DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 11-17 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim(s) 1-10 and 18-20 remain pending and have been examined below.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US PGPUB No. 2019/0150955) in view of Nienaber et al (US PGPUB No. 2023/0013731) and in further view of Mehr (US PGPUB No. 2022/0212341), hereinafter referred to as Li, Nienaber, and Mehr, respectively.
Regarding claims 1 (Currently Amended) and 2 (Currently Amended), Li discloses a method for machining a workpiece [Li, abstract, and fig 1, the end effector is used to grind bone], the method comprising:
supporting, a first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Li, fig 1, 2];
supporting, a first nozzle [Li, fig 1, 4];
orienting the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head relative to the workpiece such that a tip of the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head is spaced from a surface of the workpiece above a first work zone of the workpiece [Li, page 13, pp 0162 teaching that the tool is started before an operation and is therefore positioned over the workpiece (skull), but the operation does not start just yet];
supplying, by the first nozzle [Li, fig 1, 4], a first portion of a particulate slurry [Li, page 2, pp 0019, the nanofluid is saline and solid nanoparticles] to the first work zone on the workpiece [Li, fig 1, showing that 4 ejects fluid towards 2 and the workpiece];
vibrating the tip of the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Li, page 5, pp 0082 teaching that the tool 2 has a longitudinal component to the ultrasonic vibration].
Li does not explicitly disclose the method comprising supporting, by a first robotic arm, the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head; and supporting, by the first robotic arm, the first nozzle; and orienting a second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head relative to the workpiece such that a tip of the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head is spaced from the surface of the workpiece above a second work zone of the workpiece; supplying, by a second nozzle, a second portion of the particulate slurry to the second work zone on the workpiece; and vibrating the tip of the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head (clm 1); and supporting, by a second robotic arm, the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head; and supporting, by the second robotic arm, the second nozzle (clm 2).
Regarding the robotic arm(s), Nienaber teaches a method for machining a workpiece, the method comprising:
supporting, by a first robotic arm [Nienaber, figs 1, 3, and 5, 100/300/500 represent the robotic arm], a first grinding tool head [Nienaber, fig 5A, end effector 520 includes first tool 530, and page 3, pp 0033];
supporting, by the first robotic arm, a first nozzle [Nienaber, fig 5A, 538];
orienting the first grinding tool head [Nienaber, fig 5A, 530] relative to the workpiece such that a tip of the first grinding tool head is spaced from a surface of the workpiece above a first work zone of the workpiece [Nienaber, page 7, claim 23, teaching that the actuation aligns the tool and then validates the position];and
supplying, by the first nozzle, a first portion of a particulate slurry to the first work zone on the workpiece [Nienaber, fig 5A, and page 3, pp 0033 teaching that 538 supplies to 530, which can be a polish, which includes particulate for polishing, is supplied to the work and the tool];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the tool of Li on a robotic arm as taught by Nienaber because having multiple tool designs on a single robotic arm have operation benefits over a single end-effector by allowing the process to be modified dynamically to accommodate changing or unexpected operational conditions without having to change tool heads without having to reposition the tools [Nienaber, page 3, pp 0034, summarized].
Regarding the method of orienting and using a second ultrasonic grinding head and nozzle (clm 1) on the second robotic arm (clm 2), Mehr teaches a system for part forming comprising two robot arms [Mehr, fig 1, 100A and 100B] capable of both arms working on a single workpiece [Mehr, fig 1, 100A and 100B, work on the workpiece 110].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified Li to have added a second robotic arm as taught by Mehr and to complete the second orienting of a second grinding head and suppling by a second nozzle the particulate slurry because in using two robots may reduce or prevent larger stresses on the workpiece by providing a counter force to the workpiece which reduces global deformities and is thus reduced to only possible local deformities [Mehr, page 4, pp 0065, summarized].
Further per MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) the duplication of parts is held obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to have duplicated robotic arm with ultrasonic grinding head and nozzle of Li as modified is only a slight variation therefrom and would not produce an unexpected outcome and would have therefore constituted an obvious mechanical expedient before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Li as modified further discloses the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: supporting, by a gantry that slides on a pair of rails, the first robotic arm; and supporting, by the gantry, the second robotic arm.
Mehr teaches the first robotic arm and second robotic arm being supported by a gantry that slides on a pair of rails [Mehr, fig 1, showing 100A and 100B each slide on rail(s) 105A and 105B, where the rail(s) are interpreted to include the base and the slide(s) such that there are at least two points of contact for each robot, thus meeting the requirement of multiple rails].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Li to include the rail(s) as taught by Mehr because this configurations allows for easy configuration of being able to reach every part of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Li as modified further discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: supporting, by a cylindrical drum, the first robotic arm; and supporting, by the cylindrical drum, the second robotic arm [Nienabar, fig 1, 13a are joints that are interpreted to be cylindrical drum(s), where the drums are part of both the first and second robotic arms since the robotic arm is duplicated].
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Li as modified further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: vibrating the tip of the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head to form a first hole in the first work zone of the workpiece [Li, page 5, pp 0082 teaching that the tool 2 has a longitudinal component to the ultrasonic vibration]; and vibrating the tip of the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head to form a second hole in the second work zone of the workpiece [Li, page 5, pp 0082 teaching that the tool 2 has a longitudinal component to the ultrasonic vibration, further the griding heads are duplicated].
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Li as modified further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: coordinating, by a central processing unit, a position of the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head and a position of the second ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Nienaber, page 1, pp 0016, robot controller 16 which controls the locomotion or the position, velocity and acceleration of the arm and since there are two as per the modification of Li, the controller controls both arms as well].
Regarding claims 7 (Original) and 8 (Original), Li as modified further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: supporting the workpiece on a mount connected to a base [Li, see annotated fig 3, mount (item A) is connected to base (item B)] (clm 7); and further comprising: rotating the base and/or mount to rotate the workpiece about a center axis [Li, see annotated fig 3, item A rotates about item B] (clm 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
717
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US PGPUB No. 2019/0150955) in view of Nienaber et al (US PGPUB No. 2023/0013731), in further view of Mehr (US PGPUB No. 2022/0212341) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Chamberlain et al (US PGPUB No. 2011/0158820), hereinafter referred to as Li, Nienaber, Mehr and Chamberlain, respectively.
Regarding claims 9 (Original) and 10 (Original), Li as modified further disclose the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the workpiece comprises a ceramic matrix composite material (clm 9); and wherein the ceramic matrix composite material comprises silicon carbide fibers in a silicon carbide matrix (clm 10).
Chamberlain teaches a workpiece [Chamberlain, fig 1] being machined with an ultrasonic machining process [Chamberlain, page 2, pp’s 0016 and 0020, 52 is a cutting tool such as an ultrasonic machining probe], wherein the workpiece comprises a ceramic matrix composite material [Chamberlain, page 1, pp 0011, workpiece is made from CMC] (clm 9), wherein the ceramic matrix composite material comprises silicon carbide fibers in a silicon carbide matrix (clm 10) [Chamberlain, page 1, pp 0011, workpiece of CMC includes silicon carbide fibers and silicon matrix].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have machined the workpiece of Chamberlain with the device of Li as modified because per MPEP 2143(I)(B) the substitution of elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case, that is the substitution of the workpiece of Chamberlain, that being of a ceramic matrix composite workpiece, for the workpiece of Li, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In the substitution each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the ultrasonic grinding and nozzle of Li would also be capable of being used to work upon a ceramic matrix composite workpiece using all of the same components in the same method.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US PGPUB No. 2019/0150955) in view of Nienaber et al (US PGPUB No. 2023/0013731), and in further view of Chamberlain et al (US PGPUB No. 2011/0158820), hereinafter referred to as Li, Nienaber, Mehr and Chamberlain, respectively.
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), Li discloses a method for machining a workpiece [Li, abstract, and fig 1, the end effector is used to grind bone], the method comprising:
supporting, a first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head [Li, fig 1, 2]; and
supporting, a first nozzle [Li, fig 1, 4];
orienting the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head relative to the workpiece such that the first tip of the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head is positioned over a surface of the workpiece without contacting the surface of the workpiece [Li, page 13, pp 0162 teaching that the tool is started before an operation and is therefore positioned over the workpiece (skull), but the operation does not start just yet];
delivering, by the first nozzle [Li, fig 1, 4], a first supply of particulate slurry [Li, page 2, pp 0019, the nanofluid is saline and solid nanoparticles] between the surface of the workpiece and the first tip [Li, fig 1, showing that 4 ejects fluid towards 2 and the workpiece]; and
vibrating the first tip along a longitudinal axis of the first tip to cause particles in the first supply of particulate slurry to vibrate and cut a first feature in the surface of the workpiece [Li, page 5, pp 0082 teaching that the tool 2 has a longitudinal component to the ultrasonic vibration].
Li does not explicitly disclose a workpiece comprising ceramic matrix composite and the method comprising supporting, by a first robotic arm, the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head; and supporting, by the first robotic arm, the first nozzle.
Regarding the use of the robotic arm, Nienaber teaches a method for machining a workpiece comprising ceramic matrix composite, the method comprising:
supporting, by a first robotic arm [Nienaber, figs 1, 3, and 5, 100/300/500 represent the robotic arm], a first grinding tool head [Nienaber, fig 5A, end effector 520 includes first tool 530, and page 3, pp 0033]; and
supporting, by the first robotic arm, a first nozzle [Nienaber, fig 5A, 538];
orienting the first grinding tool head [Nienaber, fig 5A, 530] relative to the workpiece such that the first tip of the first grinding tool head is positioned over a surface of the workpiece without contacting the surface of the workpiece [Nienaber, page 7, claim 23, teaching that the actuation aligns the tool and then validates the position, such that the tool does not immediately contact the surface]; and
delivering, by the first nozzle, a first supply of particulate slurry between the surface of the workpiece and the first tip [Nienaber, fig 5A, and page 3, pp 0033 teaching that 538 supplies to 530, which can be a polish, which includes particulate for polishing, is supplied to the work and the tool].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the tool of Li on a robotic arm as taught by Nienaber because having multiple tool designs on a single robotic arm have operation benefits over a single end-effector by allowing the process to be modified dynamically to accommodate changing or unexpected operational conditions without having to change tool heads without having to reposition the tools [Nienaber, page 3, pp 0034, summarized].
Regarding the ceramic matrix material of the workpiece to be used upon, Chamberlain teaches a workpiece [Chamberlain, fig 1] being machined with an ultrasonic machining process [Chamberlain, page 2, pp’s 0016 and 0020, 52 is a cutting tool such as an ultrasonic machining probe], wherein the workpiece comprises a ceramic matrix composite material [Chamberlain, page 1, pp 0011, workpiece is made from CMC] (clm 9), wherein the ceramic matrix composite material comprises silicon carbide fibers in a silicon carbide matrix (clm 10) [Chamberlain, page 1, pp 0011, workpiece of CMC includes silicon carbide fibers and silicon matrix].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have machined the workpiece of Chamberlain with the device of Li as modified because per MPEP 2143(I)(B) the substitution of elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case, that is the substitution of the workpiece of Chamberlain, that being of a ceramic matrix composite workpiece, for the workpiece of Li, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In the substitution each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the ultrasonic grinding and nozzle of Li would also be capable of being used to work upon a ceramic matrix composite workpiece using all of the same components in the same method.
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), Li as modified further discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising: coordinating, by a central processing unit, a position of the first ultrasonic impact grinding tool head relative to the workpiece [Nienaber, page 1, pp 0016, robot controller 16 which controls the locomotion or the position, velocity and acceleration of the arm].
Regarding claim 20 (Original), Li as modified further discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising: supporting the workpiece on a mount; and rotating the mount to rotate the workpiece [Li, see annotated fig 3, mount (item A) is connected to base (item B)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights