly teach
an end effector movable relative to the force control unit between a first configuration in which the end effector is aligned with the force control unit and a second configuration in which the end effector is not aligned with the force control unit; and
wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from the worksurface while the end effector is in the first configuration,
a single fluid dispenser mounted to the end effector and positioned proximate the abrasive tool,
wherein the fluid container is mounted at or upstream of the force control unit, separate from the end effector; and
a fluid coupler coupling the fluid container to the fluid dispenser.
However, Schulz teaches an end effector (fig. 2) which includes a single fluid dispenser mounted to the end effector and positioned proximate the abrasive tool (see annotated fig. 2 below),
wherein the fluid container is mounted at or upstream of the 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. The term “at” does not require any specific structural or spatial relationship. Therefore, the cartridge 9 is interpreted as being mounted “at” the force control unit. The prior art is not required to teach the term “upstream” because the language recites the term “or”), separate from the end effector (because the fluid container is a different structure from the end effector, the fluid container is mounted separate from the end effector); and
a fluid coupler coupling the fluid container to the fluid dispenser (media line 11).
PNG
media_image2.png
525
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 39 of the copending application to incorporate the teachings of Schulz to provide a single fluid dispenser mounted to the end effector and positioned proximate the abrasive tool, wherein the fluid container is mounted at or upstream of the force control unit, separate from the end effector; and a fluid coupler coupling the fluid container to the fluid dispenser.
Doing so would allow the device to function as intended and provide fluid to the work area.
Claim 39 of the copending application, as modified, does not explicitly teach
an end effector movable relative to the force control unit between a first configuration in which the end effector is aligned with the force control unit and a second configuration in which the end effector is not aligned with the force control unit; and
wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from the worksurface while the end effector is in the first configuration.
However, Hane teaches the end effector is configured to move with respect to the force control unit between a first aligned position and a second not aligned position (fig 2, tool 44 of the end effector is configured to move into aligned and not aligned positions with respect to worksurface).
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 39 of the copending application, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Hane to provide the end effector an end effector movable relative to the force control unit between a first configuration in which the end effector is aligned with the force control unit and a second configuration in which the end effector is not aligned with the force control unit; and
wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from the worksurface while the end effector is in the first configuration.
Doing so would allow the device to function as intended and provide an explicit location of the force sensor. Additionally, doing so would allow the tool to process the workpiece.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of record fails to teach the amended language of claim 1 (page 7 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Specifically, the language recites “wherein the end effector is moveable relative to the force control unit”… “and a second configuration in which the end effector is not aligned with the force control unit”. However, it is not precisely clear what is required by the term “not aligned”. As best understood by the examiner, the end effector is always aligned with the force control unit. If the language is meant to require the end effector rotating into alignment and out of alignment with regards to the worksurface, it is not clear how the end effector is moveable relative to the force control unit as the end effector moves relative to the worksurface. Specifically, with regards to fig. 1 of the instant application, it appears the end effector rotates via the wrist of the robot, wherein the force control unit 124 is mounted to the end effector 136. Therefore, it is not clear how the end effector is movable relative to the force control unit between an aligned and not aligned position, wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from a worksurface while the end effector is aligned. As best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as requiring the end effector to be movable between an aligned position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface to a not aligned position of the force control unit, end effector and worksurface, wherein the end effector is movable relative to the alignment of the force control unit and the worksurface.
In view of the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the prior art has been interpreted as reading on the amended language. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach the amended language of claim 34. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 34 has also been rejected under 35 USC 112(b). In view of the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the prior art has been interpreted as reading on the amended language. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach the “single-use” and “configured to be replaced” limitations of amended claim 4 (page 7 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that limitations “single-use” and “configured to be replaced” are not taught, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In the instant case, the prior art is capable of performing “single-use” and “configured to be replaced”. Additionally, the prior art was modified to incorporate single use and disposable elements. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the claims depending from claim 1 are allowable by virtue of dependency. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 has been rejected over the prior art above. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant presents arguments regarding claim 23 similar to the arguments directed to claim 1 above. Claim 23 has also been rejected under 35 USC 112(b). The prior art has been interpreted to read on the claim language in view of the 35 USC 112(b) rejection. See above rejection and response to arguments for more details.
Applicant argues the claims depending from claim 23 are allowable by virtue of dependency. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 23 has been rejected over the prior art above. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
The double patenting rejections have been updated and maintained. See above for more details.
Conclusion
10. 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/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights