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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 41 recites “a motor power sensor configured to sense an electrical motor input power”. Examiner considers this to be new matter as Applicant’s specification does not support the motor being an electrical motor or that the power sensed is an input power.
Claim 43 recites “the electrical motor input power is sensed by measuring motor current and voltage”. Examiner considers this to be new matter as Applicant’s specification does not support any method as to how the motor power is sensed and merely supports that the motor power is sensed.
Claims 42 and 44 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 41-44 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 41 recites “an in-situ grinding parameter, wherein the in-situ grinding parameter comprises a grinding sound and an indication of sparking at a grinding interface”. It is unclear to examiner how a single parameter can comprise multiple parameters. Is this meant to be multiple parameters or is this meant to be a single parameter which could be one of these two parameters? For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this action, examiner is interpreting “an in-situ grinding parameter, wherein the in-situ grinding parameter comprises a grinding sound and an indication of sparking at a grinding interface” to be --at least one in-situ grinding parameter, wherein the at least one in-situ grinding parameter comprises at least one of a grinding sound and an indication of sparking at a grinding interface--.
Examiner notes that with this interpretation, this further necessitates examiner interpreting “calculate a predicted material removal rate based on…and in-situ grinding parameter” recited in claim 41 to be --calculate a predicted material removal rate based on…and one of the at least one in-situ grinding parameter--.
Examiner notes that with this interpretation, this further necessitates examiner interpreting “the in-situ grinding parameter further comprises” recited in claim 44 to be --the at least one in-situ grinding parameter further comprises--.
Claim 44 recites the limitation “and calculates the predicted material removal rate”. It is unclear to examiner what is calculating the predicted material removal rate. Is the at least one in-situ grinding parameter calculating or is the setting selector calculating or is it some other structure that is calculating? For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this action, examiner is interpreting “and calculates the predicted material removal rate” to be --and the setting selector is configured to calculate the predicted material removal rate--.
Claims 42-43 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney (US5077941), in view of Mori et al. (JPH09155738A), attached as a PDF and hereinafter referred to as Mori, in further view of Pleuger et al. (US20220305616), and in further view of Lee (US20100114354).
Regarding claim 41, Whitney discloses a robotic grinding system comprising:
an abrasive article (Fig. 6 element 60) configured to contact a worksurface (Fig. 6 element 10) at an angle (Fig. 6, 6:29-34);
a grinder (Fig. 6 element 52) configured to maintain the angle of the abrasive article (Fig. 6, 6:29-34, where "maintaining disk 60 at the correct angle" would be achieved through the grinder);
an end effector (Fig. 6 element 53) configured to exert an end effector load on the abrasive article, and receive a reaction force from the abrasive article (Fig. 6, 4:29-40, where the end effector is capable of exerting on and receiving a force from the abrasive article (60));
a motor (1:66-2:7, where the structure which is used for “driving a grinder to operate at a grinding speed” corresponds to a motor) that drives rotation of the abrasive article at a rotational speed (1:66-2:7, where “grinding speed” corresponds to a rotational speed);
a setting selector (Fig. 6 element 62) configured to:
retrieve the rotational speed, the end effector load and at least one in-situ grinding parameter (4:29-40 and 4:64-65, where the information received from the “TV camera 58” corresponds to at least one in-situ grinding parameter);
calculate a predicted material removal rate based on the retrieved rotational speed, end effector load and in-situ grinding parameter (5:24-6:22, where “metal removal rate Q” corresponds to a predicted material removal rate),
and select a set of new settings for a mechanical setting of the robotic grinding system (Fig. 8, 6:66-7:19, where if the grinding is not done, the desired contact force necessary for the next pass is calculated in step 126 and a grinding pass is commanded to begin in step 128, which discloses a set of new setting in step 130), the mechanical setting comprising at least one of: a press force of the end effector (6:66-7:19, where “contact force” corresponds to a press force of the end effector), a rotational speed of the grinder, and a grind angle of the grinder;
and a setting communicator (5:9-10 and 6:34-37, where the subset of element 62 which sends information to element 50 corresponds to a setting communicator) 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 (Fig. 8 steps 126-130, 5:9-10 and 6:66-19, where element 62 sends the new settings to the grinder, end effector and motor through element 64 and element 64 automatically adjusts from the current settings to the new settings).
Whitney fails to disclose a motor power sensor configured to sense an electrical motor input power; the at least one in-situ grinding parameter comprises a grinding sound and an indication of sparking at a grinding interface; the setting selector is configured to calculate the predicted material removal rate using a regression model; and the setting selector is configured to compare the predicted material removal rate to a reference predicted removal rate produced for a target setting by the regression model.
Mori is also concerned with a robotic grinding system and teaches a motor power sensor (0006, where “a current detector” corresponds to a motor power sensor) configured to sense an electrical motor input power (0006). 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 robotic grinding system of Whitney to include a motor power sensor configured to sense an electrical motor input power, as taught by Mori, because Mori teaches that having a motor power sensor allows for slowing the feed rate (i.e. progress speed) of the grinder when the grinder “receives a large grinding resistance”, which allows the grinding work to be “performed safely without damaging the robot, the grinding device, or the workpiece” (0020).
Whitney, as modified, fails to disclose the at least one in-situ grinding parameter comprises a grinding sound and an indication of sparking at a grinding interface; the setting selector is configured to calculate the predicted material removal rate using a regression model; and the setting selector is configured to compare the predicted material removal rate to a reference predicted removal rate produced for a target setting by the regression model.
Pleuger is also concerned with a grinding system and teaches the at least one in-situ grinding parameter comprises a grinding sound (0011, where “oscillations (soundwaves)” captured by at least one sound sensor corresponds to a grinding sound) and an indication of sparking at a grinding interface. 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 robotic grinding system of Whitney, as modified, to have the at least one in-situ grinding parameter comprise a grinding sound, as taught by Pleuger, because Pleuger teaches that this allows for “analyses and conclusions with respect to the mechanical properties of the abrasive belt and/or belt grinder during a grinding process” (0011).
Whitney, as modified, fails to disclose the setting selector is configured to calculate the predicted material removal rate using a regression model; and the setting selector is configured to compare the predicted material removal rate to a reference predicted removal rate produced for a target setting by the regression model.
Lee is also concerned with calculating a predicted material removal rate and teaches the setting selector (Fig. 2 element 104) is configured to calculate the predicted material removal rate using a regression model (0079-0080 and 0127, where “nonlinear regression” corresponds to a regression model); and the setting selector is configured to compare the predicted material removal rate to a reference predicted removal rate produced for a target setting by the regression model (0080, where “variations in…the parts 106 that arise between discrete process cycles” corresponds to comparing the predicted material removal rate to a reference predicted removal rate produced for a target setting by the regression model). 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 robotic grinding system of Whitney, as modified, to have the setting selector be configured to predict the material removal rate using a regression model and configured to compare the predicted material removal rate to a reference predicted removal rate produced for a target setting by the regression model, as taught by Lee, because regression models optimize the grinding process by permitting simulation of the material removal rate without needing to stop production or scrapping test workpieces, which increases both efficiency and yield.
Regarding claim 42, Whitney, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 41, as described above, and further discloses the new settings are selected to increase a predicted material removal rate (Whitney, 1:59-62, where the system automatically adjusting parameters on the surface to be ground means that it is capable of providing adjustments to increase the grounding of the surface).
Regarding claim 43, Whitney, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 41, as described above, and further discloses the electrical motor input power is sensed by measuring motor current and voltage (Mori, 0006).
Regarding claim 44, Whitney, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 41, as described above, and further discloses the in-situ grinding parameter further comprises a reaction force, and the setting selector is configured to calculate the predicted material removal rate based on the reaction force (Whitney, 5:35-6:12, where 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with the exception of the arguments addressed below, filed 3/26/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 41-44 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Whitney (US5077941), in view of Mori et al. (JPH09155738A), attached as a PDF and hereinafter referred to as Mori, in further view of Pleuger et al. (US20220305616), and in further view of Lee (US20100114354).
Regarding claim 41, Applicant argues that Pleuger is non-analogous art to Whitney as Whitney’s field is “robotic die finishing” and Pleuger’s field is “industrial belt grinders”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that both Pleuger and Whitney are in the field of computer controlled grinders.
Regarding claim 41, Applicant argues that Pleuger is non-analogous art to Whitney because “Pleuger is not ‘reasonably pertinent’ to the problems addressed by Whitney”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that both Pleuger and Whitney are concerned with adjusting grinding parameters to achieve a desired material removal rate.
Regarding claim 41, Applicant argues that examiner has not provided “an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to modify” Whitney with the teachings of Pleuger. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that the motivation of “it allows for analyses and conclusions with respect to the mechanical properties (defects, clogging, or burning) of the abrasive belt and/or belt grinder during a grinding process (Pleuger et al.:[0011])” and examiner notes that Pleuger explicitly discusses this benefit in paragraph 0011 of Pleuger and that the purported benefit by Pleuger is why a POSITA would be motivated to include the teachings of Pleuger into the robotic grinding system of Whitney.
Regarding claim 41, Applicant argues that there would not be a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Whitney with the teachings of Pleuger because Pleuger is concerned with a belt grinding operation and Whitney is concerned with robotic disk grinding of metallic dies and therefore the sound sensor of Pleuger would not function the same when brought into Whitney. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Pleuger is only being relied upon to teach the concept of monitoring a grinding sound (i.e. a process parameter) to analyze another process parameter and therefore, although Whitney and Pleuger are not performing the exact same process, both Whitney and Pleuger have the commonality of monitoring one process parameter to analyze another process parameter and a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Whitney to include the capability of monitoring a grinding sound, as taught by Pleuger, as Pleuger teaches that it allows for “analyses and conclusions with respect to the mechanical properties of the abrasive belt and/or belt grinder during a grinding process” (0011).
Regarding claim 41, Applicant argues that applying the teachings of Pleuger into Whitney changes the principle of operation of Whitney because examiner is proposing “substituting” in the sound based predictor for the vision system in Whitney. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that examiner is not proposing substituting the sound based predictor for the vision system of Whitney, but instead is proposing adding, on top of the vision system, the capability of detecting a grinding sound to the setting selector of Whitney, and therefore examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Regarding claim 41, Applicant argues that examiner is using impermissible hindsight and unsupported ‘common sense’ for the 35 U.S.C. rejection of claim 41. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that examiner has relied upon the explicitly purported benefits disclosed in Pleuger for the motivation to modify Whitney and therefore no impermissible hindsight or unsupported common sense has been used for this modification. Examiner notes that while the modification of Whitney, as modified, with the teachings of Lee does not rely upon explicitly disclosed purported benefits discussed in Lee, examiner finds that the benefits examiner has relied upon would be known to a POSITA and examiner further notes that Applicant has not supplied criticality for using a regression model in the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights