DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, 11, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoder et al. (US 11644242), hereinafter ‘Yoder’.
Yoder discloses:
11. A method for controlling a material removal process used in a manufacturing environment, comprising:
(a) installing equipment used for or related to a weld grinding process in a manufacturing environment (see Fig. 3A, 3B, equipment 104, 106, 108 is positioned within a manufacturing environment, Col. 6 lines 66 discloses a grinder as the end effector 108 which is capable of grinding a weld);
(b) positioning a plurality of sensors within the manufacturing environment in proximity to the weld grinding equipment, wherein the plurality of sensors are configured to gather data from the manufacturing environment (Col. 4 lines 6-17 discloses a plurality of cameras 120; Col. 6 lines 60-67 discloses various sensors such as an acoustic inspection device, an optical profilometer, etc.; Col. 11 lines 7-26 discloses a camera which is a visual sensor, Col. 12 discloses processors and various feedback forms;);
(c) connecting at least one processor to the plurality of sensors, wherein the at least one processor includes software for receiving data from the plurality of sensors and the weld grinding equipment; and (Col. 3 lines 20-40 discloses computer system 112 including software that is executed by processors with data acquired from one or more sensors to control the robotic arm 106 and end effector 108 which can be a grinder;
Col. 4 discloses the cameras 120 are connected to the control module 102; Col. 11 lines 48-67 and Col. 12 discloses the computer system is a processing system with software that receives data and instructions, etc.;)
(d) connecting at least one manual controller to the processor, wherein the at least one manual controller receives motion input from a user of the manual controller (Col. 3 lines 49-67 discloses a physical controller such as a joystick that receives user inputs, wherein the physical controller is connected to the control module 102),
wherein the software on the processor mathematically transforms the motion input into corresponding motion commands that are sent to the weld grinding equipment by the processor, wherein the weld grinding equipment, which is physically remote from the at least one controller, executes the motion commands in real-time during the weld grinding process (Col. 15 lines 39-46 discloses a user using input controllers to control the operation of the robotic arm and the plurality of end effectors in real time, Col. 6 lines 58-67 discloses a grinder as an end effector, and Col. 6 lines 26-39 discloses real-time actuator with user input controllers 116 that are processed by the control module 102; Col. 3 lines 49-67 discloses real time control using a controller and the control module converting the user inputs into motion of the robotic arm).
17. The method of claim 11, wherein the at least one manual controller is a hand-held stylus, a computer mouse, or a joystick (Col. 3 lines 49-67 discloses a joystick, etc.).
18. The method of claim 11, wherein the software on the processor provides a haptic feedback response to the manual controller based on the data from the plurality of sensors and the weld grinding equipment (Col. 12 lines 29-48 discloses haptic/tactile feedback).
19. The method of claim 11, further comprising providing a computer network across which the processor communicates with the weld grinding equipment (Col. 13 lines 1-24 discloses network interfaces).
20. The method of claim 12, wherein the robot moves with at least six degrees of freedom (Col. 6 lines 4-25 discloses at least 6 degrees of freedom).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-10, see claim 11, 17-20 rejections for equivalent limitation mapping and discussion. A weld grinding process is a material removal process.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 11-13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trigui et al. (US 11344974), hereinafter ‘Trigui’.
Trigui discloses:
11. A method for controlling a material removal process used in a manufacturing environment, comprising:
(a) installing equipment used for or related to a weld grinding process in a manufacturing environment (robot 100 enters the physical environment in the pipe string 10; robot 100 includes a grinder 140 for grinding welds, Col. 45-67);
(b) positioning a plurality of sensors within the manufacturing environment in proximity to the weld grinding equipment, wherein the plurality of sensors are configured to gather data from the manufacturing environment (sensors 110, 111, 113, 115, 141, Col. 5 lines 10-67, etc.);
(c) connecting at least one processor (145) to the plurality of sensors, wherein the at least one processor includes software for receiving data from the plurality of sensors and the weld grinding equipment (Col. 5); and
(d) connecting at least one manual controller to the processor (master controller 130 is a manual controller where a user operates the system), wherein the at least one manual controller receives motion input from a user of the manual controller, wherein the software on the processor mathematically transforms the motion input into corresponding motion commands that are sent to the weld grinding equipment by the processor, wherein the weld grinding equipment, which is physically remote from the at least one controller, executes the motion commands in real-time during the weld grinding process (Col. 12 lines 49-58 discloses an operator manually controlling the grinding implement in real time if additional grinding is required, the master controller 130 is outside the pipe string 10 while the robot system is inside the pipe string 10, therefore physically remote; any input by a user would be mathematically transformed into motion input of the grinding equipment through software, etc.).
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the weld grinding equipment includes a robot having a grinder for removing an amount material from a weld surface, and wherein the grinder includes a grinding disc, flap disc, or sanding disc (Col. 6 lines 20-24, grinding wheel is a grinding disc).
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure the weld surface before the weld grinding process (sensor 110 measures weld surface, Col. 5 lines 20-29).
19. The method of claim 11, further comprising providing a computer network across which the processor communicates with the weld grinding equipment (see Fig. 1, network 90 connected to robot device 110, and grinder 140)
Regarding claims 1-3, 9, see claim 11-13, 19 rejections for equivalent limitation mapping and discussion. A weld grinding process is a material removal process.
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(s) 2, 3, and 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yoder et al. (US 11644242), hereinafter ‘Yoder’ in view of Fihey et al. (US 4959523), hereinafter ‘Fihey’.
Regarding claim 12, Yoder discloses the method of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose the type of grinder used.
However, Fihey discloses a robotic arm grinding system similar to Yoder and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Fihey discloses: a robotic arm (23) that positions a grinder in the form of a grinding disc (Col. 8 lines 8-13) similar to how Yoder positions its grinder/attachment with a robotic arm. Fihey further discloses: a method and apparatus for automatically sensing the configuration of a weld surface and discloses a sensor and probe to sense a work environment (Col. 3 lines 13-27, Col. 5 lines 41-65); a sensor (25) that senses a distance between the arm (23) and the weld surface; a sensor senses the force/moment of the displacement of the probe (26); a control circuit (27) analyses sensor signals and therefore senses the weld surface. Fihey’s working arm (23) is associated with a gouging tool (33), welding tool (35) and a grinding tool (34); the weld fills the cavity and then the grinding tool grinds the top surface of the weld to bring it into conformity with the profile (Col. 8 lines 1-7).
Since simple substitution is an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Yoder to have used a grinding disc for its grinder attachment as taught by Fihey to yield only the expected result of a grinder attached to the robotic system of Yoder for grinding objects.
The combination of Yoder in view of Fihey further renders obvious:
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure the weld surface before the weld grinding process (Fihey, abstract, Col. 3 lines 13-27, Col. 5 lines 41-68, Col. 6 renders obvious using sensors to measure the weld surface to be grinded such that the weld is flush with the surface of the working environment by mapping the entire working environment; when the device of Yoder is being used with a grinder to be used on a weld surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented a plurality of sensors to measure a weld surface to be grinded prior to the grinding process when programming the robot of Yoder to autonomously grind the weld to be flush with the surface of the working environment as taught by Fihey as a matter of applying known technique to a known device to yield predictable results of automated robotic grinding of a weld surface).
Regarding claim 2 and 3, see claim 12 and 13 rejection for equivalent limitation mapping and discussion. A weld grinding process is a material removal process.
Claim(s) 4-5, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoder in view of Fihey as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Trigui et al. (US 11344974), hereinafter ‘Trigui’.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yoder and Fihey renders obvious the method of claim 12 and further renders obvious: (b) using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure a distance between the grinder and the weld surface (Fihey, sensor 26, Col. 5 lines 42-47, etc.); and
(c) using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure a pressure applied between the grinder and the weld surface (Fihey Col. 6 lines 19-32, 59-64 discloses force feedback control for the grinder);
but does not disclose:
(a) using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure the amount of material removed from the weld surface during the weld grinding process;
However, Trigui discloses a robotic system including a grinding implement similar to Yoder and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Trigui discloses using sensors 110, 115 to measure dimensions of the weld and determine with processor 125 an amount of material to be removed, and then having the grinding tool 140 configured to perform the intended operation of grinding of the weld bed to remove undesired defects/artifacts, etc. (Col. 5 lines 14-67, Col. 6 lines 1-23). grinding
Since using sensors to measure an amount of material to be removed from the weld surface during the weld grinding process is known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Yoder and Fihey to have using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure the amount of material removed from the weld surface during the weld grinding process as taught by Trigui to allow only the desired amount of material to be removed during grinding.
The combination of Yoder and Fihey further renders obvious:
15. The method of claim 14, further comprising:
(a) disabling the user’s control of the weld grinding equipment if the distance varies from a predetermined operating distance range; and
(b) disabling the user’s control of the weld grinding equipment if the pressure varies from a predetermined operating pressure range (see MPEP 2111.04 (II.) Contingent Limitations, this claim only recites method claim contingent limitations; since the invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition of varying from predetermined ranges of distance and pressure happening, neither disabling steps is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim).
Regarding claim 4, 5 see claim 14, 15 rejections for equivalent limitation mapping and discussion. A weld grinding process is a material removal process.
Claim(s) 4-6, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trigui in view of Fihey et al. (US 4959523).
Regarding claim 14, Trigui discloses:
14. The method of claim 12, further comprising:
(a) using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure the amount of material removed from the weld surface during the weld grinding process (Col. 5-6 discloses 3D imaging sensors that generates a weld profile and compares it to a desired profile and therefore implicitly senses how much material is being removed, discloses that the grinding instructions identifies locations and amount of weld bead material that is to be removed);
(b) using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure a distance between the grinder and the weld surface (Col. 5-6 discloses grinding only the specified amount of weld bead within the grinding instructions, therefore a sensor that measures a distance between the grinder and the weld surface is inherently disclosed as this is the only method the grinder is able follow an exact path to achieve this specified operation);
Trigui does not explicitly disclose (b) using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure a distance between the grinder and the weld surface, and (c) using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure a pressure applied between the grinder and the weld surface.
However, Fihey discloses a robotic grinding system similar to Trigui and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Fihey discloses: a method and apparatus for automatically sensing the configuration of a weld surface and discloses a sensor and probe to sense a work environment (Col. 3 lines 13-27, Col. 5 lines 41-65); a sensor (26) that senses a distance between the arm (23) and the weld surface (11); a sensor (25) that senses the force/moment of the displacement of the probe (26); a control circuit (27) analyses sensor signals and therefore senses the weld surface. Fihey’s working arm (23) is associated with a gouging tool (33), welding tool (35) and a grinding tool (34); the weld fills the cavity and then the grinding tool grinds the top surface of the weld to bring it into conformity with the profile (Col. 8 lines 1-7).
Fihey teaches (b) using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure a distance between the grinder and the weld surface (Fihey, Col. 6 lines 59-64 discloses force feedback control for the grinding and automatically adjusting the tool position relative to the working surface, therefore a distance sensor that detects a position relative to the working surface and a force sensor that detects how much pressure/force the grinder is applying to the work surface is disclosed); (c) using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure a pressure applied between the grinder and the weld surface (Fihey, Col. 6 lines 59-64 discloses force feedback control for the grinding and automatically adjusting the tool position relative to the working surface, therefore a distance sensor that detects a position relative to the working surface and a force sensor that detects how much pressure/force the grinder is applying to the work surface is disclosed).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Trigui teaches all elements except explicitly (b) using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure a distance between the grinder and the weld surface; and (c) using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure a pressure applied between the grinder and the weld surface.
Fihey teaches (b) using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure a distance between the grinder and the weld surface (Fihey, sensor 26, Col. 5 lines 42-47, etc.); and (c) using at least one sensor in the plurality of sensors to measure a pressure applied between the grinder and the weld surface (Fihey, sensor 25, Col. 6 lines 19-32, Col. 6 lines 59-64 discloses force feedback, etc., force sensor 43 of grinder). When combined into Trigui such that the grinder has a force sensor and position sensor, it maintains its function of allowing the grinder to be controlled with a desired force and a specified position. One of ordinary skill would expect predictable results because both references pertain to controlling a robot arm grinder that function in the same manner in the environment of grinding a work surface remotely.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Trigui in view of Fihey because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Trigui and Fihey further renders obvious:
15. The method of claim 14, further comprising:
(a) disabling the user’s control of the weld grinding equipment if the distance varies from a predetermined operating distance range; and
(b) disabling the user’s control of the weld grinding equipment if the pressure varies from a predetermined operating pressure range (see MPEP 2111.04 (II.) Contingent Limitations, this claim only recites method claim contingent limitations; since the invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition of varying from predetermined ranges of distance and pressure happening, neither disabling steps are required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim).
16. The method of claim 15, further comprising:
(a) before the material removal process, defining a predetermined maximum amount of material to remove from the weld surface (Trigui claim 6 recites “inputted maximum value” implies operator inputted values; Col. 12 line 3-14 discloses “desired (target) grinding profile”, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an operator would input this target information, and results in defining an amount of weld bead material that is to be removed when the processor compares the measured profiled with the desired profile, see Col. 5 lines 30-67, Col. 6 lines 1-9); and
(b) during the material removal process, stopping power to the grinder if the amount of material removed from the weld surface exceeds the predetermined maximum amount of material (see MPEP 2111.04 (II.) Contingent Limitations, this is a contingent method claim limitation; since the invention may be practiced without having the amount of material removed exceeding the predetermined maximum amount of material, the stopping power to the grinder is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim).
Regarding claim 4-6 see claim 14-16 rejections for equivalent limitation mapping and discussion. A weld grinding process is a material removal process.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10, and 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trigui in view of Yoder et al. (US 11644242), hereinafter ‘Yoder’.
Regarding claims 17, 18, 20, Trigui discloses the method of claim 11, but does not disclose: wherein the at least one manual controller is a hand-held stylus, a computer mouse, or a joystick; wherein the software on the processor provides a haptic feedback response to the manual controller based on the data from the plurality of sensors and the weld grinding equipment; wherein the robot moves with at least six degrees of freedom.
However, Yoder discloses a remotely controlled robot similar to Trigui and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. See Yoder rejections above. Yoder discloses wherein the at least one manual controller is a hand-held stylus, a computer mouse, or a joystick (Yoder, Col. 3 lines 49-67 discloses a joystick, etc.); wherein the software on the processor provides a haptic feedback response to the manual controller based on the data from the plurality of sensors and the weld grinding equipment (Yoder, Col. 12 lines 29-48 discloses haptic/tactile feedback); further comprising providing a computer network across which the processor communicates with the weld grinding equipment (Yoder, Col. 13 lines 1-24 discloses network interfaces).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Trigui teaches all elements except wherein the at least one manual controller is a hand-held stylus, a computer mouse, or a joystick;
wherein the software on the processor provides a haptic feedback response to the manual controller based on the data from the plurality of sensors and the weld grinding equipment; wherein the robot moves with at least six degrees of freedom. Yoder teaches these features (see Yoder rejections above), which has the function of providing a physical manual controller for operator use that allows for haptic feedback to improve user experience, and allows for increase grinder positioning ability with six degrees of freedom movement. When combined into Trigui by implementing a manual controller in the form of a joystick with haptic feedback, etc. to be used with the master controller 130 of Trigui to manually control a six degree of freedom robot arm grinder, it maintains its function of providing improved user operability when manually operating the robot arm grinder. One of ordinary skill would expect predictable results because both references pertain to robotic grinders that function in the same manner in the environment of grinding a work surface remotely.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Trigui in view of Yoder because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
De Fazio (US 4523409) discloses grinding equipment for welds (Col. 1 lines 10-30), and discloses a robotic arm 16 that positions a grinding device 12 using sensor input from sensors 91, 90, and determines information related to the location of the grinding contact area, etc. with controller 18, 26, Col. 4 lines 9-12 discloses grinding disk; grinder monitor circuit 20a includes optical sensor 91 and acoustical sensor 90 to measure the weld surface area (De Fazio, Col. 6 lines 61-69, Col. 7 lines 1-3)
Kamon (US 12090630) discloses a robot system generating a 3D visualization of a work environment and discloses details of its remote manual operation of its robot with a user interface 102 that an operator inputs movements which are converted to robot end effector 20 movements through computer processing in control device 111; discloses using at least one sensor 104 to measure a distance between the end effector and the work piece surface and generates a warning and discloses disabling the user’s control of the weld grinding equipment if the distance varies from a predetermined operating distance range (Col. 11 lines 15-25); and
Ichinohe et al. (US 5331770) discloses a grinding equipment and Col. 8 line 49-69 and Col. 9 discloses controlling the force of the grinding, Fig. 17; Col. 10 lines 11-47 discloses "keeping the pressing force of the cutting tool at a preferable degree").
Suzuki (US 4845900), Col. 11 lines 47-51 discloses the control circuit 140 disabling the grinding unit 26 when the workpiece is ground to a desired depth using sensor signals; Col. 11 lines 13-16 discloses a user manually inputting the desired grinding depth into the controller having a memory prior to operation of the grinding machine Col. 11 lines 48-60 discloses the control circuit 140 temporarily disables the grinding unit 26 when the workpiece is ground to a desired depth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dustin T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-0163. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/DUSTIN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights