DETAILED ACTION
CHANGING STATION, METHOD FOR CHANGING SANDPAPER AND ROBOT SYSTEM
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 amendments filed 10-28-2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined. The previous rejection has been updated due to applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-28-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant's argument that the prior art fails to teach "placing the head on a surface and applying a predefined force to press the head towards the surface when no surface treatment medium is attached to the head", examiner respectfully disagrees.
Prior art Naderer discloses a backing pad that moves towards a surface, applying a force towards the surface when there is no grinding disc attached to the backing pad (see figure 2b para 0057).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Prior art Naderer discloses using sensors to properly verify a grinding disc has been properly aligned and fitted on a backing pad by using wide range measurements such as distance or color. Narderer discloses other sensors can be used to verify that this process has been properly completed. (see para 0052-0063 of Narderer). A person with ordinary of skill in the art would be motivated to look to prior art Papell which discloses the use of position detectors to ensure proper positioning (see Papell para 0006,0008,0019,0021,0026), and prior art Lazer that discloses verifying that a worn abrasives have been removed ,and a correct new abrasive has been properly aligned. Lazer also discloses reducing the need for a human operator to intervene, and that improper alignment and positioning of an abrasive disc can cause injury. (see Lazer col 3 lines 50-col 8 lines 30)
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art fails teach two detection pins protruding from the support member and configured to insert into openings in the head configured to insert into openings in the head, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naderer (US20190152015A1) cited in ids in view of Papell (US20110130878A1) and Lanzer (US5231803A).
Regarding claim 1, Naderer teaches placing the head on a surface and applying a predefined force to press the head towards the surface when no surface treatment medium is attached to the head (figure 2b, para 0031 0057 “empty backing pad”);
- attaching the surface treatment medium to the head and placing the head having the surface treatment medium attached thereto on the surface (para 0057 “As soon as contact between the backing pad and the ring 50 has occurred, the manipulator 1 can stop and the actuator 20 can press against the ring 50 and the backside of the topmost grinding disc of the hopper with a defined force, causing the grinding disc 11 to attach to the backing pad”); and
Naderer fails to teach measuring a first distance between the head and the surface using one or more positioning sensors of the robot arm or the surface treatment tool and measuring a second distance between the head and the surface using the one or more positioning sensors of the robot arm or the surface treatment tool when the surface treatment medium is attached to the head.
However, Naderer does disclose using a wide range of sensors to determine if the backing pad is properly aligned and verify the fitting of the grinding disc onto the grinding machine (para 0053 0059-0060).
Papell discloses it is known to implement a positioning sensor when automating work of a tool arm that coupled to a robotic arm, using a distance measurement to ensure there is not improper alignment, and using a wide range of sensors to verify if the grinding disc is attached or detached from the backing pad (para 0006,0008,0019,0021,0026).
Lanzer discloses it is known to measure the distance between surfaces to and use positioning members to help streamline the operation of removing a worn abrasive disc and replacing it with a new abrasive disc (figures 4-7 col 6 lines 40-col 8 lines 30) to ensure proper alignment.
Because Naderer, Papell and Lanzer each teach controlling a tool using robotic arms that are designed to use positioning members and sensors. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of claim invention to try measuring a first distance between the head and the surface using one or more positioning sensors of the robot arm or the surface treatment tool and measuring a second distance between the head and the surface using the one or more positioning sensors of the robot arm or the surface treatment tool when the surface treatment medium is attached to the head as set forth in Papell and Lanzer in attempt to ensure that the grinding disc is properly aligned and attached to the backing pad as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp.
Regarding claim 2, modified Naderer teaches
- detaching the surface treatment medium from the head (see Naderer para 0042-0046,0049,0060,0074);
- placing the head on the surface when the surface treatment medium has been removed (see Naderer para 0050,0051);
- applying the predefined force to press the head towards the surface (see Naderer para 0042-0046,0049,0060,0074; and
- measuring a third distance between the head and the surface using the one or more positioning sensors of the robot arm or the surface treatment tool (see Naderer para 0053,0059-0060; see papell para 0006,0008,0019,0021,0026; Lanzer figures 4-7 col 6 lines 40-col 8 lines 30).
Regarding claim 3, modified Naderer teaches
detecting an orientation of the head by bringing the head into engagement with engagement structures (see Naderer para 0028,0054-0055,0069-0070).
Regarding claim 4, modified Naderer teaches
the head comprises several holes (see Naderer H, figure 2) and the engagement structures comprise two detection pins (see Naderer 39, para 0050,0061) arranged a predefined distance from each other (see Naderer figure 4a), wherein the detection pins are configured (capable of performing this action)to be brought into engagement with the holes of the head.
Regarding claim 5, modified Naderer teaches utilizing a changing station (abstract) that comprises a detachment portion (see Naderer para 0033) configured to detach a used surface treatment medium from the head and an attachment portion (see Naderer para 0057) designed and configured to attach a new surface treatment medium to the head.
Regarding claim 6, modified Naderer teaches herein one or more guide pins (see Naderer 51, figure 11b) are provided in the attachment portion (see Naderer figure 11a) and one or more detection pins (see Naderer 39, figure 4a) are protruding from the surface of the detachment portion.
Regarding claim 7, modified Naderer teaches removing a lowermost surface treatment medium, when more than one surface treatment media are attached to the head (see Naderer para 0073-0074), by bringing at least a most distal portion of the head into contact with a media holder (see Naderer abstract, para 0054-0055) and moving the head along a length of the media holder.
Regarding claim 8, modified Naderer teaches wherein the media holder is formed as a pin (see Naderer figure 11a-1b; abstract,0007,0010) comprising alternating portions of protruding structures and groove structures (see Naderer para 0053-0054).
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naderer (US20190152015A1) cited in ids in view of Bonnet (US20160039067A1).
Regarding claim 9, Naderer teaches a detachment portion (para 0033) comprising a support member (31, figures 4a-5c)configured to receive the head and two detection pins (see 39, figure 4a) protruding from the support member (31, figures 4a-5c), and configured (capable of performing this function) to insert into openings in the head the two detection pins (see 39, figure 4a) being arranged a predefined distance from one another (figure 4a) corresponding to a distance between the openings in the head; and an attachment portion (figure 11a-b; para 0057) a base portion (53, figure 11a-b) and two guide pins (51, figure 11a-11b) protruding from the base portion (11a-11b).
Naderer fails to teach wherein the two guide pins are arranged a distance from one another equal to the predefined distance of the two detection pins.
Bonnet teaches a sanding assembly that has a device for changing a sanding disk that includes two guide pins (612,616 figure 1 and 19) in the attachment area (para 0065-0071) are arranged a distance from one another equal to the predefined distance of the two detection pins (310, figure 1) in the detachment area (abstract, para 0019,0039,0050-0056).
However, because Bonnet teaches two guide pins are arranged a distance from one another equal to the predefined distance of the two detection pins, because discovering optimum arrangement and distance size, would have been a mere design consideration based on the characteristics the guide pins and detection pins based on the aiding the handling of the backing pad during the attaching and detaching operation. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, modified Naderer teaches wherein the guide pins are detachably attached to the base portion (see Naderer para 0054).
Regarding claim 11, modified Naderer teaches wherein the base portion (see Naderer para 0053-0055) is configured to receive a stack of surface treatment media and the attachment portion (see Naderer figure 11a-b; para 0057)comprises a plurality of media holders shaped as pin- formed stop members that surround the base portion (see Naderer para 0053-0057).
Regarding claim 12, modified Naderer teaches wherein each of the plurality of media holders comprises alternating portions of protruding structures and groove structures (see Naderer figures 11a-11b,; para 0053-0057).
Regarding claim 13, modified Naderer teaches wherein the detachment portion comprises a separation blade (see Naderer 32; para 0060,0063-0065) provided at a distance from an adjacent edge of the support member (see Naderer 31, figure 4a- 5c), wherein the separation blade is provided at a higher elevation than the support member.
Regarding claim 14, modified Naderer teaches a changing station (see Naderer abstract), a robot (1, figure 1) comprising a robot arm (see Naderer 2a-c, figure 1); and
- a surface treatment tool (see Naderer 10, figures 1-2) attached to the robot arm, the surface treatment tool comprising a head (see Naderer 12, figure 1-2) configured to receive a surface treatment medium;
wherein the robot system is configured (capable of performing this action) to attach a surface treatment medium to the surface treatment tool and to place the head on a surface and apply a predefined force to press the head towards the surface when no surface treatment medium has been attached to the head.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naderer (US20190152015A1) cited ids in view of Bonnet (US20160039067A1) as applied to claim 14 further in view of Papell (US20110130878A 2) and Lanzer (US5231803A).
Regarding claim 15, modified Naderer teaches an attachment unit (see Naderer figure 11a-11b, para 0050-0057) configured (capable of peforming this action) to attach the surface treatment medium to the head and to place the head on a support member of the attachment unit when the surface treatment medium is attached to the head, but fails to teach a measuring unit configured to measure a first distance between the head and the support member using one or more positioning sensors of the robot arm or the surface treatment tool.
Naderer fails to teach a measuring unit configured to measure a first distance between the head and the support member using one or more positioning sensors of the robot arm or the surface treatment tool.
However, Naderer does disclose using a wide range of sensors to determine if the backing pad is properly aligned and verify the fitting of the grinding disc onto the grinding machine (para 0053 0059-0060).
Papell discloses it is known to implement a positioning sensor when automating work of a tool arm that coupled to a robotic arm, using a distance measurement to ensure there is not improper alignment, and using a wide range of sensors to verify if the grinding disc is attached or detached from the backing pad (para 0006,0008,0019,0021,0026).
Lanzer discloses it is known to measure the distance between surfaces to and use positioning members to help streamline the operation of removing a worn abrasive disc and replacing it with a new abrasive disc (figures 4-7 col 6 lines 40-col 8 lines 30) to ensure proper alignment.
Because Naderer, Papell and Lanzer each teach controlling a tool using robotic arms that are designed to use positioning members and sensors. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of claim invention to try a measuring unit as set forth in Papell and Lanzer, in attempt to ensure that the grinding disc is properly aligned and attached to the backing pad as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723