CTNF 18/303,289 CTNF 101632 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0006, lines 3-4, "the arch beam may be fixed and allowing the spool to move" should read "the arch beam may be fixed and allow the spool to move". In paragraph 0019, the following is unclear “FIG. 2 is another schematic view of the first embodiment shown in FIG. 1; and,”. In paragraph 0020, lines 3-4, “the arch beam may be fixed and allowing the spool to move" should read "the arch beam may be fixed and allow the spool to move". In paragraph 0020, line 6, “and easier to customize” should read “and is easier to customize”. In paragraph 0028, lines 2-3, “moves in an out” should read “moves in and out.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 discloses performing the operation with the end effector. This does not disclose any additional details about the operation mentioned in claim 15, or the steps taken to perform the operation. As such, claim 20 is considered non-limiting . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Israel (U.S. Patent No. 10259137) . Regarding claim 1, Israel teaches an apparatus for performing operations on a part, the apparatus comprising (Abstract): a rail (106) extending parallel to a first axis of the part (Column 4, lines 7-10; Fig. 2, element 106)); a platform (406) and an arch (102) both moveable in a direction parallel with the first axis, wherein one of the platform (406) or the arch (102) is mounted on the rail (106) (Column 5, lines 20-25, 37-39; Column 7, lines 28-33; Fig. 2, elements 110, 102); a spool (428) and a cable, the cable having a first end secured proximate a first end of the arch (102) and a second end secured proximate a second end of the arch (102) (Column 10, lines 28-31; Column 16, lines 24-27); and, an end effector (110) associated with the arch (102); wherein rotation of the spool (428) moves the end effector (110) circumferentially around the first axis (Column 10, lines 38-42). Regarding claim 2, Israel teaches the platform (406) is mounted to the rail (106) (Column 7, lines 28-33). Regarding claim 3, Israel teaches the spool (428) is mounted on the platform (406) (Column 8, lines 35-43). Regarding claim 4, Israel teaches the arch (102) is configured to be rotated circumferentially around the first axis (Column 7, lines 17-20). Regarding claim 5, Israel teaches the end effector (110) is fixed to a first side, relative to the spool, of the arch (102) (Column 1, lines 14-19; Fig. 1, elements 102, 110). Regarding claim 6, Israel teaches the end effector (110) is mounted so as to be movable in a radial direction (Column 1, lines 14-19). Regarding claim 7, Israel teaches a second end effector (110) attached to a second side of the arch (102) (Column 1, lines 14-19; Fig. 1, elements 102, 110). Regarding claim 9, Israel teaches a brake configured to apply pressure to the arch (102) to stop circumferential movement or to hold a circumferential position (Column 18, lines 47-56) . 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Felix (DE 4433925) . Regarding claim 10, Felix teaches an apparatus for performing operations on a part, the apparatus comprising (Abstract): a rail (47, 48) extending parallel to a first axis of the part (Page 30, paragraph 10; Fig. 11, elements 47, 48); a platform (81) and an arch (7) both moveable in a direction parallel with the first axis, wherein one of the platform (81) or the arch (7) is mounted on the rail (47, 48) (Page 29, paragraphs 5-7; Fig. 1a, elements 7, 81; Fig. 11, elements 7, 47, 48); a spool and a cable (15), the cable (15) having a first end secured proximate a first end of the arch (7) and a second end secured proximate a second end of the arch (7) (Fig. 8a, element 15; annotated figure); and, an end effector (9) associated with the arch (7); wherein rotation of the spool moves the end effector (9) circumferentially around the first axis (Page 20, paragraphs 3, 5; Page 28, paragraph 5; Fig. 8a, elements 9, 7). Additional details are provided in the figure below. PNG media_image1.png 714 768 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 11, Felix teaches the end effector (9) is mounted so as to be movable in a radial direction (Page 29, paragraph 8; Fig. 8a, element 9; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below. PNG media_image2.png 714 768 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 15, Felix teaches a process for performing an operation on a part, the process comprising (Abstract): moving an arch (7) along an axis of the part (Page 27, paragraph 3; Fig. 1, element 7); and, moving an end effector (9) circumferentially around the axis by rotating a spool with a cable (15) partially wound around the spool, the end effector (9) configured to perform the operation (Page 20, paragraphs 3, 5; Page 28, paragraph 5). Regarding claim 16, Felix teaches a first end of the cable (15) is fixed proximate the first end of the arch and a second end of the cable (15) being fixed proximate the second end of the arch (Fig. 8a, element 15; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below. PNG media_image3.png 714 768 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 17, Felix teaches the arch (7) is moved circumferentially around the axis when the spool is rotated (Page 27, paragraph 3; Fig. 1, element 7). Regarding claim 19, Felix teaches moving the end effector (9) in a radial direction (Page 29, paragraph 8; Fig. 8a, element 9; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below. PNG media_image2.png 714 768 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 20, Felix teaches performing the operation with the end effector (9) (Page 20, paragraphs 3, 5; Page 22, paragraphs 6, 7; Page 36, paragraph 6) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Israel in view of Whitlaw et al (US 20190002130) . Regarding claim 8, Israel fails to teach end effectors that can perform various operations. Whitlaw et al teaches a machining device with an end effector (102a) that is configured to perform a first operation, and wherein the second end effector (102b) is configured to perform a second operation different from the first operation (Paragraph 0049, lines 5-6; Paragraph 0017, lines 1-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Whitlaw et al in Israel to facilitate the creation of two end effectors that can perform a variety of functions and increase the usage of the device as taught by Whitlaw et al (Paragraph 0017, lines 1-20) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felix in view of Whitlaw et al (US 20190002130) . Regarding claim 12, Felix discloses the present invention except for a second end effector. Whitlaw et al teaches a machining device with a second end effector (102b) (Paragraph 0049, lines 5-6; fig. 8, element 102b, 110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Whitlaw et al in Felix to facilitate the creation of a second end effector that can perform various operations as taught by Whitlaw et al (Paragraph 0017, lines 1-20). Regarding claim 13, Felix discloses the present invention except for a second end effector. Whitlaw et al teaches a machining device with a second end effector (102b) that is movable in a radial direction (Paragraph 0018, lines 27-30; fig. 8, elements 102b, 110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Whitlaw et al in Felix to facilitate the creation of a second end effector that can move around the aircraft for easier processing as taught by Whitlaw et al (Paragraph 0018, lines 27-30). Regarding claim 14, Felix fails to teach a second end effector. Whitlaw et al teaches a machining device with an end effector (102a) that is configured to perform a first operation, and wherein the second end effector (102b) is configured to perform a second operation different from the first operation (Paragraph 0049, lines 5-6; Paragraph 0017, lines 1-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Whitlaw et al in Felix to facilitate the creation of two end effectors that can perform various functions and increase the usage of the device as taught by Whitlaw et al (Paragraph 0017, lines 1-20) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felix in view of Scheibner . Regarding claim 18, Felix fails to teach a stationary arch. Scheibner et al teaches a machining device wherein the arch (1) does not move circumferentially around the axis when the spool (10) is rotated (Paragraph 0005, line 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Scheibner et al in Felix to facilitate the creation of a stationary arch that allows a workpiece to move along the surface of the arch as taught by Scheibner et al (Paragraph 0005, lines 2-3). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm. 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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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. /SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654 /ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/303,289 Page 2 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/303,289 Page 3 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/303,289 Page 4 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/303,289 Page 5 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/303,289 Page 6 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/303,289 Page 7 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/303,289 Page 8 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/303,289 Page 9 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/303,289 Page 10 Art Unit: 3654
Prosecution Insights