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
The amendment filed 11/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-18 are pending in the application.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the term/phrase “motorized handler” is not found in the detailed description section with a reference number. Presumably the motorised handling means and/or the motorised handling device [0043], pages 3-4, and page 10. Also, the abstract and claims 1 and 4 recite “motorized handler”. Examiner suggest picking only one name to avoid confusion and to have the claim terms match the specification terms.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the motorized handler, “first securing element”, and “second securing element” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding Claims 1-18:
The term/phrase “motorized handler”, “first securing element”, and “second securing element” are not found in the detailed description (only in abstract) and the specification does recite motorised handling means which renders the claims indefinite since it is not clear what the motorized handler is directed to and if it is directed to all the “means” listed. The specification does recite “rack 2 is equipped with means 3 for securing to a motorised handling device (not represented) to which it is intended to be secured so as to be able to be moved relative to a structure that is to be worked (not represented)” (page 10); which presumably the “means 3” is the first securing element and is not clear what the “second securing element” is since there is no mention of a second securing element. Is the “means 3” any portion of the device? It appears “means 3” is the side of the device where rack 2 is and any portion of that side is “means 3”. Is the “second securing element” means 4? The specification also recites “means for securing to a structure that is to be worked can be permanently secured to the rack” (page 10). The numerous possibilities make it unclear which members are being claimed. If the first securing element is the side portion of the device having rack 2 and the second securing element is suction cups 41 examiner suggest reciting these structures in the claims to avoid confusion.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The claims have not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the claims and/or specification. Moreover, since there is no particular structure or structural mechanism that for most of the claimed “means for” recitations, examiner is interpreting as the specification discloses the multi-task device is a device carrying/holding a plurality of different tools (drill, rivets, staple fastener and etc.) and is mobile. Appropriate correction is required.
Since claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112; it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions. (In re Steele 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)). Since the specification defines the terms with multiple possible structures and the specification includes “means” as defining the structure for these terms, it is unclear what the motorized handler”, “first securing element”, and “second securing element” are or at least what they are limited to.
Double Patenting
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/004552, claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/716228, and claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/716233. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all sets of claims are directed to a multi-task device is a device carrying/holding a plurality of different tools (drill, rivets, staple fastener and etc.) and is mobile.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. US 12076756 B2 and Claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. US 12275056 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a multi-task device is a device carrying/holding a plurality of different tools (drill, rivets, staple fastener and etc.) and is mobile.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Anducas et al. (US 9919428 B2) in view of KITAHATA et al. (US 20160318151 A1) and further in view of DIOLAITI (US 20140249544 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-7, Anducas et al. discloses a multi-task device (automated machining head, fig. 1) comprising: a first securing element (1), which is securable to a motorized handler, wherein said multi- task device is at least partially movable in space by the motorized handler with respect to a structure that is to be worked (functionality - securable to a motorized handler);
a second securing element (2 and/or 3), which is securable to said structure that is to be worked (col. 3, lines 14-24);
at least two functional modules (4/7) each allowing performance of a distinct type of task from the other functional modules, each of said functional modules comprising at least one mobile member (4/7) able to allow the distinct type of task to be accomplished;
a single drive (5) and control assembly (2) for driving and controlling said functional modules (4/7), said drive and control assembly comprising: a single drive spindle;
at least one sensor (7 and/or measuring/position sensors, col. 1, line 42-50, col. 3, lines 25-67, col. 5, lines 8-15, col. 7, lines 4-67, col. 8, lines 50-54, claim 5-7, figs. 1-6), which measures at least one physical parameter indicative of at least one characteristic of operation of said functional modules (col. 7, lines 1-25);
a controller (8/9/10) comprising at least one processor (8) and at least one non-transitory computer readable medium comprising at least one program (9) stored thereon which when executed by the at least one processor configures the at least one processor to control the at least one motor and the at least one sensor (col. 6, line 23- col. 8, line 67, claim 1, figs. 1-6).
Anducas et al. fails to explicitly disclose at least one motor capable of driving movement of said spindle, a coupling gear able to connect said single drive spindle, for the purposes of transmitting movement, alternately to said at least one mobile member of said functional modules and said coupling gear ensures a direct connection between said spindle and said at least one mobile member of the coupled functional module and the at least one electric motor capable of driving the movement of said spindle and said at least one mobile member of a functional module coupled to said spindle (driver 190, drill 184/bolt device 186 [0066-0067], fig. 15) and a program configures the at least one processor to measure an electrical intensity consumed by said motor and determine, depending on the measured electrical intensity, a torque and/or an axial force on said at least one mobile member of the coupled module.
DIOLAITI teaches a similar robotic system (100) having with functional modules/arms (231, 241, 211) inside a tubular shaft (guide 200), a controller processor with non-transitory computer readable medium comprising at least one program (9) stored thereon which when executed by the at least one processor configures the at least one processor (102) to control the at least one motor (software [0038-0039]), at least one sensor (feedback actuators, image sensor, movement sensors, joint sensors, velocity sensors [0055-0067, 0092]), which measures at least one physical parameter indicative of at least one characteristic of operation of said functional modules with various tools (graspers, cutters, and needles and etc. [0040]) and a coupling gear (internal gear) able to connect a single drive spindle (613), for the purposes of transmitting movement (rotates guide 200, thus all the functional modules/arms 231, 241, 211), alternately to said at least one mobile member (231, 241, 211) of functional modules (shifts modes/functional modules/arms in which controls 108/109 transfer control to at least one of the functional modules/arms (231, 241, 211 [0034, 0041-0051]) and said coupling gear ensures a direct connection between said spindle (613) and said at least one mobile member of the coupled functional module ([0037-0052], figs. 1-7) and at least one electric motor (601/602/603/604, figs. 5-6) capable of driving the movement of said spindle and said at least one mobile member of a functional module coupled to said spindle ([0050-0063], figs. 5-6) and a program configures the at least one processor to measure an electrical intensity consumed by said motor and determine, depending on the measured electrical intensity, a torque and/or an axial force on said at least one mobile member of the coupled module [0063].
KITAHATA et al. also teaches a machining apparatus (2/1a), cutting tool 4a, motor driver (4d), controller (5/ microcontroller 8) having computer numerical control (CNC), a dynamometer 9 detects motive power exerted on the workpiece W cutting tool 4a and sensor 10 for feed forward control via “machining reaction force calculator 8g receives a current value from the current sensor 10 as machining reaction force related data, refers to the table, retrieves the machining reaction force that corresponds to the received current value from the memory 8a, and outputs the retrieved machining reaction force to the component force calculator 8e” [0073] to monitor the “pushing force and the rotational torque exerted by the rotary body 6a correspond to the current value of the motor” [0074] to control machining reaction force ([0049, 0052-0057, 0071-0075], figs. 1-5) and the at least one electric motor (motor driver (4d) capable of driving the movement of said spindle and said at least one mobile member of a functional module coupled to said spindle (driver 190, drill 184/bolt device 186 [0066-0067], fig. 15) and a program configures the at least one processor to measure an electrical intensity consumed by said motor and determine, depending on the measured electrical intensity, a torque and/or an axial force on said at least one mobile member of the coupled module ([0020-0021, 0071-0075, 0108], claim 7).
Given the teachings of Anducas et al. to have a mobile multi-task device carrying/holding a plurality of different tools with sensors and measurement sensor devices, it 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 to modify the robot arm with at least one motor capable of driving movement of said spindle, a coupling gear able to connect said single drive spindle, for the purposes of transmitting movement, alternately to said at least one mobile member of said functional modules and said coupling gear ensures a direct connection between said spindle and said at least one mobile member of the coupled functional module and the at least one electric motor capable of driving the movement of said spindle and said at least one mobile member of a functional module coupled to said spindle (driver 190, drill 184/bolt device 186 [0066-0067], fig. 15) and a program configures the at least one processor to measure an electrical intensity consumed by said motor and determine, depending on the measured electrical intensity, a torque and/or an axial force on said at least one mobile member of the coupled module to have a compact tool shaft driven by one spindle, automated/motorized device, have precise adjustment of speed/torque for more precise operation of the tool and for more precise action on a workpiece (avoid overshoot/damage to the workpiece) and/or for feedback purposes as taught by DIOLAITI and KITAHATA et al.
Regarding claims 5, 8-10, and 13, Anducas et al. teaches a at least two functional modules (7/4) in an extension of said drive spindle (5) and, for the purposes of transmitting movement, alternately to said at least one mobile member (5) of said functional modules and precise adjustment of the functional modules (7/4).
Anducas et al. fails to explicitly disclose said drive means comprise a gearing system/coupling gear connecting said at least one motor to said single drive spindle, said measurement means comprising at least one torque and/or force and/or position sensor which are integrated into said gearing system capable of allowing the determination of a torque and/or an axial force on said at least one mobile member of a coupled module and/or of an angular and/or axial position of said at least one mobile member of a coupled module and routing said functional modules in the an extension of said drive spindle and the measurement means are configured to measure at least one parameter indicative of at least one characteristic of operation of said functional modules belonging to the group consisting of: a torque on said at least one mobile member of the coupled module; an axial force on said at least one mobile member of the coupled module; - an angular position of said at least one mobile member of the coupled module; an axial position of said at least one mobile member of the coupled module.
KITAHATA et al. teaches a machining apparatus (2/1a), cutting tool 4a, motor driver (4d), controller (5/ microcontroller 8) having computer numerical control (CNC), a dynamometer 9 detects motive power exerted on the workpiece W cutting tool 4a and sensor 10 for feed forward control via “machining reaction force calculator 8g receives a current value from the current sensor 10 as machining reaction force related data, refers to the table, retrieves the machining reaction force that corresponds to the received current value from the memory 8a, and outputs the retrieved machining reaction force to the component force calculator 8e” [0073] to monitor the “pushing force and the rotational torque exerted by the rotary body 6a correspond to the current value of the motor” [0074] to control machining reaction force and routing functional modules in the an extension of said drive spindle ([0049, 0052-0057, 0071-0075], figs. 1-5) and the measurement means are configured to measure at least one parameter indicative of at least one characteristic of operation of said functional modules belonging to the group consisting of: a torque on said at least one mobile member of the coupled module; an axial force on said at least one mobile member of the coupled module; an angular position of said at least one mobile member of the coupled module; an axial position of said at least one mobile member of the coupled module and at least one motor comprises a rotor (4b), said measurement means comprising at least one sensor for measuring the an angular position of said rotor, said control means comprising means for determining, depending on the angular position of said measured rotor, the an angular position and/or the an axial position of said at least one mobile member of a functional module coupled to said spindle (“robot controller 8f converts the machining position related data represented in a coordinate system of the machining apparatus 2 into data represented in a coordinate system of the articulated arm robot 7” [0049, 0052-0057, 0065-0075], figs. 1-5).
DIOLAITI teaches a coupling gear (internal gear) able to connect a single drive spindle (613), for the purposes of transmitting movement (rotates guide 200, thus all the functional modules/arms 231, 241, 211), alternately to said at least one mobile member (231, 241, 211) of functional modules (shifts modes/functional modules/arms in which controls 108/109 transfer control to at least one of the functional modules/arms (231, 241, 211 [0034, 0041-0051]) and said coupling gear ensures a direct connection between said spindle (613) and said at least one mobile member of the coupled functional module ([0037-0052], figs. 1-7) and at least one electric motor (601/602/603/604, figs. 5-6) capable of driving the movement of said spindle and said at least one mobile member of a functional module coupled to said spindle ([0050-0063], figs. 5-6).
Given the teachings of Anducas et al. to have a mobile multi-task device carrying/holding a plurality of different tools with sensors and measurement means, it 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 to modify the gearing system with connecting said at least one motor to said single drive spindle, said measurement means comprising at least one torque and/or force and/or position sensor which are integrated into said tool/functional module system with a gearing feedback system capable of allowing the determination of a torque and/or an axial force on said at least one mobile member of a coupled module and/or of an angular and/or axial position of said at least one mobile member of a coupled module and routing said functional modules in the an extension of said drive spindle at least one motor comprises a rotor, said measurement means comprising at least one sensor for measuring the an angular position of said rotor, said control means comprising means for determining, depending on the angular position of said measured rotor, the an angular position and/or the an axial position of said at least one mobile member of a functional module coupled to said spindle to have precise adjustment of speed/torque for more precise operation of the tool and more precise action on a workpiece (avoid overshoot/damage to the workpiece) and/or for feedback purposes as taught by DIOLAITI and KITAHATA et al.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Anducas et al. fails to disclose a means for transforming movement between said spindle and said at least one mobile member of said coupled functional module and said means for routing means comprise at least one carousel which is mounted movable in rotation and comprising means for supporting a plurality of functional modules.
DIOLAITI teaches a means for transforming movement between said spindle and said at least one mobile member of said coupled functional module and said means for routing means comprise at least one carousel (2) which is mounted movable in rotation and comprising means for supporting a plurality of functional modules (surgical tools 231, 241, camera 211, “entry guide 200 may guide additional tools as required for performing a medical procedure at a work site in the Patient. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, a passage 351 is available for extending another articulatable surgical tool through the entry guide 200 and out through its distal end” [0034-0035, figs. 3-4).
Given the teachings of Anducas et al. to have a mobile multi-task device carrying/holding a plurality of different tools with sensors and measurement means, it 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 to modify the multi-task device with a means for transforming movement between said spindle and said at least one mobile member of said coupled functional module and said means for routing means comprise at least one carousel which is mounted movable in rotation and comprising means for supporting a plurality of functional modules to have a plurality of tools, easy switching of different tools/ functional module and/or for providing dual tools at the same time as taught by DIOLAITI.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Anducas et al. (US 9919428 B2) in view of KITAHATA et al. (US 20160318151 A1) in view of DIOLAITI (US 20140249544 A1) and further in view of ASAI et al. (JP 2005111537 A).
Regarding claims 12, Anducas et al. teaches a at least two functional modules (7/4) in an extension of said drive spindle (5) and, for the purposes of transmitting movement, alternately to said at least one mobile member (5) of said functional modules and precise adjustment of the functional modules (7/4).
Anducas et al. fails to explicitly disclose a rotational drive means for driving in rotation said at least one carousel, said rotational drive means comprising at least one mobile drive pawl forming with said carousel a ratchet wheel type assembly, said rotational drive means comprising means for moving said mobile drive pawl along an axis orthogonal to the axis of rotation of said carousel.
ASAI et al. teaches a chip changer device (1) having a tip removal mechanism (3) for a welding gun (7) and a replacement chip supply mechanism (5) having rotational drive means (23) for driving in rotation said at least one carousel, said rotational drive means comprising at least one mobile drive pawl (33) forming with said carousel a ratchet wheel type assembly (25/27 and 33), said rotational drive means comprising means for moving said mobile drive pawl along an axis orthogonal to the axis of rotation of said carousel ([0013-0021], figs. 2-3).
Given the teachings of Anducas et al. to have a mobile multi-task device carrying/holding a plurality of different tools with sensors and measurement means, it 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 to modify the gearing system with a rotational drive means for driving in rotation said at least one carousel, said rotational drive means comprising at least one mobile drive pawl forming with said carousel a ratchet wheel type assembly, said rotational drive means comprising means for moving said mobile drive pawl along an axis orthogonal to the axis of rotation of said carousel to have precise adjustment of rack, easier stopping, for more precise operation of the tool and more precise action on a workpiece (avoid overshoot/damage to the workpiece) and/or for feedback purposes as taught by ASAI et al.
Claim(s) 4, 14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Anducas et al. (US 9919428 B2) in view of KITAHATA et al. (US 20160318151 A1) in view of DIOLAITI (US 20140249544 A1) and further in view of Bonomi et al. (US 4885836 A).
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 16-17, Anducas et al. fails to explicitly disclose for remotely activating-deactivating said coupling gear and the motorised handling means belong to the group consisting of a robot; a digital drilling grid and at least one pressing element, capable of exerting a pressure on said structure that is to be worked, located in the an extension of said drive spindle, and means for moving said pressing element in the direction of said structure that is to be worked, said means for moving said pressing element acting on said pressing element via a functional module located in the extension of said spindle.
Bonomi et al. teaches a similar rivet installing robot machine (robots R1/R2) with CNC controls, a functional assemblies (effector control computers (EEC1/2) and/or head 23/effector 28) the robots on a track (20/20) with a tool head (23) for different effectors including drilling effectors (28) and gearing to drive the rack (col. 4, lines 48-67, col. 5, lines 1-67, col. 7, lines 1-67) and remotely activating-deactivating a coupling gear with feedback commands to host computers (col. 1, lines 38-52, claim 14, figs. 1-2) and the motorised handling means belong to the group consisting of a robot (robots R1/R2); a digital drilling grid and at least one pressing element, capable of exerting a pressure on said structure that is to be worked, located in the an extension of said drive spindle, and means for moving said pressing element in the direction of said structure that is to be worked, said means for moving said pressing element acting on said pressing element via a functional module located in the extension of said spindle (automated tool loading, finding the positions of the previously drilled holes, moving between designated locations to specified hole location, col. 2, lines 58-67, col. 3, lines 1-67, col. 9, lines 7-67, col. 12, lines 35-67) and at least one of a functional assemblies modules (effector control computers (EEC1/2) and/or head 23/effector 28) comprises a sheath slidably (foot bush 32/55 with flexible bellows and sleeves 43) housing a functional assembly, said functional assembly further comprising means for blocking in translation (preloaded springs 42) said functional assembly in said sheath (spindle 31 -axial advancement and retraction of the drill automatically controlled -microswitches 44 stop the advancing movement).
Given the teachings of Anducas et al. to have a mobile multi-task device carrying/holding a plurality of different tools with sensors and measurement means, it 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 to modify the multi-task device with remotely activating-deactivating a coupling gear and the motorised handling means belong to the group consisting of a robot; a digital drilling grid and at least one pressing element, capable of exerting a pressure on said structure that is to be worked, located in the an extension of said drive spindle, and means for moving said pressing element in the direction of said structure that is to be worked, said means for moving said pressing element acting on said pressing element via a functional module located in the extension of said spindle for easier starting/stopping, automated control, for more precise operation of the tool and more precise action on a workpiece (avoid overshoot/damage to the workpiece) and/or for feedback purposes as taught by Bonomi et al.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Anducas et al. (US 9919428 B2) in view of KITAHATA et al. (US 20160318151 A1) in view of DIOLAITI (US 20140249544 A1) and further in view of PEREIRA (EP 2754531 B1 -Admitted Prior Art).
Regarding claim 15, Anducas et al. teaches a at least two functional modules (7/4) in an extension of said drive spindle (5) and, for the purposes of transmitting movement, alternately to said at least one mobile member (5) of said functional modules and precise adjustment of the functional modules (7/4).
Anducas et al. fails to explicitly disclose the drive means comprises a motor and one gearing system connecting said drive spindle to the motor, said gearing system comprising: a rotational drive yoke comprising a splined portion of complementary shape to a splined portion formed on said spindle along said axis; a translational drive ring connected to said drive spindle by a helical connection along said axis.
However, applicant’s instant specification (page 19) discloses this type of gearing system having a yoke with splined portion and drive ring connected to said drive spindle by a helical connection is known and cites EP 2754531 B1 and other gear systems could be used (page 19).
PEREIRA as disclosed by applicant teaches a speed drill 10 having a drive means (12/drive shaft 27) comprising a motor (34/35) and one gearing system (pinions 14, 15, 16 and 17) connecting said drive spindle to the motor, said gearing system comprising: a rotational drive yoke comprising a splined portion of complementary shape to a splined portion formed on said spindle along said axis; a translational drive ring (18/19) connected to said drive spindle by a helical connection (27) along said axis ([0044-0066], figs. 1-3).
Given the teachings of Anducas et al. to have two functional modules, it 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 to modify the two functional modules with a gearing system with a drive means comprising a motor and a gearing system connecting said drive spindle to said the motor, said gearing system comprising: a rotational drive yoke comprising a splined portion of complementary shape to a splined portion formed on said spindle along said axis; a translational drive ring connected to said drive spindle by a helical connection along said axis for performing different drive functions and motions, automated control, for more precise operation of the tool and more precise action on a workpiece (avoid overshoot/damage to the workpiece) and/or for feedback purposes as taught by PEREIRA and since it has been held that admission can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations MPEP 2129 - Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Anducas et al. (US 9919428 B2) in view of KITAHATA et al. (US 20160318151 A1) in view of DIOLAITI (US 20140249544 A1) and further in view of Sarh et al. (US 20150128394 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Anducas et al. teaches a at least two functional modules (7/4) in an extension of said drive spindle (5) and, which comprises a machining tool (4), camera (7), and a calibrating tool (14).
Anducas et al. fails to teach the at least two of the at least two functional modules belong to the group of modules permitting tasks consisting of:
drilling and/or countersinking; coating mastic on an element; rivet setting; setting a temporary element; screw driving.
Sarh et al. teaches a robotic device (206/178) with arm (222) having effector (220) and an electromagnetic tool (218/118) having at least two of the at least two functional modules belong to the group of modules permitting tasks consisting of: drilling and/or countersinking; coating mastic on an element; rivet setting; setting a temporary element; screw driving ([0014, 0056, 0099], claims 14-16 and 29, figs. 1-3).
Given the teachings of Anducas et al. to have a mobile multi-task device carrying/holding a plurality of different tools with sensors and measurement means, it 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 to modify the at least two of the at least two functional modules belong to the group of modules permitting tasks consisting of: drilling and/or countersinking; coating mastic on an element; rivet setting; setting a temporary element; screw driving for to have a plurality of tools, easy switching of different tools/ functional module and/or for providing dual tools at the same time as taught by Sarh et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument and the new 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) rejections and Specification/Drawing Objections.
Conclusion
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 ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731