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 filed 4 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are pending, of which claims 2, 8, and 11-15 were previously withdrawn from consideration. 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 for any objection(s) and/or rejection(s) under 35 USC 112 repeated below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. While Fig. 6B illustrates two generic presence sensors ‘7’, the sensors ‘7’ in Fig. 6B are not illustrated as having all the features required by claim 1. Claim 1 requires that the sensors are “configured to monitor a workpiece position of the workpiece in the support fixture”, and this feature of the sensors is not illustrated. It is not the case that all generic presence sensors are necessarily “configured to monitor a workpiece position of the workpiece in the support fixture”. For example, a presence sensor can sense the position of a person with respect to a fixture – this type of presence sensor would not satisfy the requirements of claim 1 even though this type of sensor is consistent with the drawing of Fig. 6B. Thus, the generic pressure sensors in Fig. 6B are not illustrated as being “configured to monitor a workpiece position of the workpiece in the support fixture”. Moreover, claim 1 requires the present sensors to be “configured to provide control signals to the control unit”, and this feature of the sensors required by claim 1 is not illustrated in Fig. 6B. Therefore, since claim 1 recites a specific configuration of the presence sensors, but since Fig. 6B only generically illustrates two presence sensors, the generic illustrated of Fig. 6B is insufficient to illustrate the configuration of the sensors required by claim 1. The presence sensors being configured in the particular manner as recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). In the present drawings, the wrist axis “A6” is not illustrated as being “between the base and the wrist” as required by claim 1, at least to the extent that “between” is interpreted in its plain and ordinary meaning (see the discussion of this issue in the Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 section below). The annotated Fig. 2 of the present drawings illustrates the area that is “between the base and the wrist”, and the wrist axis “A6” is not between the base and the wrist. Instead, the wrist axis “A6” is on an opposing side of the wrist from a side that is between the base and the wrist. The wrist axis “A6” being “between the base and the wrist” as required by claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The examiner suggests removing the requirement from claim 1 that the wrist axis is one of the axis that is between the base and the wrist, as one option for overcoming this objection. No new matter should be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
735
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The drawings fail to illustrate a plurality of toolings that each have an ultrasonic puncher tool and a servomotor as required by claim 1, that each have a linear actuator as required by claim 5, that each have a sonotrode as required by claim 9, and that each have a tooling calibration system as required by claim 16. The present drawings only illustrate one tooling that satisfies the requirements of claim 1, for example. Moreover, the present specification further explicitly states that toolings other than tooling ‘22’ are a different type of tooling, so the tooling ‘22’ cannot be relied upon to illustrate the structures of the different types of toolings. If the present specification stated that the other toolings besides tooling ‘22’ have the same structure as tooling ‘22’, the examiner would not make this objection. The specification makes no such statement. To the contrary, the specification is explicit that the other toolings can be a different type than tooling ‘22’. Since the other toolings are permitted to be a different type than tooling ‘22’, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understanding all toolings as having the same structure. More than one tooling have the structure required by claims 1, 5, 9, and 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The examiner suggests removing the requirement in claim 1 that each of the toolings includes the various recited structures, and instead reciting that one of the toolings includes the various recited structures, in order to overcome this objection. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, and only conventional features where detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention are permitted to be illustrated in the form a graphical drawing system or labeled representation (such as a labeled rectangular box). The Applicant uses Figs. 6A-6C to show inventive, rather than conventional features. A complete illustration of the invention, however, is essential for a proper understanding of the invention. Consider the recitation in claim 1 of “a plurality of sensors arranged in the support fixture”. This feature is only illustrated in Fig. 6B. However, it is unclear from Fig. 6B whether the recitation “a plurality of sensors arranged in the support fixture” encompasses sensors arranged on, as one example, an outer surface of the support fixture. Arguably, the requirement that the sensors are “in” the support fixture excludes a sensor being positioned on a surface of the support fixture. However, potentially a sensor can be considered as “in” the support fixture merely by being fixed to the support fixture. As this one example illustrates, a complete illustration of the claimed invention is necessary for a proper understanding of the invention. The examiner encourages the Applicant to limit the claimed structure to that which is illustrated in the present drawings as originally filed.
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 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”. To the extent that “between” is interpreted in its plain and ordinary meaning in the time, space, or interval that separates, 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 because axes A5 and A6 are not within the space that separates the base and the wrist. Instead, these axes A5 and A6 are on an opposing side of the wrist 21B from the base 12, such that these axis are not in the space that separates the base and the wrist. 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 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 at lines 1-2 recites, “a tool a complementary tool changer”. The phrase “a tool” at the beginning of this recitation should be deleted. 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); 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, 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 following being initially filed, 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. To overcome this rejection, the examiner suggests amending claim 1 at line 7 to recite “a plurality of toolings, [[each]] one tooling of the plurality of toolings comprising:” the frame, the ultrasonic puncher tool, etc.
Claim 5 fails to comply with the written description requirement for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above. That is, only the single tooling “22” as disclosed in the present application is described as including a linear actuator. Page 2 at lines 19-22 states that the other toolings have “different types of puncher tools and dies”. Thus, there is no disclosure that the toolings other than tooling “22” have a linear actuator. As such, claim 5 fails to comply with the written description requirement. The examiner suggests only reciting that one of the toolings comprises a linear actuator, since the present application as originally filed only explicitly states that tooling “22” comprises a linear actuator.
Claim 9 fails to comply with the written description requirement for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above. That is, only the single tooling “22” as disclosed in the present application is described as including a sonotrode. Page 2 at lines 19-22 states that the other toolings have “different types of puncher tools and dies”. Thus, there is no disclosure that the toolings other than tooling “22” have a sonotrode. As such, claim 9 fails to comply with the written description requirement. The examiner suggests only reciting that one of the toolings comprises a sonotrode, since the present application as originally filed only explicitly states that tooling “22” comprises a sonotrode.
Claim 16 fails to comply with the written description requirement for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above. That is, only the single tooling “22” as disclosed in the present application is described as including tooling calibration system. There is no disclosure of other toolings having the same tooling calibration system. As such, claim 16 fails to comply with the written description requirement. The examiner suggests only reciting that one of the toolings comprises a tooling calibration system, since the present application as originally filed only explicitly describes a single tooling as comprises the calibration system.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 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 recites, “the wrist axis being between one of the at least four robot axes between the base and the wrist”. This recitation is indefinite in view of the present specification. The present specification identifies the wrist with reference character “21B” and identifies axis “A6” as the wrist axis. (See the amendments to the specification dated 4 February 2026 indicating the wrist axis as axis “A6”.) The plain and ordinary meaning of “between” is in the time, space, or interval that separates. Considering Fig. 2 of the present drawings (the version of Fig. 2 filed 4 February 2026 indicates axis A1-A6), it is unclear how to interpret Applicant’s use of “between” in claim 1 in a manner consistent with the present specification. The wrist axis “A6” is not within the space that separates the base from the wrist. Instead, the wrist axis “A6” is on an opposing side of the wrist from the side of the wrist connected to the base. See the annotated Fig. 2 provided by the examiner with respect to the drawing objections above illustrating the area that is ‘between the base and the wrist’. Thus, an issue arises as to the intended meaning of “between”. Does the Applicant intend an axis to be considered as “between the base and the wrist” even when the axis is on an opposing side of the wrist from the base? If so, the Applicant is using the term “between” in contradiction to its plain and ordinary meaning without providing an explicit alternative definition, which renders claim 1 indefinite. If not, how is wrist axis “A6” as indicated in Fig. 2 of the present drawings considered as being “between the wrist and the base”? One possibility is that the Applicant does not actually intend axis “A6” to be the wrist axis. However, this is the axis which the Applicant has identified as the wrist axis, so any interpretation relying on an axis other than axis “A6” as the wrist axis is problematic because such an interpretation re-writes the specification. Another possibility is the claim 1 mistakenly requires the wrist axis to be between the base and the wrist, and that instead the Applicant does not require the wrist axis to be one of the at least four axis between the base and the wrist. Regarding potential alternative interpretations of “between”, one definition of “between” is in common to: shared by, but this definition does not appear intended in view of the present specification describing axes A2 and A3 as being ‘between the base and the wrist’. Axes A2 and A3 are not shared by the base and the wrist; instead, axes A2 and A3 are defined by portions of the robot between the base and the wrist. Since axes A2 and A3 are not possessed by either of the base and the wrist, these axes are not common to or shared by the base and the wrist. In summary, since it is unclear what is required for an axis to be “between the base and the wrist” in view of the present specification, claim 1 is indefinite. For examination purposes, consistent with Applicant’s specification, the examiner considers a wrist axis as being “between the base and the wrist” even if wrist axis is on an opposing side of the wrist from the base, since such an interpretation appears necessary to conform claim 1 with Applicant’s specification. To overcome this rejection, the examiner suggests reciting that the robot comprises at least four robot axes, without specifying that the axes are between the base and the wrist, in which case the claim can continue to recite that the wrist axis is a member of the at least four axes. Alternatively, the examiner suggests reciting that the wrist axis is in addition to, rather than a member of, the axes that are between the base and the wrist. Either of these options would resolve this issue. The examiner suggests avoiding reciting that the wrist axis is between the base and the wrist when the specification identifies the wrist axis is as an axis that is not between the base and the wrist.
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear whether one linear actuator, or all linear actuators, must comprise a ball screw actuator. Claim 5 requires that “each tooling of the plurality of toolings” comprises a linear actuator, such that there are a plurality of linear actuators. Claim 6, though, only refers to the linear actuator in the singular. Arguably, claim 6 only requires that one linear actuator comprises a ball screw actuator. Alternatively, claim 6 may be interpreted as requiring that all of the linear actuators comprise ball screw actuators. The present specification cannot be relied upon to resolve this issue, since the present specification does not explicitly disclose the structures of all of the toolings.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear what single “tooling” is described. Claim 1 introduces a plurality of toolings, yet claim 7 refers to “the tooling” in the singular. Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear whether claim 7 is only describing one of the toolings, or whether claims 7 is describing all of the toolings. The examiner suggests amending the claim to acknowledge that there are a plurality of toolings, and then reciting that one of or each of the toolings comprise the recited features. (Note that this recommendation is only provided to clarify issues under 35 USC 112(b), not 35 USC 112(a).)
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, 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 first 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).
wherein the industrial robot is configured to:
engage the wrist tool coupling element to attach the first tooling 1 to the wrist coupling element (see step S2 at paragraph 56);
operate the industrial robot, utilizing the first tooling 1, to punch a first hole having a first size at a first punching position on the workpiece (see step S3 at paragraph 57);
disengage the wrist tool coupling element to detach the first tooling 1 from the wrist coupling element (the industrial robot is ‘configured to disengage’ due to the structure of the quick-change plate 2; see paragraph 38; note that claim 1 is an apparatus claim, not a method claim, so this feature is satisfied because ‘configured to’ merely requires the robot have structure that allows the robot to disengage the wrist tooling coupling element to detach the first tooling; regardless; see the modification of Chen below, which does include disengaging a first tooling of a plurality of toolings).
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 tool [sic] a complementary tool changer 2 provided on the frame 11 of the tooling (see Fig. 2), the complementary tool changer 2 being configured to engage the wrist coupling element to detachably mount the frame to the wrist tool coupling element (see paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses that the tooling 1 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 a 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; a plurality of presence sensors arranged in the support fixture; a control unit in communication with the industrial robot, wherein the industrial robot is configured to: wherein the first tooling is stored in the tooling storage; place the first tooling in the tooling storage; engage the tool coupling element to attach a second tooling of the plurality of toolings 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 plurality of presence sensors are configured to monitor a workpiece position of the workpiece in the support fixture, the plurality of presence sensors 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 each frame is C-shaped as required by claim 3 (since Chen only discloses one frame); that the support fixture comprises at least one clamp to fix the workpiece into a workpiece as required by claim 4; that each tooling has the structure required by claim 5; and that each tooling has the structure required by claim 16.
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 wrist tool coupling element 24 to attach a first tooling 26 to the wrist tool coupling element 24 (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 22 and 25); 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 wrist tool coupling element 24 to detach the first tooling 26 from the wrist tool coupling element 24 (see paragraph 25); engage the wrist tool coupling element 24 to attach a second tooling to the wrist tool coupling element 24 (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 22 and 25); 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]
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; a plurality of presence sensors arranged in the support fixture; wherein the industrial robot 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 presence sensors are configured to monitor a workpiece position of the workpiece in the support fixture, the presence sensors 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, also fails to disclose that each frame is C-shaped as required by claim 3 (since Chen only discloses one frame); that the support fixture comprises at least one clamp to fix the workpiece into a workpiece as required by claim 4; that each tooling has the structure required by claim 5; and that each tooling has the structure required by claim 16.
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 industrial robot 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 industrial 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 a greater number of different geometries, thus improving the versatility of the punching cell of Chen, as modified by Brown. For example, Chen, as modified by Brown, is only able to produce three different hole shapes (see Fig. 1 of Chen). Aronsson, though, teaches that there are hundreds of parts in a car body that need to be individually punched with different holes (see paragraph 10). Thus, three punch hole shapes is likely to be insufficient to achieve different holes in hundreds of parts. This modification expands on the number of punch hole options to more than three because 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 multiple robots when it is desired to punch more than three different types of holes is eliminated. In providing Chen, as modified, with multiple toolings, providing duplicates of the tooling disclosed by Chen is advantageous because each tooling is able to produce three different hole shapes, thus reducing the number of tooling changes required.
Tang teaches a punch for automotive parts (see the first two full paragraphs on page 2 of the English translation of Tang; all future references to the written description of Tang are relative to the English translation thereof). Tang teaches a presence sensor 3 arranged in a support fixture 1 & 2 (see Fig. 1; the sensor 3 is arranged within an outer boundary of the fixture 1 & 2, and is therefore “arranged in” the support fixture 1 & 2; this interpretation is further proper because the present application as originally filed does not illustrate any presence sensor, and therefore as best as can be determined this interpretation is consistent with the present application), wherein the at least one presence sensor 3 is configured to monitor a workpiece position of a workpiece in the support fixture 1 & 2 (see page 3 at the paragraphs beginning ‘the position detecting device comprises …’ along with the final two paragraphs of page 3; see also the description under the ‘Example 2’ heading beginning at page 4, which explains that punching occurs when the workpiece is detected to have a correct position), the at least one presence sensor 3 being configured to provide control signals to a control unit based on the workpiece position (see the paragraph beginning, “When using, the position detecting device” at page 3 and see also the description of Example 2 beginning at page 4, explaining that the controller carries out the punching operation when the detected position is correct). Tang teaches that the control unit is configured to punch holes in the workpiece in response to the control signals (see the paragraph beginning, “When using, the position detecting device” at page 3 and see also the description of Example 2 beginning at page 4, explaining that the controller carries out the punching operation when the detected position is correct). Tang teaches that providing the presence sensor connected to the control unit is advantageous because incorrect positioning of the workpiece during a punching operation results in wasted material and reduces efficiency (see the paragraph beginning “Generally, the middle frame” at page 2), and Tang teaches that by providing the presence sensor the correct position of the workpiece can be confirmed before carrying out the punching operation (see Example 2 at page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a presence sensor in the support fixture of Chen, as modified by Brown, where the presence sensor is configured to monitor the correct positioning of the workpiece in the support fixture and to send out a control signal indicating the control unit to go ahead with the punching operation, in view of the teachings of Tang. This modification is advantageous because by monitoring the position of the workpiece, the presence sensor can avoid performing a punching operation when the workpiece is not correctly positioned, thus reducing waste and increasing efficiency by avoiding punching operations that do not produce end products that are within desired tolerances. Providing the fixture of Chen, as modified, with the presence sensor is obvious because the fixture of Chen, as modified, is the structure that holds the workpiece during punching, and because Tang teaches that the purpose of the presence sensor is to ensure that the workpiece is properly positioned during punching – the combined teachings of the references therefore teach providing the presence sensor of Tang in the fixture of Chen, as modified. This modification is further obvious under KSR Rationale C – use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. The fixture of Chen, as modified, holds the workpiece during punching. However, Chen, as modified, lacks any manner of determining that the workpiece is properly positioned. Tang teaches a comparable device that holds a workpiece during punching and uses a presence sensor to ensure that the workpiece is properly positioned prior to performing a punching operation. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the same improvement of Tang (i.e., a presence sensor to detect proper positioning of work prior to a punching operation taking place) to the device of Chen, as modified, and the results would have been predictable since Tang teaches using a presence sensor to ensure a workpiece is properly positioned.
Finally, regarding claim 1 requiring a plurality of presence sensors, this modification is merely a duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Chen, as modified, with more than one presence sensor, rather than merely with one presence sensor, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Moreover, providing multiple presence sensors is advantageous to measure the workpiece in two dimensions. That is, a single presence sensor only measures the workpiece at one location. One single sensor cannot detect, for example, whether the workpiece is improperly skewed. However, using more than one sensor allows for detecting the workpiece at multiple locations to ensure that the entirety of the workpiece, rather than merely one portion thereof, is properly aligned. Further still, by using multiple sensors, if the workpiece is misaligned, information can be obtained regarding the required corrective action. For example, if there are four sensors in a two by four array, and if to end sensors do not detect the workpiece, this information indicates that the workpiece should be shifted in the direction of the two sensors that do not detect the workpiece.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Brown, Aronsson, and Tang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2017/029422 A1 to AGFRA, S.L.
Although Chen, as modified, discloses that the puncher tool of each tooling is an ultrasonic puncher tool (see paragraph 15 of Chen, along with the modification of Chen to provide multiples of the tooling of Chen), Chen, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose any structure that provides the ultrasonic feature. As such, Chen, as modified, fails to disclose the each puncher tool comprises a sonotrode as required by claim 9.
AGFRA teaches a tooling for punching workpieces (see Figs. 1 and 6 and the Abstract), where an ultrasonic feature of a puncher tool of the tooling is provided by a sonotrode 7 (see page 22 at the paragraph beginning “Figure 3 shows two views …” of the AGFRA document included in the IDS of 27 January 2023). AGFRA teaches that the sonotrode is the structure that provides the ultrasonic feature (see page 22 at the paragraph beginning “Figure 3 shows two views …” of the AGFRA document included in the IDS of 27 January 2023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the each of the puncher tools of Chen, as modified, with a sonotrode in view of the teachings of AGFRA. This modification is advantageous because the sonotrode provides the ultrasonic feature desired by Chen, as modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 February 2026 have been considered but they are only partially persuasive.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 4 February 2026 is sufficient to overcome the objection to the drawings related to a failure to show “at least four robot axes between the base and the wrist”. The examiner agrees that Fig. 2 as amended 4 February 2026 does not introduce new matter in view of the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 4 February 2026. Thus, Fig. 2 as amended 4 February 2026 does illustrate four axes A1-A4 between the base and the wrist. However, the declaration is insufficient with respect to the wrist axis being one of the axis between the base and the wrist. While axis “A6” can properly be considered a wrist axis, the axis “A6” is not between the base and the wrist. Since the wrist axis “A6” is on an opposing side of the wrist from a side between the base and the wrist, it remains the case that the present drawings (in particular, Fig. 2) fails to show wrist axis “A6” as being between the base and the wrist. As two potential avenues for resolving this issue, the examiner suggests either clarifying that the wrist axis was inadvertently identified as axis “A6” instead of axis “A4”, or alternatively removing the requirement that wrist axis “A6” is between the base and the wrist.
Regarding the drawings failing to illustrate the “tooling calibration system”, the Applicant asserts that the inventive tooling calibration system includes holes that are deeper than screws, rather than larger in diameter. First, the Applicant’s point is exactly why it is important for the drawings to illustrate the claimed invention. The written description merely states that the holes are “bigger” than the screw (according to the quote cited by Applicant at page 10 of the Remarks). However, without the holes being illustrated, it is unclear whether the holes are larger in diameter or deeper. Regardless, the distinction between the holes being deeper or larger in diameter does not cause the drawings to illustrate the holes, or a size relationship between the holes and the screws. Thus, it remains the case that the “tooling calibration system” is not illustrated.
Applicant’s addition of a block diagram to illustrate various features not included in the drawings as originally filed is also improper under 35 CFR 1.83. A block diameter is only permissible to show “conventional features ... where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention”. That is not the case with respect to the present claims. As one example, the tooling calibration system was not previously understood as having deeper holes than screws. This understanding of the invention could have been provided had Applicant illustrated the tooling calibration system in the original drawings. As another example, the scope of “a plurality of sensors arranged in the support fixture” is unclear as to whether or not sensors on an outer surface of the support fixture are encompassed by the claim. Had the original drawings illustrated sensors on an outer surface of the support fixture, it would be clear that such an arrangement is encompassed by claim 1. However, in the absence of the drawings, it is unclear whether such a configuration is encompassed by the claim. Logically, sensors arranged on an outer surface of a fixture would be well placed to detect the position of a workpiece. However, potentially the word “in” requires the sensors to be within the interior of the fixture. Since the Applicant elected not to illustrate the sensors, the required position of the sensors is unclear. Since the Applicant is attempting to use a block diagram to illustrate features other than those that are “conventional features ... where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention”, newly added Figs. 6A-6C fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.83.
Regarding the objection to the specification related to axes A5 and A6 not being axis between the base and the wrist, the Applicant responds that “the tooling couples to the robot at 21A. This argument is not persuasive because axes A5 and A6 are regardless not between the base and the wrist. The examiner provides the annotated Fig. below to illustrate the portion of the inventive robot that is potentially “between the base and the wrist”. Neither of axes A5 and A6 are in the area between the base and the wrist. The Applicant states at page 12 of the Remarks that, “axis A5 is part of the robot as it is between 21AA and the base 12”. This statement is accurate, but the statement does not match the specification or claim language, which requires the axes to be “between the base and the wrist”. The Applicant’s argument is not specific to the particular language at issues, which is “between the base and the wrist”. Thus, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
735
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Turning to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(a) related to the claim requiring that “each tooling” has a frame, an ultrasonic puncher tool, a die, and a servomotor, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The Applicant fails to point to any location in the specification that states that each tooling has the same structure as tooling “22”. The Applicant fails to point to any figure illustrating more than one of the toolings “22” as having the required structure. To the contrary, the specification is explicit that the toolings may be “different types” (see page 2 at lines 19-22), without any clarification that the different types of puncher tools and dies have the same structures recited in claim 1. The person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the specification and being instructed that the toolings may be “different types, would not conclude that all toolings have the same structures as the tooling “22”. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The examiner suggests amending claim 1 to recite that “one of the toolings”, rather than “each tooling”, has the required structure in order to overcome this rejection.
Turning to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, the Applicant argues beginning at page 13 that Tang teaches a sensor that detects a position of the sheet material relative to a counterdie. The Applicant’s argument, however, is against Tang alone rather than against the cited combination of references. Tang provides a motivation to detect that a workpiece is properly positioned at the location at which the workpiece is held prior to punching. Applying that teaching to Chen, as modified, leads on of ordinary skill in the art to provide the fixture of Chen, as modified, with the presence sensor of Tang, since the fixture of Chen, as modified, is where the workpiece is retained prior to punching. One of ordinary skill in the art appreciates that a counterdie is not the only structure that is able to be provided with a presence sensor to ensure that a workpiece is properly positioned prior to punching. Since the Applicant’s argument is against Tang alone, rather than against modifications of Chen including providing the fixture of Chen, as modified, with a presence sensor, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant further asserts that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 relies on hindsight reasoning. The Applicant asserts that because Chen already includes three punch and die configuration, that no additional configurations are beneficial. This argument is not persuasive. For example, Aronsson teaches that “there are hundreds of parts in a car body that need to be individually punched with different holes”. Thus, three punch configurations is insufficient, and Chen is improved by providing multiple toolings. Not only that, but Chen teaches that its tooling is connected to the robot with a quick change coupling (see Chen at paragraph 38). Thus, Chen contemplates changing toolings. Since it is known that there are hundreds of parts with different holes to be punched, there is an advantage of providing Chen with more than three punch options. The argument that three punch options is sufficient, and that therefore there is no motivation to modify Chen, is therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights