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 Objections
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 7 and 8 respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2 and 11-15 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 2 recites the limitation, “wherein the parallel robot is a single-axis robot configured to drive the servo spindle to translate along a predetermined axis with respect to the parallel robot.” However, claim 1 recites the limitation, “wherein the parallel robot is a Cartesian robot configured to drive the servo spindle to translate along three axes normal to each other with respect to the parallel robot.” It is unclear how a three-axis Cartesian robot (as claimed in independent claim 1) can then subsequently be a single-axis robot (as claimed in dependent claim 2). Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Similarly, claim 6 claims the parallel robot comprising three axes. Claim 11, which depends on claim 6, claims that the parallel robot is a single-axis robot. It is unclear how a three-axis robot can then subsequently be a single-axis robot. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai et al. (US 20190143511).
Regarding claim 1, Kai discloses an assembly 102 (Figure 4) for machining a mechanical part 10 comprising a parallel robot 120 adapted to be mounted onto an end flange 111 of a joint robot 110. A servo spindle 123 is mounted on the parallel robot and is configured to drive a machining tool 124 to rotate. The parallel robot is configured to drive the servo spindle to translate along one or more axes with respect to the parallel robot (Paragraph [0021]). The embodiment described in Figure 4 and Paragraphs [0031-0035] keeps the joint robot stationary while the assembly is machining the mechanical parts and the spindle is translated, as any reactionary forces are applied by the parallel robot, not the joint robot. Kai illustrates the parallel robot being a single-axis robot configured to drive the servo spindle to translate along a predetermined axis with respect to the parallel robot. However, Kai also discusses the parallel robot having other configurations having multiple axes of movement (Paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the parallel robot as a Cartesian robot configured to drive the servo spindle to translate along three axes normal to each other with respect to the parallel robot as taught by Kai, in order to allow the apparatus to move the tool in more ways to machine more intricate parts.
Regarding claim 2, Kai discloses the parallel robot being a single-axis robot configured to drive the servo spindle to translate along a predetermined axis with respect to the parallel robot (Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 4, Kai discloses the assembly further comprising the machining tool 124 held by the servo spindle and configured to rotate under driving of the servo spindle.
Regarding claim 5, Kai discloses the machining tool comprising a drilling tool or a milling tool (Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 6, Kai discloses an apparatus 102 (Figure 4) for machining a mechanical part 10 comprising a joint robot 110 comprising an end flange 111 with an assembly including a parallel robot 120 adapted to be mounted onto the end flange of the joint robot. A servo spindle 123 is mounted on the parallel robot and is configured to drive a machining tool 124 to rotate. The parallel robot is arranged on the end flange and is configured to drive the servo spindle to translate along one or more axes with respect to the parallel robot (Paragraph [0021]). The embodiment described in Figure 4 and Paragraphs [0031-0035] keeps the joint robot stationary while the assembly is machining the mechanical parts and the spindle is translated, as any reactionary forces are applied by the parallel robot, not the joint robot. Kai illustrates the parallel robot being a single-axis robot configured to drive the servo spindle to translate along a predetermined axis with respect to the parallel robot. However, Kai also discusses the parallel robot having other configurations having multiple axes of movement (Paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the parallel robot as a Cartesian robot configured to drive the servo spindle to translate along three axes normal to each other with respect to the parallel robot as taught by Kai, in order to allow the apparatus to move the tool in more ways to machine more intricate parts.
Regarding claim 11, Kai discloses the parallel robot being a single-axis robot configured to drive the servo spindle to translate along a predetermined axis with respect to the parallel robot (Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 19, Kai discloses the assembly further comprising the machining tool 124 held by the servo spindle and configured to rotate under driving of the servo spindle.
Regarding claim 20, Kai discloses the machining tool comprising a drilling tool or a milling tool (Paragraph [0021]).
Claims 7, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai et al. (US 20190143511) as applied to claims 6, 11 and 6 respectively above, and further in view of Kranz et al. (US 20130166071, hereinafter ‘Kranz’).
Regarding claims 7, 12 and 17, Kai illustrates the joint robot having multiple axes, but does not explicitly disclose the amount of axes that the robot arm is articulated in.
Kranz discloses a similar apparatus, wherein the processing tool is arranged on the end of a joint robot 10 having six axes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the undisclosed joint robot of Kai by providing the joint robot with six axes of movement as taught by Kranz, in order to allow the tool to be manipulated to machine features in various different locations/inclinations.
Claims 9-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai et al. (US 20190143511) as applied to claims 6 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of Cardon et al. (US 20160067792, hereinafter ‘Cardon’).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 14-15, Kai does not disclose the claimed tool changer and/or lubricating device.
Cardon discloses a similar apparatus, wherein the apparatus further comprises a tool changer 114 configured to change the machining tool held by the servo spindle Paragraphs [0098-0100]) as well as a lubricating device 186 configured to supply a lubricant to the machining tool (Paragraph [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Kai by incorporating the tool changer and lubricating device(s) taught by Cardon in order to quickly swap tooling for different operations and to cool the tool/workpiece during machining.
Claims 8, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai et al. (US 20190143511) as applied to claims 6, 11 and 6 respectively above, and further in view of Sakai (US 20190299350).
Regarding claims 8, 13 and 18, Kai is silent as to how the workpiece is secured and therefore does not disclose the apparatus further comprising a positioner arranged near the joint robot to hold and adjust the position of the mechanical part to be machined.
Sakai discloses a similar apparatus, wherein a positioner 5 is arranged near the joint robot 4 and is configured to hold the mechanical part to be machined W and adjust an orientation of the mechanical part.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a positioner such as the one taught by Sakai in order to hold and adjust the position of the workpiece in the apparatus of Kai in order to provide more degrees of freedom to the tool/workpiece system and to allow for more surfaces to be machined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kai does not disclose the joint robot remaining stationary while the servo spindle is translated along the three axes because the first embodiment of the tool describes a mechanical holding force being applied by the robot arm/joint robot 110. This argument is respectfully traversed.
As discussed above, an alternate embodiment of Kai discloses the feeder unit 121 providing the anti-vibration force to the parallel robot, not the joint robot, which remains stationary.
Accordingly, the rejection(s) is/are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights