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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment accompanying the Request for Continued Examination filed 17 October 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-16 are pending, of which claims 2, 7-8, and 10-15 were previously withdrawn from consideration (although claims 7 and 10 are rejoined in the Restriction/Elections section below). Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 19 August 2025, except an objection related to a failure to illustrate the tooling calibration system which is repeated below (and which also receives further elaboration following Applicant’s amendments to the drawings of 17 October 2025).
Claim 4 was previously rejoined for examination in the Office action mailed 14 May 2025. The status identifier of claim 4 should be updated to no longer read ‘Withdrawn’ to reflect the correct status of the claim. (Likewise for claims 7 and 10, in view of the restriction with respect to these claims being withdrawn herein.)
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Following an examination of claim 1 as amended 17 October 2025, the examiner has determined that there is no additional search and/or examination burden to additionally examining claims 7 and 10. As such, the restriction requirement as set forth in the action mailed 27 February 2025 with respect to Invention D including claims 7 and 10 has been withdrawn. All aspects of the restriction requirement that have not been withdrawn remain in force.
Drawings
The amended drawings filed 17 October 2025 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because the amendments to the drawings introduce new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Fig. 1A as amended 17 October 2025 introduces new matter. Fig. 1A shows a pair of presence sensors “7” mounted on a top surface of a fixture “3”, and this feature was not disclosed in the present application as originally filed. Merely because the present specification as originally filed discloses that presence sensors may be comprised in the support fixture is insufficient to disclose a pair of presence sensors mounted in a top surface of the fixture as now illustrated in Fig. 1A. The presence sensors as disclosed in the originally filed specification were not disclosed as being at the exact positions now indicated in Fig. 1A, and as such the addition of the presence sensors to Fig. 1A introduces new matter into the disclosure.
Fig. 2 as amended 17 October 2025 introduces new matter. The location of the control unit “6” being in the base “12” was not disclosed in the present application as originally filed. Although the present specification as originally filed does disclose the control unit “6”, there is no disclosure of the control unit being in the base “12” as now indicated in Fig. 2. Furthermore, the structure now indicated with reference character “3A” was not disclosed as being a clamp in the present application as originally filed; instead, the structure now indicated with reference character “3A” appear to be a portion of the workpiece “4” in the drawings as originally filed. The addition of reference character “3A” introduces new matter into the disclosure because the clamp was never disclosed as being spaced from a remainder of the support fixed “3” or as engaging a side of the workpiece “4” facing the robot “11”, as now illustrated in Fig. 2. The addition of reference character “22F” introduces new matter into the disclosure because the structure now indicated with reference character “22F” was never disclosed in the application as originally filed as being a sonotrode. For example, Fig. 2 as amended could provide support for a claim limitation such as “the sonotrode has an exterior side facing the workpiece”, even though no such feature was disclosed in the present application as originally filed. Various axes added to Fig. 2 that now indicate rotational axis of the robot were not disclosed in the present application as originally filed. For example, it was not clear in the application as originally filed that the wrist “21B” is rotatable about axis “A4” as indicated in Fig. 2 as amended. As another example, it was not clear in the application as originally filed that the tooling “22” is rotatable about axis “A6” as indicated in Fig. 2 as amended. The present specification does not explicitly disclose either of these axes as being among the “at least four axis”, and it was unclear from the drawings in and of themselves that rotation about axes “A4” and “A6” occurs. If support for these axes is provided by the specific model of robot disclosed at page 5, lines 30-31, the examiner invites the Applicant to provide evidence that the cited robot includes rotational axes at each of the axes now illustrated in Fig. 2. However, the present specification as originally filed does not explicitly disclose each and every axis now illustrated in Fig. 2, and the drawings as originally filed not illustrate multiple rotational joints in sufficient detail to determine where each rotational axes is located. Thus, Fig. 2 as amended introduces new matter into the disclosure.
Fig. 3A as amended 17 October 2025 introduces new matter. The entirety of the structure including puncher tool “22B” and slider support “30A” being a sonotrode, as suggested by the newly added reference character “22F” in Fig. 3A, introduces new matter into the disclosure because in the application as originally filed the tool “22B” and the slider support “30A” were not disclosed as sub-components of the sonotrode.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. No calibration system is illustrated in the present drawings, despite the addition of reference character “22G” to Fig. 3A. The present specification states, “Furthermore, the tooling may also comprise a calibration system to align the puncher die with the puncher. For example, the puncher die may be fixed to the frame with a plurality of screws. The holes on the puncher piece used to screw it to the frame may be bigger than the actual screw, so they allow room for adjusting the puncher die in order to align the die with the puncher in a more precise way.” (See page 9 at lines 26-30). Although reference character “22G” in Fig. 3A points generally toward the puncher die “22C”, no comparison in size between screws and holes is illustrated in Fig. 3A, and the present specification indicates that the structure corresponding to the claimed calibration system requires a difference in size between screws and holes that receive the screws. Therefore, the “calibration system” as recited in claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). To illustrate the structure of the “calibration system”, noting that this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as explained in the Claim Interpretation section below, the structure corresponding to the calibration system described in the present written description should be illustrated in the drawings. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include reference sign “21C” indicating a wrist axis as introduced in the specification amendments of 30 July 2025.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “22F” has been used to designate two different structures in Fig. 2 and 3A. The difference in use of reference character “22F” between these figures makes it unclear whether a structure that appears to be a housing as indicated with reference character “22F” in Fig. 2 is considered as a sonotrode.
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.
Specification
The amendment filed 17 October 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the amendment to the specification dated 17 October 2025 amends a paragraph that was previously added, and the amendment to this paragraph introduces new matter. The new matter includes there being “at least one” presence sensor, and the new matter further includes the sensor being “a sensor known in the art”. The present application as originally filed only contemplates a plurality of sensors. Page 3 at lines 28-35 only refers to “presence sensors” in the plural, originally filed claim 8 recites “positioning sensors” in the plural, and the drawings as originally filed fail to illustrate any embodiment with only a single sensor. As such, the present application as originally filed only discloses plural presence sensors, and fails to disclose a single presence sensor as now permitted by the amendment to the specification of 17 October 2025. Further, there was no disclosure in the present application as originally filed of the sensor being a “sensor known in the art”. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification as amended 30 July 2025 at the paragraph beginning with the phrase “Figure 1A shows in perspective view …” recites, “at least four axis A1-A6 between a robot base 12 and a robot wrist 21B”. This recitation is inaccurate relative to the drawings as filed 17 October 2025. For example, axis A5 and A6 as shown in Fig. 2 are not between the base 12 and the wrist 12B. Instead, these axes A5 and A6 are axis of the tooling 22 relative to the wrist 21B. As such, the specification should not describe axes A5 and A6 as being between the base 12 and the wrist 21B. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
the claim at lines 20-21 and again at lines 24-25 recites, “the wrist coupling element”. Each of these recitations should read – the wrist tool coupling element – for consistent naming with the element as it is introduced, especially in view of the claim also reciting an additional coupling element referred to as a “tool coupling element”.
the claim should include the word “and” at the end of line 27 to indicate that lines 28-29 are describing the final required feature of the configuration of the control unit.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a wrist tool coupling element” as recited in claim 1 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “wrist tool coupling” – i.e., in order for an element to be considered as a “wrist tool coupling element”, the element must perform a coupling function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“the tool coupling element” as recited in claim 1 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “tool coupling” – i.e., in order for an element to be considered as a “tool coupling element”, the element must perform a function of coupling; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function); and
“a tooling calibration system” as recited in claim 16 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to align the die with the puncher tool i”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “tooling calibration” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the system).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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, 3-7, 9, 10, and 16 is/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 1 as amended 17 October 2025 recites that each of the plurality of toolings comprises “a frame”, “an ultrasonic puncher tool”, “a die”, and “a servomotor”. A plurality of toolings each having the features recited in claim 1 was not described in the present specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention. Although the present specification may disclose one tooling having the features recited in claim 1, and although the present specification may disclose a plurality of toolings, there is no disclosure in the present specification of each of the plurality of toolings having the features required by claim 1. Page 2 at lines 19-22 discloses, “Furthermore, the robot may be fitted with different detachable toolings, for example with different types of puncher tools and dies for different sizes and shapes of holes or openings to be formed, or e.g., for different workpiece materials or thicknesses, in a flexible way.” Thus, this passage discloses that the toolings may be different from one another. Page 3 at lines 17-18 discloses, “Also, by providing, in the cell, several interchangeable toolings, for example each tooling having a puncher tool for a certain size or type of hole …”. This passage fails to disclose that each of the toolings comprises an ultrasonic puncher tool, a die, and a servomotor. Note also the different reference characters for the tooling “22” described as having the features required by claim 1, and the other toolings “5”. Therefore, there is no disclosure of each of the toolings having the features required by claim 1. As such, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 as amended 17 October 2025 recites that the punching cell comprises “at least one presence sensor”. A punching cell including a single presence sensor, as encompassed by claim 1 as amended 17 October 2025, was not described in the present specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention. The present application as originally filed only contemplates the punching cell comprising a plurality of sensors. For example, page 3 at lines 28-35 only refers to “presence sensors” in the plural, originally filed claim 8 recites “positioning sensors” in the plural, and the drawings as originally filed fail to illustrate any embodiment with only a single sensor. As such, the present application as originally filed only discloses plural presence sensors, and fails to disclose a single presence sensor as now permitted by the amendment to claim 1 of 17 October 2025. As such, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the present application as originally filed did not disclose the punching cell including exactly one presence sensor.
Claim 1 recites, “a control unit in communication with the industrial robot, wherein the control unit is configured to: engage the tool coupling element to attach a first tooling to the wrist coupling element, wherein the first tooling is stored in the tooling storage; operate the industrial robot, utilizing the first tooling, to punch a first hole having a first size at a first punching position on the workpiece; disengage the tool coupling element to detach the first tooling from the wrist coupling element and place the first tooling in the tooling storage; engage the tool coupling element to attach a second tooling to the wrist coupling element, wherein the second tooling is stored in the tooling storage; operate the industrial robot, utilizing the second tooling, to punch a second hole having a second size at a second punching position on the workpiece”. The control unit being configured as recited in the preceding quote, as encompassed by claim 1 as amended 17 October 2025, was not described in the present specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention. The present application as originally filed does disclose “a control unit”, but does not disclose the control unit being configured as recited in claim 1 as amended 17 October 2025. Regarding the claims as originally filed, the recited configuration of the control unit is newly added to the claims in the amended filed 17 October 2025, and the recited configuration of the control unit was not disclosed in the claims as originally filed. For example, in claim 15, which is a method, no structure is described as being responsible for performing the steps of “operating the industrial robot to place the punching tooling on a tooling storage, and to detach the punching tooling from the industrial robot”. These steps can include an operator detaching the punching tooling from the robot, and do not require the control unit to be configured to perform the recited steps. Regarding the present specification as originally filed, the present specification as originally filed fails to disclose the configuration of the control unit as now recited in claim 1. Page 2 at lines 9-10 discloses, “a control unit to control the operation of the industrial robot to punch a hole in the workpiece”. Controlling operation of the robot to punch a hole in the workpiece includes controlling the tooling after the tooling is attached to the robot, now for the purpose of attaching or detaching the tooling. Page 3 at lines 26-32 recites, “Also, the control unit may further control the positioning of the workpiece on the fixture. For example, the control unit may receive a control signal from presence sensors comprised in the support fixture, thus monitoring the correct positioning of a workpiece on the fixture. Once the workpiece is correctly positioned on the support fixture, the control signal may indicate the control unit to go ahead with the punching operation of the industrial robot.” This disclosure does not describe the configuration of the control unit now recited in claim 1, however. Since the control unit as disclosed in the present specification is not described as being configured to perform each of the functions now recited in claim 1, claim 1 as amended fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 10, and 16 is/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 1 at lines 20-21 recites, “engage the tool coupling element to attach a first tooling to the wrist coupling element”. This recitation is indefinite for multiple reasons. First, there is an insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the tool coupling element” in the claim. Is a new “tooling coupling element” being introduced, or is this recitation intended to refer to the wrist tool coupling element already introduced earlier in the claim? Second, it is unclear whether this recitation is introducing a new “first tooling”, or whether the “first tooling” must be a member of the previously introduced “plurality of toolings”. The claim can be read either way. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the first tooling as being a member of the previously introduced toolings and interprets the tool coupling element as a new tool coupling element.
Claim 1 at lines 26-27 recites, “engage the tool coupling element to attach a second tooling to the wrist coupling element”. This recitation is indefinite for multiple reasons. First, it is unclear whether the same tool coupling element is referred to in this recitation as recited in lines 20-21. Is a new “tooling coupling element” being introduced, or is this recitation intended to refer to the wrist tool coupling element already introduced earlier in the claim? Second, it is unclear whether this recitation is introducing a new “second tooling”, or whether the “second tooling” must be a member of the previously introduced “plurality of toolings”. The claim can be read either way. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the second tooling as being a member of the previously introduced toolings and interprets the tool coupling element as a new tool coupling element.
Claim 3 recites, “wherein the frame of the tooling is C-shaped”. This recitation is indefinite because claim 1 introduces a plurality of toolings, and it is unclear whether claim 3 should be interpreted as requiring that the frame of one of the toolings is C-shaped, or whether claim 3 should be interpreted as required that each of the frames of the plurality of toolings is C-shaped. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 3 as describing a single one of the frames.
Claim 5 recites that “the tooling” comprises various features. Claim 5 is indefinite because claim 1 introduces a plurality of toolings, and it is unclear which of these toolings is being described by claim 5. That is, does claim 5 describe each of the toolings of claim 1, or does claim 5 describe one of the toolings of claim 1? The examiner suggests clearly reciting the relationship between the tooling or toolings of claim 5 and the plurality of toolings of claim 1. Further, to the extent that claim 5 is interpreted as describing each of the toolings already introduced in claim 1, claim 6 raises a similar issue – must each of the toolings in have a ball screw actuator, or must only one of the toolings have a ball screw actuator? For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 5 as describing a single one of the toolings.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the ‘tool changer’ and the ‘complementary tool changer’ introduced in claim 7 must be in addition to the coupling elements already introduced in claim 1. In the present specification, the tool changers form the coupling elements, such that the disclosed punching cell does not include two coupling elements and also two tool changes that are in addition to the coupling elements. As such, since claim 7 appears to require new tool changes in addition to the coupling elements already required by claim 1, but since the specification suggests that claim 7 may be intended to permit the tool changers to be the same structures as the already introduced coupling elements, claim 7 is indefinite. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 7 as permitting the tool changers to be defined by the already introduced coupling elements.
Claim 9 recites, “the puncher tool”. This recitation is indefinite because claim 1 requires a plurality of puncher tools, since each of the toolings of claim 1 is required to have a puncher tool. It is unclear whether claim 9 is requiring that each of the puncher tools of the plurality of toolings comprises a respective sonotrode, or that one of the puncher tools of the plurality of toolings comprises a sonotrode. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 9 as describing a single one of the puncher tools.
Claim 10 recites, “a tooling storage” and “detachable puncher toolings”. Claim 10 is indefinite because it is unclear whether an additional tooling storage is introduced relative to the tooling storage of claim 1. If the same tooling storage is referred to in claim 10 as already introduced in claim 1, it is unclear why claim 10 recites “a” tooling storage. Furthermore, the relationship between the “toolings” of claim 10 and the plurality of toolings already introduced in claim 1 is unclear. Does claim 10 require additional toolings? Can the toolings of claim 10 be considered as being provided by the plurality of toolings of claim 1? For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 10 as describing the same tooling storage and toolings already introduced.
Claim 16 recites that the punching cell further comprises “a tooling calibration system configured to align the die with the puncher tool”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear what particular die and puncher tool are being recited, as well as whether or not a plurality of tooling calibration systems are required. Since claim 1 introduces a plurality of toolings, each with a die and a puncher tool, claim 1 introduces a plurality of dies and a plurality of puncher tools. Claim 16 should avoid referring in the singular to a structure that is previously introduced in the plural, and the claim should particularly identify which particular die(s) and puncher tool(s) are being referred to. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 16 as describing a single one of the dies and a single one of the puncher tools, such that only a single calibration system is required.
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) 1, 3-7, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110369604 A to Chen in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0207703 A1 to Brown et al., US Pub. No. 2008/0092712 A1 to Aronsson, and CN 105710203 A to Tang.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a punching cell (including the tooling 1 shown in Fig. 1 and the robot to which the tooling 1 is attached as described at paragraphs 20-22 and 35) for punching holes in workpieces (see paragraphs 57-58), the punching cell comprising:
an industrial robot (see the robot described at paragraphs 20-22 and 35; this robot is ‘industrial’ because the robot is used for industrial purposes, including automobile manufacturing per paragraphs 4 and 35),
a tooling 1 comprising:
- a frame 11 configured to detachably mount to a wrist tool coupling element of the industrial robot (the frame 11 is configured as recited due to the frame 11 including quick change plate 2; see paragraph 9);
- an ultrasonic puncher tool 3 mounted on the frame 11 (see Fig. 1 showing the tool 3 being mounted to the frame 11; see paragraph 15 disclosing the tool as being an ultrasonic puncher);
- a die 4 mounted on the frame 11 and aligned with the puncher tool 3 (see Figs. 1 and 3); and
- a servomotor 12 configured to drive the puncher tool 3 towards the die 4 (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 42; see paragraph 40 disclosing motor 12 as being a servomotor).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses that the frame 11 of the tooling 1 is C-shaped (see Fig. 3, where a bottom portion of the frame 11 is C-shaped, where the C-shape is rotated counter-clockwise 90 degrees relative to the orientation in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses that the tooling 1 further comprises a linear actuator 13 connected to the servomotor 12 (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 42), the linear actuator 13 configured to move the puncher tool 3 towards the die 4 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses that the linear actuator 13 comprises a ball screw actuator (see paragraph 40; the ball screw actuator includes at least one of screw rod 131 and nut 132).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses a complementary tool changer 2 providing on the frame 11 of the tooling (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses that the punching cell further comprises a tooling calibration system (including pin 44 and hole 422; see paragraph 52; this structure is an equivalent of the tooling calibration system disclosed in the present application because the pin 44 and hole 422 perform the same aligning function specified in the claim per paragraph 52 of Chen, because the pin 44 and hole 422 are not excluded by any definition in the present specification for an equivalent, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the interchangeability of the pin and hole system of Chen for the screws and holes structure disclosed in the present application given that both systems produce suitable alignment for punching a hole in an automotive body panel, and also because Chen at paragraph 53 expressly acknowledges a screw connection as an equivalent) configured to align the die 4 with the puncher tool 3 (see Fig. 3; the alignment is at least sufficiently precise to be suitable for punching holes in automative body panels).
Although Chen discloses a generic robot to which the disclosed tooling is attached (see paragraphs 20-22 and 35), Chen fails to explicitly disclose the structure of the robot. Moreover, although Chen discloses using the tooling to punch automotive body panels (see paragraphs 4 and 35), Chen fails to disclose any structure to support or position an automotive body panel. As a result, Chen fails to disclose: that the robot comprises a base, a wrist, a wrist tool coupling element arranged on the wrist, and at least four robot axes between the base and the wrist, wherein the wrist is rotatable about the wrist axis, the wrist axis being one of said at least four robot axes between the base and the wrist; a plurality of toolings, where each of the toolings has the features of the frame, the puncher tool, the die, and the servomotor as recited in claim 1; a support fixture to position a workpiece to be punched; at least one presence sensor arranged in the support fixture; a control unit in communication with the industrial robot, wherein the control unit is configured to: engage the tool coupling element to attach a first tooling to the wrist coupling element, wherein the first tooling is stored in the tooling storage; operate the industrial robot, utilizing the first tooling, to punch a first hole having a first size at a first punching position on the workpiece; disengage the tool coupling element to detach the first tooling from the wrist coupling element and place the first tooling in the tooling storage; engage the tool coupling element to attach a second tooling to the wrist coupling element, wherein the second tooling is stored in the tooling storage; operate the industrial robot, utilizing the second tooling, to punch a second hole having a second size at a second punching position on the workpiece; and wherein the at least one presence sensor is configured to monitor a workpiece position of the workpiece in the support fixture, the at least one presence sensor being configured to provide control signals to the control unit based on the workpiece position, and wherein the control unit is configured to operate the industrial robot to punch the first and second holes in the workpiece in response to the control signals, as required by claim 1. Chen also fails to disclose that the support fixture comprises at least one clamp to fix the workpiece into a workpiece as required by claim 4. Chen fails to explicitly illustrate a structure to which the complementary tool changer is attached, and thus Chen fails to disclose a tool changer mounted on the wrist axis of the industrial robot as required by claim 7. Chen also fails to disclose a tooling storage sized to store detachable puncher toolings within reach of the industrial robot as required by claim 10.
Initially, Brown teaches an industrial robot 14 that includes a base (located at a bottom of the robot 14 relative to Fig. 1 – i.e., the base serves as the support for the robot 14), a wrist (at an end of arm 22 having the tool changer 24), a wrist tool coupling element 24 arranged on the wrist (see Fig. 1; the element 24 of Brown is an equivalent of the structure of the element disclosed in the present specification under MPEP 2183 because the element 24 of Brown preforms the same function specified in the claim of coupling a tool to the wrist, because the element 24 of Brown is not excluded by any definition for an equivalent provided in the present specification, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element 24 of Brown for the corresponding structure disclosed in the present specification because both structures are able to removably couple a punch tool to a wrist of a robot), and at least four robot axes between the base and the wrist (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 22; since the wrist is at the end of arm 22, the robot axes are ‘between the base and the wrist’), wherein the wrist 22 is rotatable about a wrist axis (the wrist axis being at an end of the wrist 22 opposite the coupling element 24 relative to Fig. 1), the wrist axis being one of the at least four robot axes between the base and the wrist 22 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 22). Brown also teaches that a frame of a tooling 26 is detachably mounted to the wrist tool coupling element 24 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 22), with said wrist axis being one of said at least four robot axes between the base and wrist (see paragraph 22). Brown also teaches a support fixture 18 to position a workpiece 20 to be punched (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 21). Brown also teaches a control unit in communication with the industrial robot (see the robot controller of paragraph 29), wherein the control unit is configured to: engage the tool coupling element to attach a first tooling 26 to the wrist coupling element 24 (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 22 and 25; the tool coupling element being the portion of the first tooling 26 engaged by wrist coupling element 24); operate the industrial robot 14, utilizing the first tooling 26, to punch a first hole having a first size at a first punching position on a workpiece 20 (see paragraph 29); disengage the tool coupling element to detach the first tooling 26 from the wrist coupling element 24 (see paragraph 25); engage the tool coupling element to attach a second tooling to the wrist coupling element (see paragraph 25, where the second tooling is any tooling other than the first tooling 26) to the wrist coupling element 24 (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 22 and 25; the tool coupling element being the portion of the first tooling 26 engaged by wrist coupling element 24); operate the industrial robot 14, utilizing the first tooling 26, to punch a second hole having a second size at a second punching position on the workpiece 20 (see paragraph 29; note that the ‘second size’ is not required to be different from the first size, such that a size of the first hole is considered a ‘first size’ and a size of the second hole is considered a ‘second size’ even is the two sizes are of the same magnitude). [Claim 1] Brown also teaches that the support fixture 18 comprises at least one clamp to fix the workpiece into a work position (see paragraph 21). [Claim 4] Brown also teaches a tool changer 24 mounted on the wrist axis of the industrial robot (see Fig. 1). [Claim 7]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen by configuring the generically disclosed industrial robot of Chen as an industrial robot having a base, a wrist, and at least four robot axes between the base and the wrist, including detachably mounting the frame of the tooling of Chen to a tool changer on the wrist axis of the industrial robot, in view of the teachings of Brown. This modification is advantageous because it fills a gap in the disclosure of Chen. That is, while Chen only generically discloses an industrial robot, Brown specifically discloses the structure of an industrial robot (i.e., the base, the wrist, and the at least four robot axes, where the frame of the tooling is detachably mounted to the wrist axis of the robot) that allows the robot to transport a tooling to a workpiece held in a support fixture in order to punch the workpiece. As such, this modification is advantageous because it enables the tooling of Chen to be moved to a workpiece in order to punch the workpiece. The base is advantageous to support the robot, and the wrist is advantageous to carry the tooling. Moreover, configuring the robot of Chen to have the features taught by Brown is advantageous because the number of axes of rotation of the robot as taught by Brown provides a great degree of freedom of movement of the tooling, thus enabling the tooling to be positioned at whatever orientation is desired relative to a workpiece.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the punching cell of Chen with a support fixture as taught by Brown because the support fixture holds the workpiece in a suitable manner to allow for punching processes (see Brown at paragraph 21). In other words, the support feature retains the workpiece at a desired position in order to be punched, thus aiding the accuracy of the punching operation by limiting movement of the workpiece during punching.
Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the punching cell of Chen with a control unit to control the operation of the industrial robot in view of the teachings of Brown because this modification allows for automated operation of the industrial robot. That is, in accordance with the teachings of Brown (see paragraphs 25 and 29, e.g.), the robot can automatically select from among multiple tools, and also each punch location can be programmed into the control unit, such that the control unit is able to control the industrial robot to move the tooling to various positions relative to the workpiece in order to carry out punching operations at desired locations on the workpiece. As such, the need for a human operator is avoided.
Still, Chen as modified by Brown fails to disclose: a plurality of toolings, where each of the toolings has the features of the frame, the puncher tool, the die, and the servomotor as recited in claim 1; at least one presence sensor arranged in the support fixture; wherein the control unit is configured to: wherein the first tooling engaged by the tooling coupling element is stored in the tooling storage; place the first tooling in the tooling storage; wherein the second tooling engaged by the tooling coupling element is stored in the tooling storage; operate the industrial robot, utilizing the second tooling, to punch a second hole having a second size at a second punching position on the workpiece; and wherein the at least one presence sensor is configured to monitor a workpiece position of the workpiece in the support fixture, the at least one presence sensor being configured to provide control signals to the control unit based on the workpiece position, and wherein the control unit is configured to operate the industrial robot to punch the first and second holes in the workpiece in response to the control signals, as required by claim 1. Chen, as modified by Brown, also fails to disclose a tooling storage sized to store detachable puncher toolings within reach of the industrial robot as required by claim 10.
Aronsson teaches a punching cell having an industrial robot and a plurality of toolings (see Fig. 9; one tooling is coupled to the robot, two tools arranged in a tooling storage). Aronsson teaches that each a first tooling and a second tooling are stored in the tooling storage (see Fig. 9 – the two toolings in the storage can be considered as first and second toolings), and that the industrial robot can automatically engage either of the first tooling and the second tooling (see Fig. 9 and claim 1; see also paragraph 12 and 20) Aronsson teaches the robot can automatically change tools between the various toolings to produce different punched shapes (see Fig. 9 and claim 1; see also paragraphs 12 and 43), and Aronsson teaches that each of the toolings produces a different shape of punched hole (see paragraph 12). The tooling storage of Aronsson is sized to store detachable puncher toolings within reach of the industrial robot (see Fig. 9, along with the ability to automatically exchange toolings per paragraph 20; note that claim 10 is interpreted as not requiring any additional storage and as not requiring any additional toolings with respect to claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the punching cell of Chen, as modified by Brown, with a tool storage having a plurality of the toolings of Chen, where each of the toolings has a unique punch and die shape, and to configure the control unit to be able to automatically swap one of the toolings on the robot for another of the toolings in the storage, as well as to configure the control unit to be able to perform a punching operation with any one of the toolings, in view of the teachings of Aronsson. This modification is advantageous because it allows for producing holes having different geometries, thus improving the versatility of the punching cell of Chen, as modified by Brown, For example, rather than provide a unique robot for each type of punching operation desired to be performed, this modification allows using a single robot and exchanging one tooling for another in order to perform a new type of punching operation. Thus, the need for mu