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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed March 25, 2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-10, 13, 15, 17-18, 20-21, 25, 27-28, 30, and 31-32 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 5, 11-12, 14, 16, 19, 22-24, 26, and 29 are cancelled by applicant. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1 and 13. Claims 20-21, 25, 27-28, and 30-32 are withdrawn. The previous claim interpretation of claim 13 is withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments. The previous 103 rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments. However, a new grounds of rejection has been made due to applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4, 6-10, 13, 15, and 17-18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the force control unit operates both the first end effector unit and the second end effector unit" in lines 7-8. It is unclear how the force control unit operates both of the end effector units, since in light of the specification, the force control unit “detects slight changes in weight” (see paragraph 0046) and “a weight sensor is the force control unit” (see paragraph 0095) (how can a sensor operate the first end effector unit and the second end effector unit when it used to detect changes and convert it into signals?), thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purpose, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be the force control unit operably operates both the first end effector unit and the second end effector unit.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a mounting plate mechanically coupled to a tool side of the force control unit”, in lines 3-4. It is unclear if applicant is attempting to claim multiple/different tool sides of the force control unit or if the applicant is referring back to the tool side as introduced in claim 1, line 3, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be referring to a single tool side of the force control unit.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 15, and 17-18 depends on claim 1 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2018120865) in view of Chen (CN 107253146).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses: a robotic repair unit (Figures 1-3 and see also paragraph 0022) comprising:
a motive robotic arm (element 3);
a unit (Figure 2 annotated below Detail A) having a robotic arm side (Figures 1-2 annotated below Detail B) and a tool side (Figure 2 annotated below Detail C), wherein the unit is coupled to the motive robotic arm on the robotic arm side (see figure 1 annotated below);
a first end effector (element 8) coupled to the unit (see figure 2 annotated below) and a second end effector (element 9) coupled to the unit (see figure 2 annotated below), wherein the first and second end effectors are both coupled to the tool side of the unit (see figure 2 annotated below);
a removal tool (Figure 2 annotated below Detail D) coupled to the robotic repair unit (see figure 2 annotated below), wherein the removal tool is configured to remove fluid from a worksurface (see figure 2 annotated below showing the removal tools of elements 8/9 and see also paragraph 0022 where the prior art discloses element 8 being “a pneumatic grinder” and element 9 being “a pneumatic polisher” which is well known in the art to be capable of removing fluid from the worksurface); and
a controller (element 11 and see also paragraph 0022) configured to control the robotic repair unit (see paragraphs 0022/0024), wherein the controller is configured to actuate a change in a relative position of the first and second end effectors, with respect to the motive robotic arm, from a first configuration, wherein the first end effector is proximate a worksurface, to a second configuration, where the second end effector is proximate the worksurface (See paragraph 0024 where the prior art discloses element 3 (motive robotic arm) is controlled by element 11 (controller) and element 3 “rotates 90°” clockwise in order to have the working surface of element 8 (first end effector) to be “aligned with the position” of the door frame (worksurface) to be grounded. After the fine grinding, element 3 “rotates 90°” clockwise in order to have the working surface of element 9 (second end effector) to be “aligned with the position” of the door frame (worksurface) to be polished. Thus, the controller is capable to actuate a change in a relative position of the first and second end effectors, with respect to the motive robotic arm, from a first configuration, wherein the first end effector is proximate a worksurface, to a second configuration, where the second end effector is proximate the worksurface, as recited.).
PNG
media_image1.png
661
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
764
751
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Wu appears to be silent wherein the unit includes a force control unit and wherein the force control unit operates both the first end effector unit and the second end effector unit.
Chen is also concern in providing a robotic unit (Figures 1-4 and see also paragraph 0041) comprising a unit (elements 11/14/13/15/16/17) that is operably connected to a robotic arm (element 3 and see also paragraph 0042) on one side and a plurality of end effectors (element 12) which comprises a first end effector (element 121) and a second end effector (element 122) on another side, and a controller (element 2 and see also paragraph 0049 where the prior art discloses element 2 as “a control unit”). Chen further teaches wherein the unit includes a force control unit (element 17 and see also paragraph 0054 where the prior art discloses element 17 is sandwiched between element 14 and element 12 (end effector) and further discloses element 17 as “a pressure sensor” that is electrically connected to the control unit (element 2)) and wherein the force control unit operates both the first end effector unit and the second end effector unit (See paragraph 0028 where the prior art discloses the pressure sensor (element 17) is electrically connected to the control unit (element 2) and is used to “sense the magnitude of the axial force” of the corresponding pneumatic grinder (i.e. first and second effector) and transmit the sensed information to the control unit, and see also paragraphs 0061-0062 where the prior art discloses steps of the system including step 102 of utilizing the control unit (element 2) to control the robotic arm (element 3) and each end effector (element 12) and during the processing, the pressure sensor (element 17) which is on the back of each end effector “transmits the pressure signal to the control unit”, in order for the control unit to adjust grinding parameters according the pressure signal transmitted in step 102. Thus, during operations, the first control unit (element 17) in combination with other components operably operates both the first end effector unit and the second end effector unit, as recited.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of Chen to provide wherein the unit includes a force control unit and wherein the force control unit operates both the first end effector unit and the second end effector unit. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a force control unit operably connected with other claimed components including the plurality of end effectors and controller would necessarily allow the unit to make timely adjustments to the grinding process according to the data transmitted back by the pressure sensor during the grinding process, so as to ensure that the quality of the workpiece is consistent and is not affected by equipment and human factors as disclosed by Chen (see paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 13, Wu modified discloses: the robotic repair unit of claim 1, further comprising a mounting plate (element 10) mechanically coupled to a tool side of the force control unit (see figure 2 annotated above on page 006) and an actuator (see paragraph 0022 where the prior art discloses element 10 being a “rotating seat” that is installed on “a rotating shaft” (actuator)) configured to index the mounting plate between (i) a first position in which the first end effector is aligned with the first control unit and (ii) a second position in which the second end effector is aligned with the force control unit, thereby moving the non-selected effector out of alignment (See paragraph 0024 where the art discloses element 3 (motive robotic arm) is controlled by element 11 (controller) and “the rotating shaft” of element 3 “rotates 90°” clockwise in order to have the working surface of element 8 (first end effector) to be “aligned with the position” of the door frame (worksurface) and also “rotates 90°” again in order to have the working surface of element 9 (second end effector) to be “aligned with the position” of the door frame (worksurface) to be polished. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the mounting plate and actuator indexing the mounting plate and there is no structural difference or any additional structure provided, thus the prior art would be capable of having the actuator index the mounting plate between (i) a first position in which the first end effector is aligned with the first control unit and (ii) a second position in which the second end effector is aligned with the force control unit, thereby moving the non-selected effector out of alignment, as recited.).
Regarding claim 15, Wu modified discloses: the robotic repair unit of claim 1, wherein the first end effector and the second end effector are mounted at different angular positions (see figure 2 and see also paragraph 0022) about a central axis (see figure 2 annotated below X-X axis) and the robotic repair unit includes at least one actuator (see paragraph 0022 “a rotating shaft” (actuator)) configured to move the end effectors between said positions (see paragraph 0022 where the prior art discloses the end effectors (elements 8/9) are installed on “rotating seat” (element 10) with the rotating seat is installed on “a rotating shaft” (actuator), and “rotates 90°” clockwise in order to have the working surface of element 8 (first end effector) to be “aligned with the position” of the door frame (worksurface) and also “rotates 90°” again in order to have the working surface of element 9 (second end effector) to be “aligned with the position” of the door frame (worksurface) to be polished. Therefore, the actuator operably moves the end effectors between said positions, as recited.).
PNG
media_image3.png
628
831
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Wu modified discloses: the robotic repair unit of claim 1, wherein the robotic repair unit is configured to rotate between the first and second configurations (see paragraph 0024).
Claims 2-4, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2018120865) in view of Chen (CN 107253146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US Pub. No. 2013/0244551).
Regarding claim 2, Wu modified discloses: the robotic repair unit of claim 1, wherein the removal tool is coupled to the second end effector (see figure 2 annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
553
772
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Wu modified appears to be silent wherein a sanding tool is coupled to the first end effector.
Lui is also concern in providing robotic repair unit (Figures 1-7 and see also paragraph 0014) comprising a unit (elements 10/70/303) having a first end effector (see figure 3 annotated below Detail C) coupled to the unit (see figure 2 and figure 3 annotated below) and a second end effector (see figure 3 annotated below Detail D) coupled to the unit (see figure 2 and figure 3 annotated below), and a removal tool (elements 37/Detail E and see also paragraph 0023 where the prior art disclose element 50 is “similar” to element 30 “in structure” with the only difference being the size of element 37, thus also comprising a removal tool (as best shown in figure 3 annotated below Detail E) coupled to the robotic repair unit (see figures 2-3). Lui further teaches wherein a sanding tool (see paragraph 0018 discloses element 37 as “a disc sander”) is coupled to the first end effector (see figure 3 annotated below).
PNG
media_image5.png
680
1151
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of Lui to provide wherein a sanding tool is coupled to the first end effector. The resultant combination would have the sanding tool which is operably coupled to a similar end effector of Lui now coupled to the first end effector of Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a known tool in the form of a sander would necessarily allow the user to precisely treat a surface in order to achieve a desired finish during operations.
Regarding claim 3, Wu modified discloses: the robotic repair unit of claim 1, wherein the removal tool is coupled to the robotic repair unit on the tool side of the force control unit (see figure 2 annotated below).
PNG
media_image6.png
670
831
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Wu modified discloses: the robotic repair unit of claim 3, wherein a sanding tool is coupled to the first end effector (see rejection of claim 2 above wherein the prior art of Lui discloses element 37 as “a disc sander” (paragraph 0018) being operably coupled to the first end effector (see annotated figure 3 on page 10 above)).
Regarding claim 9, Wu modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent of wherein the removal tool comprises a suction tool or a blower.
Lui is also concern in providing robotic repair unit (Figures 1-7 and see also paragraph 0014) comprising a unit (elements 10/70/303) having a first end effector (see figure 3 annotated above on page 9 Detail C) coupled to the unit (see figure 2 and figure 3 annotated above on page 9) and a second end effector (see figure 3 annotated above on page 9 Detail D) coupled to the unit (see figure 2 and figure 3 annotated above on page 9). Lui further teaches wherein the removal tool comprises a suction tool (element 331 and see also paragraph 0019) or a blower.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of Lui to provide wherein the removal tool comprises a suction tool or a blower. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a known suction tool would necessarily allow the user to remove any unwanted debris/fluid during operations, thus promoting cleanliness during operations.
Regarding claim 18, Wu modified discloses: the robotic repair unit of claim 1, a second tool (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A) is coupled to the second end effector (see figure 2 annotated below) .
PNG
media_image7.png
629
790
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Wu modified appears to be silent wherein a sanding tool is coupled to the first end effector.
Lui is also concern in providing robotic repair unit (Figures 1-7 and see also paragraph 0014) comprising a unit (elements 10/70/303) having a first end effector (see figure 3 annotated below Detail C) coupled to the unit (see figure 2 and figure 3 annotated below) and a second end effector (see figure 3 annotated below Detail D) coupled to the unit (see figure 2 and figure 3 annotated below), and a removal tool (elements 37/Detail E and see also paragraph 0023 where the prior art disclose element 50 is “similar” to element 30 “in structure” with the only difference being the size of element 37, thus also comprising a removal tool (as best shown in figure 3 annotated below Detail E) coupled to the robotic repair unit (see figures 2-3). Lui further teaches wherein a sanding tool (see paragraph 0018 discloses element 37 as “a disc sander”) is coupled to the first end effector (see figure 3 annotated below).
PNG
media_image5.png
680
1151
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of Lui to provide wherein a sanding tool is coupled to the first end effector. The resultant combination would have the sanding tool which is operably coupled to a similar end effector of Lui now coupled to the first end effector of Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a known tool in the form of a sander would necessarily allow the user to precisely treat a surface in order to achieve a desired finish during operations.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2018120865) in view of Chen (CN 107253146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scafutto (US Pub. No. 2019/0262966).
Regarding claim 6, Wu modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent of further comprising a fluid dispenser mounted on the robotic repair unit.
Scafutto is also concern in providing a robotic unit (Figures 1-6B and see also paragraph 0042) comprising a motive robotic arm (element 214), a plurality of end effectors (elements 251) with a removal tool (element 242), and further comprising a fluid dispenser (element 252 and see also paragraphs 0054 and 0058 where the prior art discloses element 252 comprises nozzles (elements 252a-252c) that allow for the application of “high pressure water stream” (dispensing a fluid)) mounted on the robotic repair unit (see figures 5A and 6B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of Scafutto to provide a fluid dispenser mounted on the robotic repair unit. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a fluid dispenser would necessarily provide an additional means for treating a surface, specifically allowing the disbursement of high pressure water stream to a surface to be treated in order move all remaining sanding dust from the surface as disclosed by Scafutto (see paragraph 0058), thus removing remaining debris and promoting cleanliness during operations.
Claims 7-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2018120865) in view of Chen (CN 107253146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Albert (US Pub. No. 2018/0281143).
Regarding claim 7, Wu modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent of the removal tool is configured to removably couple to a single-use fluid removal element.
Albert is also concern in providing a robotic unit (Figure 18 and see also paragraph 0087) comprising an end effector (element 160), a removal tool (element 1010) and the removal tool is configured to removably couple to a single-use fluid removal element (see paragraph 0070 where the prior art discloses element 1010 can utilize a pad (single-used fluid removal element) and see paragraph 0101 discloses “replacing the pads” on the tool, thus the removal tool is capable of removably coupled to the single-use fluid removal element).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of Albert to provide wherein the removal tool is configured to removably couple to a single-use fluid removal element. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a removably couple to a single-use fluid removal element would necessarily allow the user to replace a damaged removal element from the unit instead of having to replace the whole device.
Regarding claim 8, Wu modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 7, but appears to be silent wherein the removal tool removably couples to the single-use fluid removal element using a hook and loop attachment system, an adhesive, or a magnet.
Albert is also concern in providing a robotic unit (Figure 18 and see also paragraph 0087) comprising an end effector (element 160), a removal tool (element 1010), a single-use fluid removal element (see paragraphs 0070 and 0101 “pad”), and wherein the removal tool removably couples to the single-use fluid removal element using a hook and loop attachment system, an adhesive, or a magnet (see paragraph 0101 discloses “replacing the pads” on the tool and further discloses “using and suitable coupling system, including but not limited to, hook and loop system, adhesive, mechanical interlock, vacuum, magnets, electrostatic forces, or any combination of these.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of Albert to provide wherein the removal tool removably couples to the single-use fluid removal element using a hook and loop attachment system, an adhesive, or a magnet. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a hook and loop attachment system, an adhesive, or a magnet would necessarily allow the user to couple both different components together while also allow the user to replace the removal element from the connector without using additional tools, thus increasing efficiency of the device.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2018120865) in view of Chen (CN 107253146) and Lui (US Pub. No. 2013/0244551) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Albert (US Pub. No. 2018/0281143).
Regarding claim 10, Wu modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the removal tool also comprises a sponge element.
Albert is also concern in providing a robotic repair unit (Figure 19 and see also paragraph 0089) comprising a removal tool (element 160S), and silent wherein the removal tool also comprises a sponge element (see paragraph 0091 where the prior art discloses element 160S “sanding end effector” can also have “a sponge”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of Albert to provide wherein the fluid removal tool also comprises a sponge element. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a sponge would necessarily allow the user to collect fluid/debris from a surface being treated, thus promoting cleanliness and preventing damages to the worksurface due to contaminates.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights