DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This Non-final communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments and Amendment
Applicant' s argument with respect to the rejection of claim 4 and subsequently amended claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sakaishi (US 20230087376 A1)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 and for claim(s) 13 and 18 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below, which was necessitated based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims, which changed the scope of the claims. Examiner notes wherein Applicant’s arguments are directed towards the newly amended claim limitation(s), which are addressed by the newly found prior art, as indicated below.
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, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahti (US 20090149119 A1) as modified by Sakaishi (US 20230087376 A1)
Claim 1:
Ahti teaches the following limitations:
A polishing system comprising: an end effector including a polishing arm, a motor, a tool head
(Ahti – [0017] … A fixture 20 that holds a machining device 100 is mounted using a mount system 22 on the robotic arm 16. The machining device 100 and the mount system 22 are shown in more detail in FIGS. 2-8. … [0018] … a drive system 30 that drives a machining tool, such as a polishing tool 40, is mounted on the fixture 20. In order to effect material removal from the component 12, the machining tool, such as the polishing tool 40, contacts the component at a point of contact 43. ; [0022] … The motor housing 64 is pivotably attached to the motor carriage 62 using a pair of motor housing mounts 90. The motor housing mounts 90 are firmly attached near their lower end to the motor carriage 64 using conventional attachment means. …; [See also Figure 1])
the polishing arm including a motor housing at a distal end of the polishing arm, the motor mounted on the motor housing, the motor including a rotatable shaft,
(Ahti – [0017] … A fixture 20 that holds a machining device 100 is mounted using a mount system 22 on the robotic arm 16. The machining device 100 and the mount system 22 are shown in more detail in FIGS. 2-8. … The robotic arm typically has multiple degrees of freedom to translate and rotate with respect to the robot coordinate system 17. ; [0018] … a drive system 30 that drives a machining tool, such as a polishing tool 40, is mounted on the fixture 20. In order to effect material removal from the component 12, the machining tool, such as the polishing tool 40, contacts the component at a point of contact 43. ; [0022] … The motor housing 64 is pivotably attached to the motor carriage 62 using a pair of motor housing mounts 90. The motor housing mounts 90 are firmly attached near their lower end to the motor carriage 64 using conventional attachment means. The motor carriage 62 has a pivot 71 on each side that is supported by the motor housing mounts 90. In the exemplary embodiments shown herein, the pivots 71 are shown in the form of screws attached to the housing mounts 90 near their top that engage with corresponding holes on the sides of the motor carriage 62. Other suitable pivoting means may also be used alternatively. … ; [See also Figure 1])
the tool head extending along a lengthwise axis between and to an inner end and a tip end, the inner end disposed on the polishing arm at the motor, the tool head including a belt tensioner and a roller, the belt tensioner including a tool extension including the tip end, the belt tensioner configured to bias the tip end outward from the inner end along the lengthwise axis, the roller rotatable about a tool center point of the tool head at the tip end, the tool head configured to retain an abrasive belt extending between the rotatable shaft and the roller and
(Ahti – [0026] FIGS. 6, 7 and 8 show a device for polishing and deburring a component, having a polishing and deburring tool 40. The tool 40 comprises a roller 44 attached to the forward end of a contact arm 42 that is clamped to the arm mount 49 using an arm clamp 46. The roller is capable of rotating around a roller axis of rotation 45. The arm clamp 46 is located on the arm clamp using arm locator pins 47, as described herein. The tool 40 has an abrasive belt 41 that is supported by the roller 44 at the forward end and by a belt drive wheel 63 at the aft end. The belt drive wheel 63 is attached to the drive motor 60 and rotates around an axis of rotation 61. The abrasive belt 41 is driven by the motor 60 and the belt drive wheel 63 around the roller 44. For polishing and deburring, removal of material from the component 12 is accomplished by contacting the moving abrasive belt 41 on the component 12 surfaces and edges. The contact point 43 forces during machining between the abrasive belt 41 and the component 12 are transmitted by the contact arm 42 to the arm mount 49 and the vertical frame 54. These forces are transmitted to the motor carriage 62 which can move along the rail 92. The abrasive belt has a tension which tends to pull the two axes of rotation 45 and 61 toward each other. This is opposed and reacted by the compressive force that is set in the spring 52 using the adjustment screw 53. The tension in the abrasive belt 41 is set using the adjustment screw 52. …)
measure a usage of the abrasive belt for polishing one or more workpieces; and
(Ahti -[0027] In one aspect of the invention, the exemplary embodiments described herein incorporate a proximity sensor system 80 which can detect tool failure or tool wear conditions during machining and provide a means for safely shutting down the machining operations without damaging the component 12 being machined. …)
for the abrasive belt.
(Ahti – {0026] … The abrasive belt 41 is driven by the motor 60 and the belt drive wheel 63 around the roller 44. …)
Ahti does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Sakaishi teaches:
and a rotation sensor,
(Sakaishi - [0056] .. the servo driver 2C obtains, from the encoder 6C, the rotational position of the motor 5C detected by the encoder 6C to provide feedback control, …)
the rotation sensor disposed at the motor housing, the rotation sensor configured to measure rotation of the rotatable shaft and generate a rotation sensor signal representative of the measured rotation; and a controller in signal communication with the rotation sensor,
(Sakaishi -[0019] The servo driver 2A is connected to the motor 5A and to the encoder 6A. The servo driver 2B is connected to the motor 5B and to the encoder 6B. The servo driver 20 is connected to the motor 5C and to the encoder 6C. The motor 5A is connected to the unwind shaft 11A. The motor 5B is connected to the take-up shaft 15B. The motor 5C is connected to the cutter shaft 161. ; [0056] The servo driver 2C supplies a drive current to the motor 5C based on a command received from the controller 1. In addition., the servo driver 2C obtains, from the encoder 6C, the rotational position of the motor 5C detected by the encoder 6C to provide feedback control, thereby precisely controlling the motor 5C. Thus, the motor 5C rotates the cutter shaft 161, and in turn, the cutter shaft 161 rotates the cutter edge 162. ; [0060] The controller 1 calculates the positional relationship information based on the rotational positions of the motors 5A to 5C (step S55). The controller 1 determines whether the cutter shaft 161 is currently cutting the material 12 based on the positional relationship information.)
the controller including a processor in communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions, which instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
(Sakaishi - [0021] The storage device 13 is a memory or the like for storing information obtained or calculated by the controller 1. The storage device 18 is a non-volatile storage medium, which is capable of retaining information that is storage data even when the machining apparatus 10 is not in operation and after power-off of the machining apparatus 10. The display device 19 displays information obtained or calculated by the controller 1. )
compare the measured usage to a threshold usage value to identify an end-of-life condition is present or absent
(Sakaishi - [0068] Note that the end-of-life determination of whether the end of life has been reached is not limited to be made in two stages. The controller 1 may use two load thresholds for life estimation to make the end-of-life determination in three stages. In this case, the controller 1 determines into which of three cases the situation falls. The three cases are case (1) the end of life has been reached, case (2) the end of life will be reached in a certain period, and case (3) the end of life has not yet been reached. … ; [0076] The controller 1 determines whether the quality evaluation value is less than a quality threshold. (step S130). The quality threshold is a threshold for determining end-of-life in terms of the quality evaluation value. If the quality evaluation value is less than the quality threshold (Yes at step S130), the controller 1 determines that the end of life of the cutter edge 162 has been reached or is about to be reached, and provides an. end-of-life warning indicating that the cutter edge 162 has reached the end of is life (step S140).)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti to provide a method using threshold values to identify wear due to usage and identify end-of-life conditions for an abrasive cutting or grinding tool as taught in Sakaishi. Having the ability to estimate wear and determine the condition of abrasive tools ensures that an accurate and consistent polishing finish is applied to a target workpiece.
Claim 11:
Ahti teaches the following limitations:
The polishing system of claim 1, wherein the belt tensioner further includes a tool guide and a spring, the tool guide including the inner end, the tool guide mounted to the motor housing, the spring positioned between the tool guide and the tool extension, the spring configured to bias the tool extension away from the tool guide along the lengthwise axis.
(Ahti – [0026] … The abrasive belt has a tension which tends to pull the two axes of rotation 45 and 61 toward each other. This is opposed and reacted by the compressive force that is set in the spring 52 using the adjustment screw 53. The tension in the abrasive belt 41 is set using the adjustment screw 52. It is noted that because of the unique way of mounting the contact arm 42 and machining tool such as 41, the machining forces or other tool conditions do not alter the spatial location of the tool contact point 43 which is absolutely located at the specified locations in space at all times during machining. These factors which change the true location of tool contact points in conventional machining systems are accommodated in the present invention by automatically changing the position of the flexibly mounted drive motor carriage 62 on the rail 92 due to the compressive forces from the spring 52 exerted on the carriage 62 through the spring block 50. ; [see also figures 4-7])
Claim 12:
Ahti teaches the following limitations:
The polishing system of claim 11, wherein the tool extension includes an extension body forming an internal bore of the tool extension, the spring and the tool guide disposed within the internal bore.
(Ahti – [0022] … A spring block 50 is attached using conventional means to the carriage base 95 which is located at the forward end of the motor carriage 62. The spring block 50 has a compression spring 52 attached to it and has a spring post located inside the spring and attached to the spring block 50. The spring post guides the spring and prevents buckling when the spring exerts a force on the spring block 50 and the motor carriage 62. In the exemplary embodiment shown in FIGS. 5 and 7, the spring 52 is attached within a slot in the spring block 50. The components of the system described herein may be manufactured using any suitable material which is light weight, preferably using Aluminum. ; [0024] Referring to FIG. 6, a spring base 51 is attached to the forward end face of the vertical frame 54. As described before, the aft end the spring 52 is attached to the spring block 50. The forward end of the spring 52 is attached to the spring base 51. This is shown in cross sectional view in FIG. 7. The forward end of spring fits within to a cavity located near the middle of the spring base 51 and is held in place by an adjustment screw 53. … ; [see also figures 4-7])
Claims 2-3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahti (US 20090149119 A1) as modified by Sakaishi (US 20230087376 A1) in view of Ng, Charles W. X. ( A Method for Capturing the Tacit Knowledge in the Surface Finishing Skill by Demonstration for Programming a Robot; 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation (ICRA); May 31 - June 7, 2014)
Claim 2:
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Ng teaches:
The polishing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: measure the usage of the abrasive belt by measuring lengths of one or more polishing tool paths of the instructions which have been completed for the one or more workpieces by the end effector with the abrasive belt.
(NG, Charles W. X. – [Page 1377 column 2 , paragraph 4] As a consequence, the belt wear can also be determined as it is related to the cutting effectiveness constant in the theoretical model. At the end of each correction cycle, variable parameters such as the cutting effectiveness can be determined by re-calibrating the theoretical material removal map with the experimental map. This is due to the belt wear, as the cutting grains on the belt become blunt, the cutting effectiveness would fall, resulting in a corresponding drop in this parameter. By assuming a linear relationship between the length of the tool path and the cutting effectiveness constant, the rate of the belt wear can be determined between each calibration.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti and Sakaishi to provide a method of determining the wear condition of an abrasive belt that is currently in operation by measuring completed toolpaths as taught in Ng. Having the ability to estimate the wear condition of a belt based on the length of the completed toolpath allows the controller to estimate the level of wear before the tool makes contact with the next workpiece, thus preventing the inaccurate polishing of workpiece surfaces due to worn polishing tools.
Claim 3:
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Ng teaches:
The polishing system of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: measure the usage of the abrasive belt by normalizing the usage of the abrasive belt using one or both of a speed of the end effector along the one or more polishing tool paths or a rotation speed of the rotatable shaft.
(NG, Charles W. X. – [Page 1378 column 2 , paragraph 2] Hence, a method to correct for these differences is needed in order for the captured manual data to be applicable in the robotic environment. Therefore, the material removal model was introduced to account for the difference in belt wear and contact wheel diameter. The contact pressure from the different contact wheel sizes can be calculated, thus other KPVs such as the contact force can be adjusted to maintain the same contact pressure from the manual to robotic tool path. Also, the change in belt abrasiveness can be quantified through the use of a parameter in the theoretical material removal model. As a result, the belt wear can be monitored by tracking the contact wheel revolutions per minute and the length of the belt. Other parameters such as the contact force can then be tweaked in order to factor for the difference in belt wear rate between the manual and robotic approach.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti and Sakaishi to provide a method of determining the wear condition of an abrasive belt that is currently in operation by measuring the rotations of the abrasive belt motor drive shaft as taught in Ng. Having the ability to estimate the wear condition of a belt based on the number of belt motor rotations allows the controller to estimate the level of wear before the tool makes contact with the next workpiece, thus preventing the inaccurate polishing of workpiece surfaces due to worn polishing tools.
Claim 5:
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Ng teaches:
The polishing system of claim 4, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: identify application of the abrasive belt to the one or more workpieces; and measure the usage of the abrasive belt by measuring a number of rotations of the rotatable shaft using the rotation sensor only for the identified application of the abrasive belt to the workpiece.
(NG, Charles W. X. – [Page 1378 column 2 , paragraph 2] Hence, a method to correct for these differences is needed in order for the captured manual data to be applicable in the robotic environment. Therefore, the material removal model was introduced to account for the difference in belt wear and contact wheel diameter. The contact pressure from the different contact wheel sizes can be calculated, thus other KPVs such as the contact force can be adjusted to maintain the same contact pressure from the manual to robotic tool path. Also, the change in belt abrasiveness can be quantified through the use of a parameter in the theoretical material removal model. As a result, the belt wear can be monitored by tracking the contact wheel revolutions per minute and the length of the belt. Other parameters such as the contact force can then be tweaked in order to factor for the difference in belt wear rate between the manual and robotic approach.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti and Sakaishi to provide a method of determining the wear condition of an abrasive belt that is currently in operation by measuring the rotations of the abrasive belt motor drive shaft as taught in Ng. Having the ability to estimate the wear condition of a belt based on the number of belt motor rotations allows the controller to estimate the level of wear before the tool makes contact with the next workpiece, thus preventing the inaccurate polishing of workpiece surfaces due to worn polishing tools.
Claim 6:
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Ng teaches:
The polishing system of claim 5, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: identify application of the abrasive belt to the workpiece based on expected contact between the abrasive belt and the workpiece using the instructions.
(NG, Charles W. X. – [Page 1377 column 2 , paragraph 4] As a consequence, the belt wear can also be determined as it is related to the cutting effectiveness constant in the theoretical model. At the end of each correction cycle, variable parameters such as the cutting effectiveness can be determined by re-calibrating the theoretical material removal map with the experimental map. This is due to the belt wear, as the cutting grains on the belt become blunt, the cutting effectiveness would fall, resulting in a corresponding drop in this parameter. By assuming a linear relationship between the length of the tool path and the cutting effectiveness constant, the rate of the belt wear can be determined between each calibration.)
Examiner Note:
The linear relationship between the length of the tool path and the cutting effectiveness constant corresponds to the expected contact
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti and Sakaishi to provide a method of determining the wear condition of an abrasive belt that is currently in operation by measuring completed toolpaths as taught in Ng. Having the ability to estimate the wear condition of a belt based on the length of the completed toolpath allows the controller to estimate the level of wear before the tool makes contact with the next workpiece, thus preventing the inaccurate polishing of workpiece surfaces due to worn polishing tools.
Claim 18:
Ahti teaches the following limitations:
A polishing system comprising: a robotic polishing assembly including a robotic arm and an end effector, the robotic arm including a plurality of movable joints extending between and to a base end and a distal end, the end effector disposed at the distal end, the end effector including a polishing arm, a motor, a tool head, and
(Ahti – [0017] … FIG. 1 shows an exemplary embodiment of the present invention of a robotic system for deburring a gas turbine engine BLISK. A conventional robot 14, having a conventional robotic arm 14, is shown in FIG. 1. The Robot 14 is mounted conventionally to the ground or a suitable platform. The robot 14 has a stationary coordinate system 17 for use as a reference for programming the location of the tool point in space, represented by the tool point coordinate system 19. A fixture 20 that holds a machining device 100 is mounted using a mount system 22 on the robotic arm 16. … ; [See also Figure 1] )
the polishing arm including a motor housing at a distal end of the polishing arm, the motor housing including a housing body including a top side, a bottom side, a first lateral side, and a second lateral side, the top side mounted to the distal end, the motor mounted to the housing body at the first lateral side, the motor including a rotatable shaft, the rotatable shaft extending through the housing body at the first lateral side, and the tool head extending along a lengthwise axis between and to an inner end and a tip end, the inner end disposed on the polishing arm at the motor, the tool head including a belt tensioner and a roller, (Ahti - [0018] In the exemplary embodiment shown in FIG. 1, a drive system 30 that drives a machining tool, such as a polishing tool 40, is mounted on the fixture 20. In order to effect material removal from the component 12, the machining tool, such as the polishing tool 40, contacts the component at a point of contact 43. ; [0022] … The motor housing 64 is pivotably attached to the motor carriage 62 using a pair of motor housing mounts 90. The motor housing mounts 90 are firmly attached near their lower end to the motor carriage 64 using conventional attachment means. The motor carriage 62 has a pivot 71 on each side that is supported by the motor housing mounts 90. In the exemplary embodiments shown herein, the pivots 71 are shown in the form of screws attached to the housing mounts 90 near their top that engage with corresponding holes on the sides of the motor carriage 62. Other suitable pivoting means may also be used alternatively. A motor 60 is located within the motor housing 64 and held within the motor housing conventional means, such as attachment screws. FIGS. 5 and 6 show a pneumatic motor 60, driven by air supplied through an air line 112. …; [See also Figure 1]) the belt tensioner including a tool extension including the tip end, the belt tensioner configured to bias the tip end outward from the inner end along the lengthwise axis, the roller rotatable about a tool center point of the tool head at the tip end, the tool head configured to retain an abrasive belt extending between the rotatable shaft and the roller and (Ahti – [0026] FIGS. 6, 7 and 8 show a device for polishing and deburring a component, having a polishing and deburring tool 40. The tool 40 comprises a roller 44 attached to the forward end of a contact arm 42 that is clamped to the arm mount 49 using an arm clamp 46. The roller is capable of rotating around a roller axis of rotation 45. The arm clamp 46 is located on the arm clamp using arm locator pins 47, as described herein. The tool 40 has an abrasive belt 41 that is supported by the roller 44 at the forward end and by a belt drive wheel 63 at the aft end. The belt drive wheel 63 is attached to the drive motor 60 and rotates around an axis of rotation 61. The abrasive belt 41 is driven by the motor 60 and the belt drive wheel 63 around the roller 44. For polishing and deburring, removal of material from the component 12 is accomplished by contacting the moving abrasive belt 41 on the component 12 surfaces and edges. The contact point 43 forces during machining between the abrasive belt 41 and the component 12 are transmitted by the contact arm 42 to the arm mount 49 and the vertical frame 54. These forces are transmitted to the motor carriage 62 which can move along the rail 92. The abrasive belt has a tension which tends to pull the two axes of rotation 45 and 61 toward each other. This is opposed and reacted by the compressive force that is set in the spring 52 using the adjustment screw 53. The tension in the abrasive belt 41 is set using the adjustment screw 52. …)
measure a usage of the abrasive belt for polishing to the one or more workpieces; and
(Ahti -[0027] In one aspect of the invention, the exemplary embodiments described herein incorporate a proximity sensor system 80 which can detect tool failure or tool wear conditions during machining and provide a means for safely shutting down the machining operations without damaging the component 12 being machined. …)
for the abrasive belt.
(Ahti – {0026] … The abrasive belt 41 is driven by the motor 60 and the belt drive wheel 63 around the roller 44. …)
Ahti does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Sakaishi teaches:
a rotation sensor,
(Sakaishi - [0056] .. the servo driver 2C obtains, from the encoder 6C, the rotational position of the motor 5C detected by the encoder 6C to provide feedback control, …)
the rotation sensor disposed at the motor housing, the rotation sensor configured to measure rotation of the rotatable shaft and generate a rotation sensor signal representative of the measured rotation; and a controller in signal communication with the rotation sensor,
(Sakaishi -[0019] The servo driver 2A is connected to the motor 5A and to the encoder 6A. The servo driver 2B is connected to the motor 5B and to the encoder 6B. The servo driver 20 is connected to the motor 5C and to the encoder 6C. The motor 5A is connected to the unwind shaft 11A. The motor 5B is connected to the take-up shaft 15B. The motor 5C is connected to the cutter shaft 161. ; [0056] The servo driver 2C supplies a drive current to the motor 5C based on a command received from the controller 1. In addition., the servo driver 2C obtains, from the encoder 6C, the rotational position of the motor 5C detected by the encoder 6C to provide feedback control, thereby precisely controlling the motor 5C. Thus, the motor 5C rotates the cutter shaft 161, and in turn, the cutter shaft 161 rotates the cutter edge 162. ; [0060] The controller 1 calculates the positional relationship information based on the rotational positions of the motors 5A to 5C (step S55). The controller 1 determines whether the cutter shaft 161 is currently cutting the material 12 based on the positional relationship information.)
the controller including a processor in communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions, which instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
(Sakaishi - [0021] The storage device 13 is a memory or the like for storing information obtained or calculated by the controller 1. The storage device 18 is a non-volatile storage medium, which is capable of retaining information that is storage data even when the machining apparatus 10 is not in operation and after power-off of the machining apparatus 10. The display device 19 displays information obtained or calculated by the controller 1. )
compare the measured usage to a threshold usage value to identify an end-of-life condition is present or absent
(Sakaishi - [0068] Note that the end-of-life determination of whether the end of life has been reached is not limited to be made in two stages. The controller 1 may use two load thresholds for life estimation to make the end-of-life determination in three stages. In this case, the controller 1 determines into which of three cases the situation falls. The three cases are case (1) the end of life has been reached, case (2) the end of life will be reached in a certain period, and case (3) the end of life has not yet been reached. … ; [0076] The controller 1 determines whether the quality evaluation value is less than a quality threshold. (step S130). The quality threshold is a threshold for determining end-of-life in terms of the quality evaluation value. If the quality evaluation value is less than the quality threshold (Yes at step S130), the controller 1 determines that the end of life of the cutter edge 162 has been reached or is about to be reached, and provides an. end-of-life warning indicating that the cutter edge 162 has reached the end of is life (step S140).)
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Ng teaches:
Identify application of the abrasive belt to a one or more workpieces based on expected contact between the abrasive belt and the one or more workpieces using the instructions,
(NG, Charles W. X. – [Page 1377 column 2 , paragraph 4] As a consequence, the belt wear can also be determined as it is related to the cutting effectiveness constant in the theoretical model. At the end of each correction cycle, variable parameters such as the cutting effectiveness can be determined by re-calibrating the theoretical material removal map with the experimental map. This is due to the belt wear, as the cutting grains on the belt become blunt, the cutting effectiveness would fall, resulting in a corresponding drop in this parameter. By assuming a linear relationship between the length of the tool path and the cutting effectiveness constant, the rate of the belt wear can be determined between each calibration.)
by measuring a number of rotations of the rotatable shaft using the rotation sensor only for the identified application of the abrasive belt
(NG, Charles W. X. – [Page 1378 column 2 , paragraph 2] Hence, a method to correct for these differences is needed in order for the captured manual data to be applicable in the robotic environment. Therefore, the material removal model was introduced to account for the difference in belt wear and contact wheel diameter. The contact pressure from the different contact wheel sizes can be calculated, thus other KPVs such as the contact force can be adjusted to maintain the same contact pressure from the manual to robotic tool path. Also, the change in belt abrasiveness can be quantified through the use of a parameter in the theoretical material removal model. As a result, the belt wear can be monitored by tracking the contact wheel revolutions per minute and the length of the belt. Other parameters such as the contact force can then be tweaked in order to factor for the difference in belt wear rate between the manual and robotic approach.
Examiner Note:
The linear relationship between the length of the tool path and the cutting effectiveness constant corresponds to the expected contact
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti to provide a method using threshold values to identify wear due to usage and identify end-of-life conditions for an abrasive cutting or grinding tool as taught in Sakaishi and to further count rotations of the tool motor as taught by Ng. Having the ability to estimate wear and determine the condition of abrasive tools by monitoring rotations of the tool motor ensures that an accurate and consistent polishing finish is applied to a target workpiece.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahti (US 20090149119 A1) as modified by Sakaishi (US 20230087376 A1) in view of Ng, Charles W. X. ( A Method for Capturing the Tacit Knowledge in the Surface Finishing Skill by Demonstration for Programming a Robot; 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation (ICRA); May 31 - June 7, 2014) in further view of Vasko (US 20210291317 A1)
Claim 7:
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Vasko teaches:
The polishing system of claim 5, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: measure a rotation speed of the rotatable shaft using the rotation sensor signal.
(Vasko - [0007] In another aspect, a control system is provided for a blade sharpening system that includes at least one grinding wheel operable to sharpen the blade. The control system includes at least one sensor operable to monitor rotation of the at least one grinding wheel, and a controller communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor. The controller is configured to receive signals from the at least one sensor. The controller is further configured to adjust a position of the at least one grinding wheel relative to the blade based on the received signals.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti and Sakaishi to provide a method for measuring the rotations of a tool drive motor using a rotational sensor as taught in Vasko. Having the ability to measure the tool drive motor rotations with sensors provides accurate rotational data which can in turn be used to determine tool wear estimations based on motor rotation counts.
Claim 8:
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Vasko teaches:
The polishing system of claim 7, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: verify the measured rotation speed of the rotatable shaft by comparing the measured rotation speed to a rotation speed threshold range.
(Vasko – [0051] In one example embodiment, the target rotational speed is a discrete value. Alternatively, the target rotational speed may be a range of values. Further, the target rotational speed may be stored in the memory device 320 and/or may be set by a user (e.g., using the user input interface 326). In addition, in some embodiments, the target rotational speed may be set based on the average rotational speed calculated from a plurality of previous cycles. For example, the target rotational speed may be the average rotational speed, or may be a range including the average rotational speed.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti and Sakaishi to provide a method for measuring the rotations of a tool drive motor using a rotational sensor and to further compare this data to a rotational speed threshold value as taught in Vasko. Having the ability to measure the tool drive motor rotations with sensors and compare those values to a threshold provides a means for accurately determining tool wear estimations and for further determining rotational speeds that might cause excessive wear to the abrasive tools or damage to a workpiece based on motor rotation counts.
Claim 9:
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Vasko teaches:
The polishing system of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: identify the measured rotation speed is outside of the rotation speed threshold range; and generate a notification in response to identification of the measured rotation speed outside of the rotation speed threshold range.
(Vasko - [0074] In some embodiments, the controller 302 generates one or more alerts based on the signals received from the first and second sensors 304, 306. For example, the controller 302 may generate an alert as described above in relation to the method 500. Further, in one embodiment, the controller 302 may generate a touch point drift alert when the difference between touch points determined for subsequent grind cycles exceeds a threshold (e.g., indicating failure or malfunction of the system). In another embodiment, the controller 302 may generate an alert if the applied air pressure exceeds a threshold pressure value without detecting any rotation of the grinding wheel. In yet another embodiment, the controller 302 may generate an alert if the calculated rotational speed exceeds a maximum rotational speed value …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti and Sakaishi to provide a method for notification when a rotational speed of the tool drive motor exceeds a threshold value as taught in Vasko. Having the ability to notify the operator or controller when a rotational speed of the tool drive motor exceeds a threshold value helps to prevent excessive wear to the abrasive tools or damage to a workpiece based on motor rotation counts.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahti (US 20090149119 A1) as modified by Sakaishi (US 20230087376 A1) in view of Ng, Charles W. X. ( A Method for Capturing the Tacit Knowledge in the Surface Finishing Skill by Demonstration for Programming a Robot; 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation (ICRA); May 31 - June 7, 2014) in further view of Borot (FR 2677289 A1)
Claim 10 :
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi, Vasko and Ng does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borot teaches:
The polishing system of claim 5, wherein the motor housing includes a housing body including a top side, a bottom side, a first lateral side, and a second lateral side, the top side mounted to the distal end, the motor mounted to the housing body at the first lateral side, the rotatable shaft extending through the housing body at the first lateral side, (Borot – [ page 2, paragraph 7] The tool firstly comprises (FIGS. 2 and 3) a housing 1 containing a pneumatic motor 2 and extending on one side by a handle 3 and on the other by a base 4. The pneumatic motor 2 is extended by a motor shaft 5 which leaves the housing 1 by a flat face 6 thereof and which carries a drive pulley 7.The handle 3 is screwed to a robot wrist 8 shown partially, which allows to move the tool to its liking and in particular to orient it in all directions. A boss 9 carrying an optical sensor 10, the usefulness of which will be explained later, stands on the housing 1. As for the base 4, it carries the cylinder of a pneumatic cylinder 11 which is screwed to it.) the rotation sensor mounted on the motor housing at the top side, the rotation sensor disposed adjacent and spaced from the rotatable shaft. (Borot – [ page 3, paragraph 2] … It will also be noted that the boss 9 has one or more blowing orifices 20 directed towards the optical sensor 10 to clean it of deburring impurities which could soil it and that a tachometer or speed sensor 21 is housed in the housing. 1 to measure the speed of rotation of the motor shaft 5.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti and Sakaishi to provide a tool drive motor housing mounted at the distal end of the tool arm and to further monitor the drive motor with a rotational sensor as taught in Borot Having the ability to measure the tool drive motor rotations with sensors provides accurate rotational data which can in turn be used to determine tool wear estimations based on motor rotation counts.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahti (US 20090149119 A1) as modified by Sakaishi (US 20230087376 A1) in view of Schneider (US 20220378560 A1)
Claim 13:
Ahti teaches the following limitations:
A method for measuring abrasive belt wear for an end effector for a polishing system, the method comprising: polishing one or more workpieces by driving the abrasive belt with a motor of the end effector and applying the abrasive belt to the one or more workpieces;
(Ahti -[0001] This invention relates generally to manufacturing components, and more specifically to methods and interchangeable apparatus for accurately and controllably locating tools on workpieces during manufacturing operations such as polishing, deburring, materials removal and other machining and inspection operations.; [0017] … A fixture 20 that holds a machining device 100 is mounted using a mount system 22 on the robotic arm 16. The machining device 100 and the mount system 22 are shown in more detail in FIGS. 2-8. The component 12 to be machined is mounted on a suitable fixture 13, having a component coordinate axis 18 suitably located with respect to the robot coordinate axis 17. The robotic arm typically has multiple degrees of freedom to translate and rotate with respect to the robot coordinate system 17. ; [0026] FIGS. 6, 7 and 8 show a device for polishing and deburring a component, having a polishing and deburring tool 40. The tool 40 comprises a roller 44 attached to the forward end of a contact arm 42 that is clamped to the arm mount 49 using an arm clamp 46. The roller is capable of rotating around a roller axis of rotation 45. )
measuring a usage of the abrasive belt for polishing one or more workpieces; measuring a usage of the abrasive belt, wherein measuring the usage of the abrasive belt includes measuring [
(Ahti – {0026] … The abrasive belt 41 is driven by the motor 60 and the belt drive wheel 63 around the roller 44. ; [0027] In one aspect of the invention, the exemplary embodiments described herein incorporate a proximity sensor system 80 which can detect tool failure or tool wear conditions during machining and provide a means for safely shutting down the machining operations without damaging the component 12 being machined. …)
stopping the step of polishing the one or more workpieces in response to identifying the end-of-life condition is present for the abrasive belt.
(Ahti – [0027] In one aspect of the invention, the exemplary embodiments described herein incorporate a proximity sensor system 80 which can detect tool failure or tool wear conditions during machining and provide a means for safely shutting down the machining operations without damaging the component 12 being machined. …)
Ahti does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Sakaishi teaches:
a number of rotations of the motor using a rotation sensor
(Sakaishi -[0019] The servo driver 2A is connected to the motor 5A and to the encoder 6A. The servo driver 2B is connected to the motor 5B and to the encoder 6B. The servo driver 20 is connected to the motor 5C and to the encoder 6C. The motor 5A is connected to the unwind shaft 11A. The motor 5B is connected to the take-up shaft 15B. The motor 5C is connected to the cutter shaft 161. ; [0056] The servo driver 2C supplies a drive current to the motor 5C based on a command received from the controller 1. In addition., the servo driver 2C obtains, from the encoder 6C, the rotational position of the motor 5C detected by the encoder 6C to provide feedback control, thereby precisely controlling the motor 5C. Thus, the motor 5C rotates the cutter shaft 161, and in turn, the cutter shaft 161 rotates the cutter edge 162. ; [0060] The controller 1 calculates the positional relationship information based on the rotational positions of the motors 5A to 5C (step S55). The controller 1 determines whether the cutter shaft 161 is currently cutting the material 12 based on the positional relationship information.)
comparing the measured usage to a threshold usage value to identify an end-of-life condition is present or absent for the abrasive belt; and
(Sakaishi - [0068] Note that the end-of-life determination of whether the end of life has been reached is not limited to be made in two stages. The controller 1 may use two load thresholds for life estimation to make the end-of-life determination in three stages. In this case, the controller 1 determines into which of three cases the situation falls. The three cases are case (1) the end of life has been reached, case (2) the end of life will be reached in a certain period, and case (3) the end of life has not yet been reached. … ; [0076] The controller 1 determines whether the quality evaluation value is less than a quality threshold. (step S130). The quality threshold is a threshold for determining end-of-life in terms of the quality evaluation value. If the quality evaluation value is less than the quality threshold (Yes at step S130), the controller 1 determines that the end of life of the cutter edge 162 has been reached or is about to be reached, and provides an. end-of-life warning indicating that the cutter edge 162 has reached the end of is life (step S140).)
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Schneider teaches:
as a fraction of an expected useful life
(Schneider- [0004] … In general, the wear condition of the dental tool is indicated with a percentage. For instance, 100% indicates that the dental tool is substantially new and 0% indicates a that the dental tool is completely worn, and thus its service life is over. When the dental tool machine is equipped with a new dental tool, the wear condition of the dental tool is usually predicted…)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti to provide a method using threshold values to identify wear due to usage and identify end-of-life conditions for an abrasive cutting or grinding tool as taught in Sakaishi and to further add a method of measuring the useful life of the tool as a percentage of the total life as taught by Schneider . Having the ability to estimate wear and determine the condition of abrasive tools by estimating the fraction or percentage of the total tool life remaining ensures that an accurate and consistent polishing finish is applied to a target workpiece.
Claim 14-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahti (US 20090149119 A1) as modified by Sakaishi (US 20230087376 A1) in view of Schneider (US 20220378560 A1) in further view of Ng, Charles W. X. ( A Method for Capturing the Tacit Knowledge in the Surface Finishing Skill by Demonstration for Programming a Robot; 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation (ICRA); May 31 - June 7, 2014)
Claim 14:
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi and Schneider does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Ng teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein measuring the usage of the abrasive belt includes measuring the usage of the abrasive belt by measuring lengths of one or more polishing tool paths along the one or more workpieces which have been completed for the one or more workpieces by the end effector with the abrasive belt.
(NG, Charles W. X. – [Page 1377 column 2 , paragraph 4] As a consequence, the belt wear can also be determined as it is related to the cutting effectiveness constant in the theoretical model. At the end of each correction cycle, variable parameters such as the cutting effectiveness can be determined by re-calibrating the theoretical material removal map with the experimental map. This is due to the belt wear, as the cutting grains on the belt become blunt, the cutting effectiveness would fall, resulting in a corresponding drop in this parameter. By assuming a linear relationship between the length of the tool path and the cutting effectiveness constant, the rate of the belt wear can be determined between each calibration.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti combined with Sakaishi and Schneider to provide a method of determining the wear condition of an abrasive belt that is currently in operation by measuring completed toolpaths as taught in Ng. Having the ability to estimate the wear condition of a belt based on the length of the completed toolpath allows the controller to estimate the level of wear before the tool makes contact with the next workpiece, thus preventing the inaccurate polishing of workpiece surfaces due to worn polishing tools.
Claim 15:
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi and Schneider does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Ng teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein measuring the usage of the abrasive belt includes normalizing the measured usage of the abrasive belt using one or both of a speed of the end effector along the one or more polishing tool paths or a measured rotation speed of the motor.
(NG, Charles W. X. – [Page 1378 column 2 , paragraph 2] Hence, a method to correct for these differences is needed in order for the captured manual data to be applicable in the robotic environment. Therefore, the material removal model was introduced to account for the difference in belt wear and contact wheel diameter. The contact pressure from the different contact wheel sizes can be calculated, thus other KPVs such as the contact force can be adjusted to maintain the same contact pressure from the manual to robotic tool path. Also, the change in belt abrasiveness can be quantified through the use of a parameter in the theoretical material removal model. As a result, the belt wear can be monitored by tracking the contact wheel revolutions per minute and the length of the belt. Other parameters such as the contact force can then be tweaked in order to factor for the difference in belt wear rate between the manual and robotic approach.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti combined with Sakaishi and Schneider to provide a method of determining the wear condition of an abrasive belt that is currently in operation by measuring the rotations of the abrasive belt motor drive shaft as taught in Ng. Having the ability to estimate the wear condition of a belt based on the number of belt motor rotations allows the controller to estimate the level of wear before the tool makes contact with the next workpiece, thus preventing the inaccurate polishing of workpiece surfaces due to worn polishing tools.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahti (US 20090149119 A1) as modified by Sakaishi (US 20230087376 A1) in view of Schneider (US 20220378560 A1) in further view of Vasko (US 20210291317 A1)
Claim 17:
Ahti does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Sakaishi teaches:
The method of claim 16, further comprising: measuring a rotation speed of the motor using the rotation sensor;
(Sakaishi - [0056] The servo driver 2C supplies a drive current to the motor 5C based on a command received from the controller 1. In addition., the servo driver 2C obtains, from the encoder 6C, the rotational position of the motor 5C detected by the encoder 6C to provide feedback control, thereby precisely controlling the motor 5C. Thus, the motor 5C rotates the cutter shaft 161, and in turn, the cutter shaft 161 rotates the cutter edge 162. [0057] The controller 1 controls both unwinding and winding up of the material 12 and rotation of the cutter edge 162 to control the cutting machining (step S50). In this control, the controller 1 controls the rotational speed of the cutter edge 162 to match the feed speed of the material 12 so that the cutter edge 162 is accurately pressed against the position at which the material 12 is to be cut.)
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi and Schneider does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Vasko teaches:
comparing the measured rotation speed to a rotation speed threshold range; identifying the measured rotation speed is outside of the rotation speed threshold range; and generating a notification in response to identification of the measured rotation speed outside of the rotation speed threshold range.
(Vasko – [0051] In one example embodiment, the target rotational speed is a discrete value. Alternatively, the target rotational speed may be a range of values. Further, the target rotational speed may be stored in the memory device 320 and/or may be set by a user (e.g., using the user input interface 326). In addition, in some embodiments, the target rotational speed may be set based on the average rotational speed calculated from a plurality of previous cycles. For example, the target rotational speed may be the average rotational speed, or may be a range including the average rotational speed. ; [0074] In some embodiments, the controller 302 generates one or more alerts based on the signals received from the first and second sensors 304, 306. For example, the controller 302 may generate an alert as described above in relation to the method 500. … In yet another embodiment, the controller 302 may generate an alert if the calculated rotational speed exceeds a maximum rotational speed value …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti combined with Sakaishi and Schneider to provide a method for measuring the rotations of a tool drive motor using a rotational sensor and to further compare this data to a rotational speed threshold value as taught in Vasko. Having the ability to measure the tool drive motor rotations with sensors and compare those values to a threshold provides a means for accurately determining tool wear estimations and for further determining rotational speeds that might cause excessive wear to the abrasive tools or damage to a workpiece based on motor rotation counts.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahti (US20090149119 A1) as modified by Sakaishi (US 20230087376 A1) in view of Ng, Charles W. X. ( A Method for Capturing the Tacit Knowledge in the Surface Finishing Skill by Demonstration for Programming a Robot; 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation (ICRA); May 31 - June 7, 2014) in further view of Ferry (US 20160175955 A1)
Claim 19:
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi and Ng does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Ferry teaches:
The polishing system of claim 18, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to control the robotic polishing assembly to execute a break-in phase for the abrasive belt by applying the abrasive belt to a dummy component prior to
(Ferry - [0011] FIG. 4 is a flowchart of the step of FIG. 2 of adjusting cutting tool parameters and subjecting the cutting tool to an initial dressing operation; [0038] … As used herein, the term dressing refers to an operation of removing a current layer of abrasive material on the cutting tool so as to modify a profile of the cutting tool. … )
Ahti further teaches the following limitations:
measuring the usage of the abrasive belt for polishing the one or more workpieces.
(Ahti -[0027] In one aspect of the invention, the exemplary embodiments described herein incorporate a proximity sensor system 80 which can detect tool failure or tool wear conditions during machining and provide a means for safely shutting down the machining operations without damaging the component 12 being machined. …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti in combination with Sakaishi to provide a method for dressing the abrasive tool prior to polishing the workpiece as taught in Ferry. Having the ability to pre-condition the abrasive tools prior to polishing a workpiece ensures that an accurate and consistent polishing finish is applied to a target workpiece.
Claim 20:
Ahti in combination with Sakaishi and Ng does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Ferry teaches:
The polishing system of claim 19, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to control the robotic polishing assembly to polish the one or more workpieces with the abrasive belt subsequent to the break-in phase.
(Ferry - [0040] Referring back to FIG. 2, after the cutting tool has been initially dressed at step 108, automated machining of the workpiece may be performed at step 110, as will be discussed further below with reference to FIG. 5. Step 110 illustratively comprises generating a machining (e.g. NC) program comprising commands that indicate a numerically-controlled tool path to be followed by at least the cutting tool for machining the workpiece and manufacturing the toothed member. … )
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahti in combination with Sakaishi and Ng to provide a method for dressing the abrasive tool prior to polishing the workpiece as taught in Ferry. Having the ability to pre-condition the abrasive tools prior to polishing a workpiece ensures that an accurate and consistent polishing finish is applied to a target workpiece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Kuppke (DE 102019207744 A1) describes a belt grinding machine (10) comprising a grinding belt (18) for grinding processing of a workpiece (14) is proposed, which has at least one sound sensor (44, 44a, 44b, 44c, 44d) for acquiring and providing measurement data. The belt grinding machine also has a computer device which is set up to carry out a method (200) for determining status information relating to the belt grinding machine.
Heilig (CA 2884674 A1) describes a method for the automated surface machining, in particular grinding, of a profiled component in the form of a profiled large component, in particular of a rotor blade, of a wind energy plant, having a machining device having a moving gantry, a robotic system having a control system and a machining tool of a working head
Nakayama (US 20170057039 A1) describes a processing system having a function for appropriately maintaining processing accuracy, without depending on a degree of abrasion of a tool. An unused tool used in a machine tool is captured by using a camera mounted on a robot, so as to obtain a reference image of the tool. Next, an image of the tool is captured after a predetermined number of processing operations carried out. An average amount of tool abrasion per one processing operation is calculated based on the two images, so as to estimate a current amount of tool abrasion. Based on the estimation result and a previously input limit amount of abrasion, the number of remaining possible processing operations of the tool is calculated and output.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW whose telephone number is (703)756-1854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 5.
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 Mott can be reached on (571) 270 5376. 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 LINDSAY OSTROW/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657