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
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 references the limitation “can be bended” which should be rewritten to “can be bent”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will read the limitation as “can be bent”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gu (US 20150005923).
Regarding claim 1, Gu teaches A robot system configured to perform a scraping process to scrape and flatten a surface of a workpiece (“According to a first aspect of the present invention, a de burring device comprising: a deburring tool for removing burrs from an object; a robot for moving at least one of the object and the deburring tool relative to each other”; Para. [0013]), the robot system comprising:
a robot configured to move a scraper configured to scrape the surface (“The deburring tool (hereinafter simply referred to as "tool") 36 is a tool commonly used to remove burrs and not limited to any particular type. For example, thetool36maybe a cutter or grinder. The tool 36 is fixed to the wrist 32 of the robot 30 and moved together with the wrist 32 when the robot 30 is in operation”; Para. [0049]); and
a control device configured to control the robot, wherein the control device is configured to (“a robot controller 60 for controlling the robot 30”; Para. [0048]):
execute the scraping process by moving the scraper in a direction along the surface while pressing the scraper against the surface by the robot (“The driving part 72 of the robot controller 60 outputs a control signal for controlling the electric motor (servo motor) provided at each joint of the robot 30, in response to the drive signal from the force control part 70. The tool 36 is moved relative to the workpiece 50”; Para. [0061]); and
during the execution of the scraping process, repeatedly increase and decrease a depth of scraping the surface by controlling a position of the robot so as to repeatedly increase and decrease a pressing force by which the robot presses the scraper against the surface (“The force control part 70 corrects at least one of the actual position of the burr portion 54 and the actual posture of the deburring tool, such that the force F acting on the tool 36 approaches the target value”; Para. [0062])
Regarding claim 2, Gu teaches the robot system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a force sensor configured to detect the pressing force (“a force sensor 34 attached to a wrist 32 at a tip end of the arm of the robot 30, a deburring tool 36 attached to the force sensor 34, and a robot controller 60 for controlling the robot 30”; Para. [0047]), wherein the control device is configured to:
during the execution of the scraping process, control the position of the robot by executing a force control for controlling the pressing force to a predetermined target value based on detection data of the force sensor (“According to a fifth aspect of the present invention, in the deburring device according to the fourth aspect, the force control part is configured to correct at least one of the actual position of the burr portion and the actual posture of the deburring tool, such that the force acting on the de burring tool approaches the target value”; Para. [0017]); and
increase and decrease the pressing force by repeatedly increasing and decreasing the target value in the force control (“For example, in the case where cutting capability of the tool 36 tends to decrease as the wearing amount detected is increased, the robot program is replaced so as to increase the target value or lower the moving velocity of the robot 30”; Para. [0085]).
Regarding claim 3, Gu teaches the robot system of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the control device changes the target value between a first target value and a second target value smaller than the first target value in the force control (Fig. 4 shows step 14 that a target value can be set such that the second target value can be smaller than the first target value in the force control).
Regarding claim 5, Gu teaches the robot system of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the control device is configured to move the scraper in the direction along the surface in the scraping process by executing position control for moving the scraper to a plurality of teaching points sequentially, together with the force control, the plurality of teaching points being predetermined along the surface (“The driving part 72 of the robot controller 60 outputs a control signal for controlling the electric motor (servo motor) provided at each joint of the robot 30, in response to the drive signal from the force control part 70. The tool 36 is moved relative to the workpiece 50”; Para. [0061] and “The specification of the burr portion 54 is carried out by teaching an initial point 54a, a terminal point 54b and a traveling direction 54c”; Para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 6, Gu teaches the robot system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the control device periodically increases and decreases the pressing force (Fig. 4 shows step 14 that a target value can be set such that the second target value can be smaller than the first target value in the force control).
Regarding claim 7, Gu teaches a method of a scraping process to scrape and flatten a surface of a workpiece, using a robot configured to move a scraper configured to scrape the surface (“Operation of the deburring device 10 for removing burrs from the workpiece 50”; Para. [0065]), the method comprising:
executing the scraping process by moving the scraper in a direction along the surface while pressing the scraper against the surface by the robot (“The deburring device 10 is designed to remove burrs from the workpiece 50 by moving the tool 36 along the edges of the surface 50a of the workpiece 50 with the tool 36 being pressed against the workpiece 50”; Para. [0050]); and
during the execution of the scraping process, repeatedly increasing and decreasing a depth of scraping the surface by controlling a position of the robot so as to repeatedly increase and decrease a pressing force by which the robot presses the scraper against the surface (“For example, in the case where cutting capability of the tool 36 tends to decrease as the wearing amount detected is increased, the robot program is replaced so as to increase the target value or lower the moving velocity of the robot 30”; Para. [0085]).
Regarding claim 8, Gu teaches a computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program that causes a processor to execute the method of claim 7 (“The robot controller 60 has a hardware configuration which includes a CPU for performing various computations, a volatile RAM for temporarily storing the results of the computations, and a non-volatile ROM for storing various programs and parameters”; Para [0052).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 20150005923) in view of Mcintosh (US 2810144).
Regarding claim 4, Gu teaches the robot system of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), and a force target value that can be a value at which the handle starts to bend (Fig. 4 shows step 14 that a target value can be set such that the force exerted bends the handle).
However, Gu is silent regarding a robot system wherein the scraper includes: a flexible handle portion connected to the robot; and
a blade portion fixed to a tip of the handle portion and configured to scrape the surface.
Mcintosh teaches a scraper including: a flexible handle portion which can be connected to a robot (“an elongated flexible resilient handle rod”; 17 Col. 2 lines 9-10); and
a blade portion fixed to a tip of the handle portion and configured to scrape the surface (“The scraping blade 10”; Col. 1 line 71 with Fig 1. showing blade 10 connected to handle 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to fix the scraping tool, taught by Mcintosh, to the robot system, taught by Gu, in order to automate the process of scraping described by Mcintosh. See MPEP 2114 section IV for discussion on automation of a known function as shown in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER HOWELL TILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6856. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571) 270-3818. 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.
/PETER HOWELL TILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights