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 2/16/2026 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. The previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 1-4, 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 configured to move with respect to the force control unit;
wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from a worksurface when the end effector is aligned with the force control unit;
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), wherein the end effector is configured to move with respect to the force control unit (the tool 44 is configured to be rotated via the driving section 46, wherein the rotating shaft of the driving section moves with respect to the sensor 32. Therefore, the end effector is configured to move with respect to the force control unit.);
wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from a worksurface when the end effector is aligned with the force control unit (when the tool is in contact with a surface, the end effector is aligned with the force control unit and the tool is configured to remove material).
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 end effector is configured to move with respect to the force control unit;
wherein the abrasive tool is configured to contact and remove material from a worksurface when the end effector is aligned with the force control unit;
wherein the fluid container is mounted upstream of the force control unit.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the force sensor and processor of Hane into the device of Zhang, wherein the polishing wheel of Zhang is configured to rotate with respect to the incorporated force sensor, wherein the polishing wheel is configured to remove material when the end effector is aligned with the force sensor, 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.
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 4, Zhang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein the fluid container and the fluid coupler are disposable (the fluid container and the fluid coupler of Zhang are capable of being disposed).
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 configured to rotate into alignment with the force control unit (The claim language does not specifically detail what is required by “alignment”. Therefore, the rotatable tool of the end effector of Zhang, as modified, is configured to rotate into alignment with the force control unit (as incorporated from Hane) during processing of the workpiece. see above rejection of claim 1 for more details).
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 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 claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Morrison et al. (WO 2014063146), hereinafter Morrison.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 4. Zhang, as modified, does not explicitly teach 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).
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 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. 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.
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. 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).
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), an end effector coupled to the force control unit (fig. 2, end effector 1 coupled to the force control unit and robotic arm); 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); 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); and
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 configured to move with respect to 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 the end effector configured to move with respect to the force control unit (the tool 44 is configured to be rotated via the driving section 46, wherein the rotating shaft of the driving section moves with respect to the sensor 32. Therefore, the end effector is configured to move with respect to the force control unit.).
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 configured to move with respect 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.
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 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
3. 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
the end effector configured to move with respect to the force control unit;
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
the end effector configured to move with respect to the force control unit;
However, Hane teaches the end effector is configured to move with respect to the force control unit (fig 2, tool 44 of the end effector is configured to rotate with respect to the sensor 32 of the force control unit).
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 configured to move with respect to the force control unit. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended. 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 configured to move with respect to the force control unit
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 configured to move with respect to the force control unit.
However, Hane teaches the end effector is configured to move with respect to the force control unit (fig 2, tool 44 of the end effector is configured to rotate with respect to the sensor 32 of the force control unit).
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 configured to move with respect to the force control unit. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended. Additionally, doing so would allow the tool to process the workpiece.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues Schulz in view of Hane fails to teach the amended language. Specifically, Applicant argues Schulz in view of Hane fails to teach relocating the reservoir off the end effector to the arm and from using an intervening coupling line, wherein the fluid container is mounted upstream of the force control unit. Applicant further argues the proposed modification would change Schulz’s principle of operation (page 7 of Applicant’s remarks).
However, Schulz in view of Hane was not relied upon to teach the amended language of claim 1. Rather, Zhang in view of Hane was relied upon to teach the amended language of claim 1, wherein Zhang teaches the fluid container mounted on the arm. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues claim 23 is allowable for similar reasoning presented with respect to claim 1.
However, the language of claim 23 recites “wherein the fluid container is mounted at or upstream of the force control unit” which is broader than the language of claim 1. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the mapping of “separate from the end effector” onto Schulz’s cartridge 9 attached to the end effector relied on an unreasonable BRI. Applicant argues Schulz’s cartridge on the end effector body cannot satisfy “mounted on the robotic arm… and not mounted on the end effector”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “mounted on the robotic arm… and not mounted on the end effector”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Overall, Schulz, as modified, teaches the language of claim 23. Because the fluid container of Schulz is a separate structure from the end effector, the fluid container is mounted separate from the end effector. The claim language is not specifically reciting the mounting structure, location or configuration, just broadly reciting “separate from the end effector”. See above rejection for more details.
The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Regarding claim 33, Applicant argues Schulz does not teach the multiple end effectors (page 8 of Applicant’s remarks). However, Schulz was not relied upon to teach this feature. Rather, Zhang and Hampson were relied upon to teach this feature. See above rejection for more details.
Regarding claim 34, Applicant argues Schulz and Hane fail to teach the alignment feature as claimed. Applicant argues Examiner’s interpretation equating tool spin or generic motion with alignment with the force control unit is an unreasonable BRI (page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., tool axis and force-control axis) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Schulz and Hane were not relied upon to teach this language. Rather, Zhang and Hane were relied upon to teach the alignment feature. Specifically, Zhang’s, as modified, tool being place into contact with the workpiece via the robot arm to process the workpiece is interpreted as “rotating into alignment with the force control unit” because the tool and workpiece are aligned with the force control unit in order for the force control unit to detect the force during operation. The terms “tool axis” and “force-control axis” are not recited in the claims. See above rejection for more details.
The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly.
See above rejection for more details.
The double patenting rejection has been updated and maintained. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
5. 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/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights