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 Amendments
The amendments filed September 26, 2025 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, 3, 8, 13, and 15. Claims 20-21, 25, 27-28, and 30-32 are withdrawn. The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn due to newly submitted and accepted “Drawings” dated 09/26/2025. The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments. The previous 103 rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.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. For the reason(s) set forth below, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive. The action is Final.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“wherein a tool selection mechanism is configured to translate the second end effector into alignment with the force control unit while moving the first end effector out of alignment” in claim 13, lines 1-2 and corresponding to the structural element 740 which selects whether tool or tool should be aligned with force control unit as described in paragraph 0060. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof of performing the claimed limitation;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2018120865) in view of Ishihara (US Patent No. 6,652,662).
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 or debris 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 or debris 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, change 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, change 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.
Ishihara is also concern in providing a robotic unit (element 24 and see also col. 8, ll. 19-31) having a unit (element 30) that is operably coupled to an end effector (element 40 and see also col. 8, ll. 7-8) with a removal tool (element 43 and see also col. 8, ll. 61-63) for treating a work surface (see col. 8, ll. 6-9). Ishihara further teaches comprising wherein the unit includes a force control unit (element 36 and see also col. 8, ll. 24 where the prior art discloses element 36 as a “weight sensor” that measures downward pressure).
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 Ishihara to provide wherein the unit includes a force control unit. The resultant combination would have the force control unit (element 36) of Ishihara now placed on the unit having the robotic arm side and the tool side of Lui. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the unit including a force control unit would necessarily allow the user to the sense/measure the pressure being applied to the work surface, thus avoiding damaging the surface of the workpiece during operations.
Regarding claim 13, Wu modified discloses: the robotic repair unit of claim 1, wherein a tool selection mechanism (element 10) is configured to translate the second end effector into alignment with the force control unit while moving the first end effector out of alignment (see paragraph 0022 where the prior art discloses element 10 being a “rotating seat” that is installed on “a rotating shaft” at the end of element 3 (motive robotic arm) with element 8 (first end effector) and element 9 (second end effector) being “installed” on element 10. Furthermore, in paragraph 0024 the prior 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, during operations, element 10 (tool selection mechanism) translates the second end effector (element 9) into alignment with the force control unit when going from grinding to polishing while moving the first end effector (element 8) out of alignment.).
Claims 2-4, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2018120865) in view of Ishihara (US Patent No. 6,652,662) 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_image3.png
553
772
media_image3.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_image4.png
680
1151
media_image4.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_image5.png
670
831
media_image5.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_image6.png
629
790
media_image6.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_image4.png
680
1151
media_image4.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 Ishihara (US Patent No. 6,652,662) 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 Ishihara (US Patent No. 6,652,662) 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 Ishihara (US Patent No. 6,652,662) 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.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2018120865) in view of Ishihara (US Patent No. 6,652,662) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bittorf (US Pub. No. 2019/0262963).
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 configured to move the end effectors between said positions.
PNG
media_image7.png
628
831
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Wu modified discloses that element 3 (motive robotic arm) 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 and 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. However, Wu modified does not explicitly disclose the robotic repair unit includes at least one actuator configured to move the end effectors between said positions.
Bittorf is also concern in providing a robotic repair unit (Figures 8A-8B and see also paragraph 0034) comprising a first and second end effectors (element 2 and see also paragraph 0034) and further teaches the robotic repair unit includes at least one actuator (element 44 and see also paragraph 0034 where the prior art discloses element 44 as “rotary actuators”) configured to move the end effectors between said positions (see paragraph 0034 where the prior art discloses the two end effectors (element 2) having plates (element 16) and element 44 (at least one actuator) having “shafts” to connect element 16 “for rotation”, thus the at least one actuator is capable of moving between selected said positions).
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 Bittorf to provide wherein the robotic repair unit includes at least one actuator configured to move the end effectors between said positions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that utilizing a known rotating actuator would necessarily provide the predictable result of rotating the end effectors to desired positions in order to treat the surface of the workpiece at multiple different locations.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/26/2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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