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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN213772270 of Zhu et al, published 7/23/2021.
As to claim 1, Zhu teaches of a system (Zhu, Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6) comprising:
an electrolytic end effector including
an electrode (Zhu, p. 4 lines 23-27, p. 9 lines 10-18), ,
a support supporting the electrode (Zhu, p. 4 lines 28-35, p. 5 lines 27-37), and
a non-conductive short-circuit prevention cover covering the electrode and including holes (Zhu, p. 9 lines 10-18);
an electrolytic solution feeder including
a supply passage through which an electrolytic solution is supplied to a boundary between a welding burn portion on a surface of a welded workpiece and the short- circuit prevention cover (Zhu, p. 8 lines 22-31) and
a pump that supplies the electrolytic solution to the supply passage (Zhu, p. 8 lines 22-31);
a mover including
a movable body to which the support of the electrolytic end effector is attached (Zhu, p. 5 line 16 thru p. 6 line 15) and
at least one actuator that moves the movable body (Zhu, p. 5 lines 16-26); and
processing circuitry configured to control the actuator, wherein:
the processing circuitry is configured to execute an electrolytic treatment in which the processing circuitry controls the actuator to slide the electrode with the short-circuit cover on the welded workpiece while controlling the pump to supply the electrolytic solution to the boundary by the electrolytic solution feeder (Zhu, p. 4 line 23 thru p. 5 line 7 and p. 9 lines 10-32) ; and
the support of the electrolytic end effector includes a base attached to the movable body of the mover and a coupler connecting the electrode to the base such that the electrode is angularly displaceable relative to the base (Zhu, p. 4 lines 28-35, p. 5 lines 27-37 and p. 6 lines 5-15).
PNG
media_image1.png
772
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As per Zhu, electrode heads (11) and cleaning head (12) are energized to clean electrolytically clean a workpiece such that one such heads includes a sponge which is non-conductive and has holes. The apparatus includes an electrode support base (210) and coupler (213) to the base. The electrode base is supported on a moveable body (i.e. cleaning mechanism 10) that is moved by actuators up/down, side to side and back and forth to clean a workpiece. The system further includes a pump to supply an electrolyte through a passage to the interface between the electrode and the workpiece. Finally the system includes circuitry to perform the electrolytic treatment of the workpiece.
As to claim 2, Zhu teaches of the desired process control and circuitry (Zhu, p. 9 lines 19-32).
As to claim 3, Zhu teaches the electrode extends in a third direction orthogonal to the first and second directions (Zhu, Fig. 5).
As to claim 6, Zhu teaches that the coupler (i.e. springs) connect the electrode to the base to prevent the electrode from being displaced in the third direction (i.e. third direction is compression of the spring which is being prevented by the strength of the springs) (Zhu, Fig. 5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of SU1675399 of Cherempej et al, published in 1991.
As to claim 4, Zhu teaches to the system of claim 2.
Zhu does not teach the coupler includes a pivot shaft.
Cherempej teaches of an electrolytic apparatus for metal deposition and removal (Cherempej, [0001]).
Cherempej additionally teaches the electrode is made to contract the workpiece through spring (15), lever (3) and hinge (4) (Cherempej, [0004] – [0006]and Fig. 1).
As Zhu teaches springs to maintain contract of the electrode head with the workpiece, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhu as per Cherempej so as to utilize more than one coupling shafts in producing a predictable result in facilitating contact between the electrode head and the workpiece.
As to claim 5, Zhu in view of Cherempej teaches to the system of claim 4.
Zhu additionally teaches the electrode includes a surface opposed to the workpiece such that the surface is flat (i.e. contact of head with workpiece under pressure is flat as electrode is pressed against workpiece) (Zhu, p. 6 lines 5-15).
Zhu teaches the coupler includes springs that are an elastic body that bias the electrode to the neutral posture (Zhu, p. 6 lines 5-15 and Fig. 6).
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu as applied above, and further in view of JP 2019-127608 of Nomura.
As to claim 7, Zhu teaches to the system of claim 2.
Zhu does not teach the circuitry can reciprocate the electrode in a third direction while moving in other directions.
Nomura teaches of electrolytic removal of material from metal (Nomura, [0005]).
Nomura additionally teaches that the electrode is held by a robotic arm that can move the electrode in any direction (use of a 6-axis robotic arm) and maintain contact of the electrode to the workpiece as the electrode reciprocated, thus facilitating removal of undesired components of the workpiece (Nomura, [0008], [0017] and Figs. 1 and 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhu as per Nomura so as to allow for additional contact and movement between the electrode and workpiece in order to facilitate removal of the undesired component on the workpiece.
As to claim 8, Zhu teaches to the system of claim 2.
Zhu does not teach to the jig to hold the workpiece.
Nomura teaches of electrolytic removal of material from metal (Nomura, [0005]).
Nomura teaches that the workpiece is held by a jig on a worktable to support the workpiece (Nomura, [0010] and Fig 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhu as per Nomura so as to utilize a workpiece holder in order to hold the workpiece as desired.
As to the limitations of the shape of the workpiece, this does not differentiate the apparatus as articles worked upon do not impart patentability to the apparatus (see MPEP 2115).
As to claim 11, Zhu teaches to the system of claim 1.
Zhu additionally teaches the system includes sensors to identify the workpiece and utilize a controller to select the desired pattern (Zhu, p. 9 lines 24-30).
Zhu does not teach to the jig to hold the workpiece.
Nomura teaches of electrolytic removal of material from metal (Nomura, [0005]).
Nomura teaches that the workpiece is held by a jig on a worktable to support the workpiece (Nomura, [0010] and Fig 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhu as per Nomura so as to utilize a workpiece holder in order to hold the workpiece as desired.
As to claim 12, Zhu teaches to the system of claim 1.
Zhu additionally teaches that under the workpiece is placed a waster liquid receiver (Zhu, p. 2 lines 29-32 and p. 8 lines 14-31).
Zhu does not teach to the jig to hold the workpiece.
Nomura teaches of electrolytic removal of material from metal (Nomura, [0005]).
Nomura teaches that the workpiece is held by a jig on a worktable to support the workpiece (Nomura, [0010] and Fig 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhu as per Nomura so as to utilize a workpiece holder in order to hold the workpiece as desired.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,958,195 Lorincz et al.
As to claim 10, Zhu teaches to the system of claim 1.
Zhu does not teach a flow sensor or flow controller.
Lorincz teaches to electropolishing (Lorincz, Abstract).
Lorincz additionally teaches that within the system to utilize a flow sensor to determine and control the fluid flow between the electrode and workpiece, thus facilitating the polishing process to take place (Lorincz, col 3 lines 29-46).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhu as per Lorincz so as to utilize flow sensors and controls thereof in order to determine and control the fluid flow through the system in facilitating the electrolytic process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The inclusion of the jig having support for a horizontal direction as well as a bent direction overcomes the closest prior art of record as per the rejection and art utilized above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 pm EST.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759