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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to double patent rejections have been considered and are persuasive as claims have been amended to overcome Clark reference.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 7-13, & 15-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument that claims 5, 6 and 14 are not met in the prior art Sarh. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a local vision system” and “a regional vision system” have overlapping meanings as “local” and “regional” are relative terms and were previously not both present in a single claim. In addition, the reference Sarh meets the limitation of locating the processing location on the surface relative to the processing axis and end effector (Col. 12, ln 59-67; See claim 5 rejection below). Claims have been amended by applicant but a substantially similar rejection is made below regarding local and regional vision systems.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Linneman (US 2006/0143890 A1).
Regarding claim 1, The airframe processing system of Linneman teaches a system comprising:
An end effector (1) comprising:
A frame (4) forming an opening (Fig 6, Annotated Fig 7 below);
A machine tool (15) coupled to the frame and extendable through the opening along a processing axis (18) to engage a workpiece (6,7, Fig 7; [0040]); and
An end effector vacuum clamp comprising:
A plurality of legs (54, 55, 56, 57, Fig 6) coupled to the frame and extending radially outward from the opening (Fig 6);
A plurality of end-effector vacuum grippers (72, 73, 74, 75, Fig 6; [0089] ln 8-10), one of the end-effector vacuum grippers coupled to each one of the legs (Fig 6),
Wherein the end effector is releasably coupleable to a surface of the workpiece ([0044] ln 10-18); and
a processing force is reacted through the end effector and to the workpiece ([0019] ln 7-13; [0040]).
PNG
media_image1.png
359
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 12, 16-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark (US Patent 7,384,220 B2).
Regarding claim 12, the vacuum drilling end effector of Clark teaches an end effector comprising:
a frame (13, Fig 2);
a machine tool coupled to the frame (Col. 4, ln 53-57);
an end-effector vacuum clamp (20+22+14) coupled to the frame (13, Fig 2); and
a contact pad (24) coupled to the end-effector vacuum clamp (20+22+14, Fig 2),
wherein: the end-effector vacuum clamp is releasably coupleable to a surface of a workpiece (Col. 6 ln 23-32);
the contact pad maintains normality between the end effector and the surface of the workpiece (Col. 4 ln 58-66); and
a processing force is reacted through the end effector and into the workpiece (Col. 6, ln 30-32). The positioning of the end effector is possible because the end-effector vacuum clamp is releasably coupleable to the surface.
Regarding claim 16, the vacuum drilling end effector of Clark teaches a method for processing a workpiece, the method comprising steps of:
positioning an end effector relative to a processing location on a surface of the workpiece (Col. 2, ln 35-41; Col. 2, ln 53-56);
coupling the end effector to the surface of the workpiece (Col. 2, ln 38-41);
maintaining normality between the end effector and the surface of the workpiece using a contact pad (24) of the end effector (Col. 4 ln 58-66);
processing the workpiece at the processing location using a machine tool of the end effector (Col. 2, ln 47-49); and
reacting a processing force through the end effector and to the workpiece (Col. 6, ln 30-32).
Regarding claim 17, Clark teaches the limitations of claim 16 as described above, Clark further teaches the step of coupling the end effector to the surface of the workpiece comprise vacuum clamping the end effector to the surface of the workpiece (Col. 5, ln 6-9).
Regarding claim 18, Clark teaches the limitations of claim 16 as described above, Clark further teaches positioning a processing axis of the machine tool relative to the processing location on the surface of the workpiece (Col. 5, ln 10-18).
Regarding claim 19, Clark teaches the limitations of claim 18 as described above, Clark further teaches determining a location of the end effector relative to the processing location on the surface of the workpiece (Col. 7, ln 5-10; Fig 9); and
determining a location of the processing axis of the machine tool relative to the processing location on the surface of the workpiece (Col. 7 ln 46-56; Col. 7, ln 5-10; Fig 10-11). The laser guided alignment system of Clark teaches determining the position of the processing location and the placement of the end effector and machine tool are adjusted relative to the position to match the processing location.
Regarding claim 20, Clark teaches the limitations of claim 16 as described above, Clark further teaches the step of processing the workpiece comprises drilling a hole in the workpiece (Col. 2, ln 47-49).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gower (WO 2004028755 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the vacuum end effector of Gower teaches an end effector comprising:
a frame (12);
a machine tool (20) coupled to the frame (Fig 1);
an end-effector vacuum clamp (30) coupled to the frame (Fig 2); and
a contact pad (28) coupled to the end-effector vacuum clamp (Fig 4, Fig 2),
wherein: the end-effector vacuum clamp is releasably coupleable to a surface of a workpiece (Pg 3, DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT, Body 3);
the contact pad maintains normality between the end effector and the surface of the workpiece (Pg 4, Body 2, ln 3-5); and
a processing force is reacted through the end effector and into the workpiece (Pg 4, Body 2, ln 1-3). The vacuum clamp is used to temporarily clamp the end effector during drilling, therefore the clamp is releasable.
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 2, 3, 9, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linneman in view of Hafenrichter (US Patent 10,232,897 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Linneman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Linneman is silent on the details of a vacuum source. However, the robotic manipulator of Hafenrichter teaches an end-effector vacuum source (Col 11, ln 7-12); and,
wherein each one of the end-effector vacuum grippers comprises at least one suction cup in fluid communication with the end-effector vacuum source (Col 11, ln 7-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the airframe processing system of Linneman by supplying the vacuum to the suction cups to hold the end effector to the surface of the structure (Col 11, ln 7-12).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 2 as described above, Linneman further teaches the end-effector vacuum clamp further comprises an end-effector vacuum ejector ([0044] ln 22-25).
Regarding claim 9, Linneman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Linneman does not teach the base end of a robotic manipulator. However, the robotic manipulator of Hafenricter teaches a robotic manipulator (900) comprising a working end (904, Fig 10) and a base end (902, Fig 10), wherein the end effector (1006) is coupled to the working end of the robotic manipulator (Fig 10); and
a base (914),
wherein: the base end (902) of the robotic manipulator is coupled to the base (914, Fig 10);
the base is movable relative to the workpiece (Fig 4-9; Col. 2, ln 1-7); and
the base is releasably coupleable to the surface of the workpiece (Fig 4-9; Col. 2, ln 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to replace the robotic manipulator of the system of the airframe processing system of Linneman with the robotic manipulator of Hafenrichter to increase the quantity of robots that can work simultaneously during manufacturing or maintenance (Col. 1, ln 14-22).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 9 as described above, Hafenrichter further teaches the base (914) comprises a base vacuum clamp (916); and
the base vacuum clamp comprises:
a base vacuum source (Col 10, ln 63-67);
a base vacuum gripper in fluid communication with the base vacuum source (Col 10, ln 63-67). Linneman further teaches a vacuum ejector for blowing compressed air into the suction devices ([0044] ln 22-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the base vacuum gripper of the combination with the vacuum ejector of Linneman to quickly detach the suction device ([0044] ln 22-25).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linneman in view of Clark (US 7,384,220 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Linneman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Linneman does not teach a tool drive to position a processing axis of the machine tool relative to the frame. However, the coordination hole tool of Clark teaches a tool drive (40) to position a processing axis of the machine tool relative to the frame (Annotated Fig 3 below; Col 5 In 25-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the airframe processing system of Linneman with the coordination hole tool of Clark to fine-tune the machine tool positioning over a hole location to improve accuracy (Col 7 In 46-56).
PNG
media_image2.png
680
793
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linneman in view of Sarh (US Patent 8,695,190 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Linneman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Linneman does not teach a vision system. However, the robotic crawler assembly of Sarh teaches a local vision system (510) to determine a location of the processing axis relative to a processing location on the surface of the workpiece (Col. 12, ln 59-67); and
a regional vision system (418) to determine a location of the end effector relative to a processing location on the surface of the workpiece (Col. 9, ln 54-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the airframe processing system of Linneman with a local vision system to generate image data about the surface of the workpiece on which operations are to be performed (Col. 12, In 59-61) and accurately position end effector relative to workpiece (Col. 9, ln 54-57).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linneman in view of Hartnagel (US 2021/0291281 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Linneman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Linneman teaches an extractor (16) to remove at least one of debris produced during processing and a fastener removed from the workpiece ([0040]). A drill may be used for fastener removal for fasteners such as rivets and a drill draws debris from the workpiece during extraction. Linneman does not teach an applicator to dispense lubricant. However, the drilling apparatus of Hartnagel teaches an applicator to dispense lubricant ([0042] In 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the airframe processing system of Linneman with an applicator to dispense lubricant to reduce friction and wear on the drill bit.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linneman in view of Faude (WO 2015/106757 A2).
Regarding claim 11, Linneman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Linneman does not teach that the robotic manipulator is a collaborative robot. However, the robotic screwing unit of Faude teaches the robotic manipulator is a collaborative robot (Pg 2 body 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to make the airframe processing system of Linneman a collaborative robot to improve safety of the device during manufacturing (Pg 2, body 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Linneman.
Regarding claim 13, Clark teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, Clark further teaches the end-effector vacuum clamp comprises:
an end-effector vacuum source (Col. 5, ln 6-9);
an end-effector vacuum gripper in fluid communication with the end-effector vacuum source (Col. 5, ln 6-9). Clark does not teach an end-effector vacuum ejector. However, the vacuum end effector of Linneman teaches an end-effector vacuum ejector ([0044] ln 22-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the vacuum drilling end effector of Clark with an end-effector vacuum ejector to ensure quick detachment of the suction device ([0044] ln 22-25).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Sarh.
Regarding claim 14, Clark teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, Clark further teaches a tool drive (12) to position a processing axis of the machine tool relative to the end-effector vacuum clamp (Col. 4, ln 47-53). Clark does not teach a local vision system. However, the robotic crawler assembly of Sarh teaches a local vision system (510) to determine a location of the processing axis relative to a processing location on the surface of the workpiece (Col. 12, ln 59-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the vacuum drilling end effector of Clark with a local vision system to generate image data about the surface of the workpiece on which operations are to be performed (Col. 12, In 59-61).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Hartnagel.
Regarding claim 15, Clark teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, Clark further teaches an extractor to remove at least one of debris produced during processing and a fastener removed from the workpiece (Col. 4, ln 20-27). Clark does not teach an applicator to dispense lubricant. However, the drilling apparatus of Hartnagel teaches an applicator to dispense lubricant ([0042] In 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the vacuum drilling end effector of Clark with an applicator to dispense lubricant to reduce friction and wear on the drill bit.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Faude (WO 2015106757 A2).
Regarding claim 21, Clark teaches the limitations of claim 16 as described above, Clark does not teach the step of removing a fastener. However, Faude teaches the step of processing the workpiece comprises removing a fastener from the workpiece (Description, Body 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the method of using the vacuum drilling end effector of Clark by removing a fastener with a drill bit to fix faulty fastener installation.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Hafenrichter.
Regarding claim 22, Clark teaches the limitations of claim 16 as described above, Clark does not teach a robotic manipulator. However, Hafenrichter teaches the end effector (1004) is coupled to a working end (1006) of a robotic manipulator (900, Fig 10); and
the method further comprises a step of coupling the robotic manipulator to the surface of the workpiece (Col. 10, ln 60-67; Col. 12 ln 41-48; Fig 4-8);
a base end (902) of the robotic manipulator (900) is coupled to a base (914, Fig 10); and
the step of coupling the robotic manipulator to the surface of the workpiece comprises vacuum clamping the base to the surface of the workpiece (Fig 10; Col. 10, ln 60-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the method of using the vacuum drilling end effector of Clark by coupling the end effector to a walking robotic manipulator with a base that couples to the work piece to reduce weight, size and cost compared to a conventional anchored robot manipulator (Col. 1, ln 12-22).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linneman in view of Theis (WO 2006089327 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Linneman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Linneman does not teach a plurality of suction cups extending along a length of one of the legs. However, the suction gripping device of Theis teaches a plurality of suction cups (4) extending along length of an associated one of the legs (21, Fig 2; Pg 4, body 2 “the support arm…”, ln 6-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the airframe processing system of Linneman with additional suction cups along the leg to increase the gripping capability and accommodate workpieces of different sizes (Pg 2, Body 1).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gower in view of Bloch (US 2018/0290393 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Gower teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, Gower further teaches the end-effector vacuum clamp comprises:
a vacuum platform (13) coupled to the frame (12) and forming an opening (Annotated Fig 4 below); and
a vacuum pad (30) coupled to the vacuum platform (13, Fig 4);
the machine tool extends through the opening to engage the workpiece (Fig 4, Fig 1);
the contact pad circumscribes the opening (28, Annotated Fig 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
507
499
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gower does not teach the vacuum pad circumscribing the opening and contact pad. However, the vacuum tool end effector of Bloch teaches the vacuum pad (1164) circumscribes the opening (1164, Fig 12). The replacement of the vacuum pads of Gower with the vacuum pad of Bloch would result in the vacuum pad also circumscribing the contact pad. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the vacuum end effector of Gower by replacing the vacuum pads of Gower with the vacuum pad of Bloch to hold the workpiece relative to the end effector completely around the work area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2007116080 A1 discloses a suction gripper with radial extending arms with a plurality of suction cups attached along the length of an arm.
US Patent 5,383,751 A discloses an end effector with contact pads and vacuum pads to stabilize end effector during drilling.
US 2003/0210027 A1 discloses a suction gripper with contact pads.
US Patent 8,240,726 B2 discloses a suction gripper with two radial extending arms with a plurality of suction cups attached along the length of the arm.
US Patent 10,639,804 B2 discloses a suction drilling end effector with radial arms with a plurality of suction cups attached.
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 RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4, M-Fr.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/RALPH D WILKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights