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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 22, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 41 – 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney (US 5077941 A) in view of Pleuger et al (US 20220305616 A1) and in further view of Aubin et al (US 20200171620 A1).
In re claim 41. Whitney discloses a robotic grinding system (a robot, Fig. 6: 50) comprising:
an abrasive article (grinding disk, 60) configured to contact a worksurface at an angle (capable of contacting the surface of die, 10 at an angle, see Col. 6: Lines 29 - 34);
a grinder (52) configured to maintain the angle of the abrasive article (capable maintaining angle of grinding disk, 60, see Fig. 6);
an end effector (robot tool changer, 53) configured to exert an end effector load on the abrasive article, and receive a reaction force from the abrasive article (capable exerting on and receiving a force from grinding disk, 60 having the force sensor, 54, see Col. 4: Lines 29 - 40);
a motor (robot joint motors, see Col. 6: Lines 29 - 34), having a motor power sensor (grinder RPM sensor, see Col. 3: Lines 13 – 16) configured to sense a motor power that drives rotation of the abrasive article at a rotational speed (it is well known that grinder RPM measures the speed of the grinding wheel or abrasive article; automatic grinding system drives a grinder to operate at a grinding speed, see Col. 1: Lines 66 – Col. 2: Lines 1 - 7);
a setting selector (programmed computer, 62 having a various sensors such as a TV camera, 58; force sensor, 54; and a tachometer, 56) configured to:
retrieve the rotational speed, the end effector load and an in-situ grinding parameter (sense contact and tangential grinding force; measure RPM; and in-situ parameter of viewing the surface of the die, 12; see Col. 4: lines 29 - 40);
calculate a predicted material removal rate based on the retrieved rotational speed, end effector load and in-situ grinding parameter (computer, 62 decides how much remaining material to grind off and is calculated based on in-situ parameter; the contact force used; and the movement of the grinder across die at a velocity, V; see Col. 5: Lines 24 – Col. 6: Lines 1 - 22);
select a set of new settings for a mechanical setting of the robotic grinding system (If the grinding is not done, the desired contact force necessary for the next pass is calculated in step Fig. 8: 126, and a grinding pass is commanded to begin in step 128, which discloses a set of new settings in step 130, see Col. 6: Line 66 – Col. 7: Lines 1 - 19); and
a setting communicator (programmed computer, 62 send signals to drive robot controller, 64) that communicates the new settings to the grinder, end effector and motor, which automatically adjust operational settings from a set of current settings to the new settings (step 126 takes place, and a grinding pass is commanded to begin in step 128, which discloses a set of new settings in step 130, see Col. 6: Line 66 – Col. 7: Lines 1 – 19 and automatically operates robot, 50, see Col. 5: Lines 9 - 10).
Whitney does not disclose wherein the in-situ grinding parameter comprises at least one of the following generated by the current grinding operation: a grinding sound, a presence of sparking, and a color of sparking and comparing the predicted material removal rate to a reference predicted removal rate.
However, Pleuger et al teaches a method for determining state information relating to a belt grinder by means of a machine learning system wherein the in-situ grinding parameter comprises at least one of the following generated by the current grinding operation: a grinding sound, a presence of sparking, and a color of sparking (sound sensor that captures mechanical oscillations (soundwaves) coming from the belt grinder and/or abrasive belt, see [0011]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Whitney with the teachings of wherein the in-situ grinding parameter comprises at least one of the following generated by the current grinding operation: a grinding sound, a presence of sparking, and a color of sparking as taught by Pleuger et al. because it allows for analyses and conclusions with respect to the mechanical properties (defects, clogging or blunting) of the abrasive belt and/or belt grinder during a grinding process (Pleuger et al.: [0011]).
Lastly, Aubin et al teaches systems and methods for sanding a surface of a structure comparing the predicted material removal rate to a reference predicted removal rate (control unit, Fig. 1: 112 actively processes (e.g., evaluates, analyzes, and/or compares) the parameters being monitored these parameters being ones used to determine, the actual material removal rate, 160 and one or more model sanding parameters corresponding to, or used to generate, the model material removal rate, 124, see [0031] – [0038]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Whitney with the teachings of comparing the predicted material removal rate to a reference predicted removal rate as taught by Aubin et al. because it minimizes the error of the actual removal rate for the worksurface (Aubin et al.: [0038]).
In re claim 42. Whitney as modified teaches the robotic grinding system of claim 41,
wherein the new settings are selected to increase a predicted material removal rate (the system automatically adjusts parameters on the surface to be ground and can thus provide adjustments to increase the grounding of the surface, see Col. 1: Lines 59 – 62).
In re claim 43. Whitney as modified teaches the robotic grinding system of claim 41,
wherein the in-situ grinding parameter further comprises a current motor power of the motor, and calculates the predicted material removal rate based on the current grinder motor power (metal removal rate, Q is related to the applied power P, see Col 5: Lines 35 – 54).
In re claim 44. Whitney as modified teaches the robotic grinding system of any of claims 41,
wherein the in-situ grinding parameter further comprises a reaction force, and calculates the predicted material removal rate based on the reaction force (the contact force the robot should use while pushing the grinder against the die in order to remove the desired amount of material is calculated, see Col 5: Lines 35 – Col. 6: 1 – 12).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112b rejections for claims 41 - 44, applicant’s amendment has overcome the
rejection and the rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 - 9, filed October 22, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 41 - 44 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. In this case, regarding 35 USC 103 rejection applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest all limitations of the amended claim 41, specifically collecting data relating to an audible “grinding sound”. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pleuger et al (US 20220305616 A1) that provides “sound sensor that captures mechanical oscillations (soundwaves) coming from the belt grinder and/or abrasive belt”; see rejection of the same above.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the cited references of Whitney and Aubin as Whitney already solves the material removal rate problem with a comprehensive and entirely distinct approach from that of Aubin that teaches a method for keeping a sanding operation on track by comparing an “actual removal rate” to a “model removal rate”; as applicant argues there is no gap in Whitney’s design that Aubin’s “model rate” approach would fill. Whitney’s existing system would benefit from Aubin’s in that it would additionally minimize the error of the actual removal rate for the worksurface. See MPEP 2144, in that the determination is the expectation that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, this advantage is the “minimization of errors”.
Therefore, claim 41 as set forth is rejected and therefore regarding the dependent claims 42 - 44 are not allowable over the art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Volpert (US 9367062 B2) teaches a system and method for operational data retrieval form a power tool, configured to generate data corresponding to a level of vibration or sound.
Contact Information
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 SHARONDA TIYILLE FELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/SHARONDA T FELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723