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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/20/2026 has been entered.
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 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (WO 2005077625) in view of JP 2011529351, hereinafter JP 351’.
Regarding claim 1, Wagner discloses a processing device (Fig. 1-3) comprising: a processing unit that comprises a pressure roller (“roller” see below); a holder (“robot arm” and “coupling” holds/supports the pressure roller) that supports the pressure roller of the processing unit; a sensor (“force sensor” detects elastic deformation either directly or indirectly by measuring the force on the coupling. Examiner notes that if the measured force is higher than the materially allowed force of the holder, it is inherently able to detect the deformation of the holder either elastically or plastically. See below) for detecting a deformation of the holder; and a control device (“central control”) configured to control the position of the processing unit based on the measured values of the sensor.
(“Since the robot arms have elasticity and the roller requires a certain high pressure force for a properly durable sheathing, the robotic arm is perpendicular to the line of contact or surface upon actuation of the movement associated with this movement, after the correct position and location of the roller has been reached, positioning motors elastically deformed loaded until the roller is pressed with a predetermined force. This force is generated either by the constellation of the robot members by the respective Motor current and preferably each by a
Current measurement determined or measured by a force sensor on the coupling.
The electricity or force measurement signal is used or both are preferably used a current-force control, which ensures that tolerances of the profile, the shell material and the roll diameter do not affect the pressure force. In particular, if a thin film is to be applied to hard profile material, such as metal, this plays a decisive role in the quality of the adhesive bond. Another advantage of the force control is that the elastic deformation of the robot arm and its bearing clearances are compensated, whereby relatively inexpensive inexpensive robots can be used. (emphasis added)
A constant power generation by the energization of the servomotors would lead to a continuous energy consumption, by a controllable blocking or
Self-locking of the motor or transmission axes of the robot is advantageously avoided. The drive is periodically or, if the force sensor signaled a noticeable change in force, possibly with a released blocking, briefly switched on, so that any tolerance changes are intercepted. The changes in angle or position are registered and monitored, and changes that are inadmissible are reported to a central controller. If, as usual, a self-locking gear is connected downstream of the engine, eliminating the blocking brake.
All robots are networked with their drive controls, measuring equipment and blocking controls with a central control and monitoring processor. This has input and output means, which allows an adjustment of the plant to a new profile and new materials and contains a memory, the magazine assembly and the previously known profiles and the associated tool insert and the coordinate and force-current values including the tolerance fields holds. An advantageous embodiment of the invention will be explained in more detail with reference to FIGS. 1 to 3.”)
Wagner discloses a force sensor but silent to a specific type of force sensor wherein the sensor comprises a strain gauge sensor, a piezoelectric sensor, a capacitive sensor, an optical sensor, or an inductive sensor.
JP 351’ teaches that a force sensor is a strain gauge. (“A force sensor, such as a strain gauge, either on the gripping tool of the bending machine or elsewhere can be used in a feedback loop that controls the operation of the gripping tool and the gripping tool movement that moves the medical instrument to the desired position. .”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the force sensor of Wagner to be a strain gauge as taught by JP 351’ to provide a specific structure that works as a force sensor.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wagner teaches the processing device according to claim 1, wherein the holder can be moved by a drive. (motor R1)
Regarding claim 4, modified Wagner teaches the processing device according to claim 1, wherein the sensor is applied to the holder. (“Current measurement determined or measured by a force sensor on the coupling.” &“The roller W2 is mounted on a continuous axis in a holder H, which carries a coupling K, which is held with its counter-coupling Kl on a robot arm RAI end. The clutch K is located with the counter-clutch Kl in a firmly locked and / or locked state.”)
Regarding claim 6, modified Wagner teaches the processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a transmitter device (message bus) for transmitting the measured values detected by the sensor to a central storage device (memory (SP)). (“All robots are networked with their drive controls, measuring equipment and blocking controls with a central control and monitoring processor. This has input and output means, which allows an adjustment of the plant to a new profile and new materials and contains a memory, the magazine assembly and the previously known profiles and the associated tool insert and the coordinate and force-current values including the tolerance fields holds.” & “All robots Rl-R16 are connected by cables and communication lines B to a control center ST to which operating devices such as the monitor MO and the keyboard TA, and a memory SP are connected, in which the control program and the setting data as well as the profile-relevant information are stored become.”)
Regarding claim 7, Wagner discloses a method for operating a processing device, said processing device (see claim 1 rejection for the limitations below) comprising a processing unit that comprises a pressure roller, a holder that supports the pressure roller of the processing unit, and a sensor for detecting a deformation of the holder, the sensor being arranged on the holder, said method comprising the steps of: detecting a deformation of the holder by the sensor; and positioning the processing unit based on the measured values detected by the sensor.
Wagner discloses a force sensor but silent to a specific type of force sensor wherein the sensor comprises a strain gauge sensor, a piezoelectric sensor, a capacitive sensor, an optical sensor, or an inductive sensor.
JP 351’ teaches that a force sensor is a strain gauge. (“A force sensor, such as a strain gauge, either on the gripping tool of the bending machine or elsewhere can be used in a feedback loop that controls the operation of the gripping tool and the gripping tool movement that moves the medical instrument to the desired position. .”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the force sensor of Wagner to be a strain gauge as taught by JP 351’ to provide a specific structure that works as a force sensor.
Regarding claim 9, Wagner discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the measured values detected by the sensor are transmitted to a central storage device. (see claim 6 rejection)
Regarding claim 10, Wagner discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein an operator is informed based on the measured values detected by the sensor. (“All robots are networked with their drive controls, measuring equipment and blocking controls with a central control and monitoring processor. This has input and output means, which allows an adjustment of the plant to a new profile and new materials and contains a memory, the magazine assembly and the previously known profiles and the associated tool insert and the coordinate and force-current values including the tolerance fields holds.” & “All robots Rl-R16 are connected by cables and communication lines B to a control center ST to which operating devices such as the monitor MO and the keyboard TA, and a memory SP are connected, in which the control program and the setting data as well as the profile-relevant information are stored become.”)
Regarding claim 12, Wagner discloses the processing device according to claim 3, wherein the drive is a hydraulic cylinder, a pneumatic cylinder, a linear drive, an electromechanical drive or a mechanical drive. (“The motors of the robot Rl are equipped with brakes which are operated electromagnetically, pneumatically or hydraulically centrally controlled. Preferably, however, the motors self-locking gear are connected downstream.”)
Regarding claim 13, modified Wagner teaches the processing device according to claim 6.
Wagner fails to disclose wherein the central storage device comprise off-site cloud storage.
Examiner takes official notice that modifying the memory device to be cloud storage is well known in the art of memory devices since it can be used wirelessly to store data instead of wired connections.
Regarding claim 14, modified Wagner teaches the processing device according to claim 12.
Although Wagner discloses that a motor operates the robots, it is silent to the motor comprising toothed rack or threaded rod.
Examiner takes official notice that modifying the motor/drive device to be toothed rack or threaded rod which are well known in the art of drive devices since it can be used to mechanically drive a robot or any mechanisms.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that because the prior art describes that holder H is what directly supports the roller W2 the prior art fails to disclose “a processing unit that comprises a pressure roller, a holder that supports the pressure roller of the processing unit,”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that “a holder that supports the pressure roller” does not mean that it directly supports the pressure roller. Even if it is read that way, it does not prevent interpretation of the “holder” to be combination of the holder H, robot, and the coupling K.
Applicant argues that “robot arm” and “coupling” together as the “holder” is inconsistent with Wagner’s own disclosure.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that under BRI, the term “holder” can be any structure that holds something. The term “holder” is not limited to a single component. Rather, “holder” broadly encompasses any structure or assembly configured to supply an object in a position. Therefore, a holder may include multiple components that perform the holding function. The claim defines the invention by what the structure does, not by what it is labeled in the reference. The prior art does not need to use the same terminology as the claims.
Examiner suggests positively reciting the differentiating structure of the holder to overcome the prior art rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY YEONJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights