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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on February 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden to examiner as both groups would require considering similar subject matter, employing similar search criteria, and the application of similar art. This is found persuasive and as such the Restriction requirement of December 20, 2025 has been withdrawn. Claims 15-20 have been rejoined. Drawings The drawings are objected to because of the following: Figures 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, and 24 fail to include any reference numbers and thus it is not possible for the examiner to map the description in the specification to the drawings in a manner to allow for a full understanding the claimed invention. 37 CFR 1.74 requires that the different parts in figures be identified by use of reference numbers. Reference numbers must comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p). Figure 28 contains multiple figures that must be separately labeled per 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). The separate figures in Figure 28 should be labeled as Fig 28a, 28b, etc. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the compression spring-loaded rods as recited in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is noted that Figure 6 shows the steels rods and springs and paragraph [0057] indicates that the steel rods are the sliders recited in claim 3. If the steel rods are the sliders, it does not appear that the spring-loaded rods are shown. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Interpretation The preamble of claim 1 recites “A system” with “a Cobot system” recited merely as an intended use in the body of the claim. However, claims 10 and 12-14 contains positive recitation of and limit the Cobot system. Consequently, claims 1-14 could be interpreted as the subcombination of the system, which contains the machining end-effector, or the system in combination with the Cobot system. In formulating an evaluation on the merits, the Examiner is considering that the claims are drawn to the combination and the claims will be rejected accordingly. If the applicant indicates by amendment that the combination claim is the intention, the language in the permeable should be made consistent with the language of the body of the claims. If the intent is to claim the subcombination , then the body of the claim must be amended to remove positive recitation of the combination. Applicant’s intentions in the regard must be clearly established by the claim language. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1: Line 8 of claim 1 recited “to passively align the machining bit” but the claim fails to indicate that the machining bit is aligned with or with respect to . There is no recitation of a work piece for the bit to be aligned with nor any other aspect of the system that the bit could be aligned with as the system is only required to have the machining end-effector, which includes the bit. Regarding claim 1: Line 9 of claim 1 recites “that utilizes a compliance of the Cobot system”. It is unclear what the “compliance” is as there is no recitation of any features of the Cobot system in claim 1 nor any indication that this term is being used in a conventional sense to refer to the degree of mechanical flexibility of the Cobot system. Paragraph [0058] of the instant specification seems to indicate that the compliance is “spring-based loaded rods” however these rods are part of the linear guiding mechanism and not part of the Cobot system. Correction and clarification are required. For the purpose of examination, the compliance of the Cobot system is being treated as the degree of mechanical flexibility . Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 is considered a Markush claim that includes a grouping that is not in a proper format. Alternate expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. On acceptable form of alternative expression, or Markush group, recites members as being “selected from the group consisting of A, B, or C.” See Ex parte Markush, 1925 C.D. 126 (Comm’r5 Pat. 1925). (See MPEP 2173.05(h)) Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 requires that the Cobot system include joints that are “configured to monitor a displacement”. It is unclear how a joint itself can be capable of monitoring any parameter. There are no features of the joint recited in claim 12 that are capable of monitoring the displacement. Correction and clarification are required. Regarding claim 15: Line 5 of claim 15 recited “to passively align the machining bit” but the claim fails to indicate that the machining bit is aligned with or with respect to. There is no recitation of a work piece for the bit to be aligned with nor any other aspect of the system that the bit could be aligned with as the system is only required to have the machining end-effector, which includes the bit. Regarding claim 17: Line 2 of claim 17 recites “that utilizes a compliance of the Cobot system”. It is unclear what the “compliance” is as there is no recitation of any features of the Cobot system in claim 17 nor any indication that this term is being used in a conventional sense to refer to the degree of mechanical flexibility of the Cobot system. Paragraph [0058] of the instant specification seems to indicate that the compliance is “spring-based loaded rods” however these rods are part of the linear guiding mechanism and not part of the Cobot system. Correction and clarification are required. For the purpose of examination, the compliance of the Cobot system is being treated as the degree of mechanical flexibility. Regarding claim s 2-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, and 18-20: These claims are considered indefinite due to their dependence on one of the above claims. 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, 2, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark et al. (US 5,848,859, Clark). Regarding claim 1: Clark discloses a system Fig 1 comprising: a machining end-effector 20, 25, 30, 40 for a Cobot system 36 – Fig 2 , the machining end-effector comprising: a main part 20, 25 comprising: a machining bit 70 extendable from the main part Fig 4, 5 ; and a motor 9:8-12 for rotating the machining bit; and a subpart 30, 40, 42 – Fig 6 comprising: a linear guiding mechanism 354, 356, 358, 360, 362, 364, 366 configured to passively align no recitation of a motor or other such means for causing the movement of the mechanism the machining bit by generating a reaction torque that utilizes a compliance of the Cobot system Abstract, 6:57-7:42 . Regarding claim s 2 and 16: W herein the subpart further comprises a displacement sensor 4:8-13 configured to monitor a displacement of the machining bit along an axis of a specified hole. Regarding claim 15: Clark discloses a method for machining a specified hole with a Cobot system, the method comprising: localizing a workpiece 50 ; localizing a specified hole on the workpiece Fig 7 ; aligning a machining bit 70 of a machining end-effector 20, 25, 30, 40 with an axis of the specified hole Fig 7 ; passively aligning the machining bit using a linear guidance mechanism 354, 356, 358, 360, 362, 364, 366 of the machining end-effector no recitation of a motor or other such means for causing the movement of the mechanism, Abstract, 6:57-7:42 ; advancing the machining bit towards the specified hole 8:35-9:20 ; and completing at least one machining process to the specified hole 10:1-8 . Regarding claim 17: W herein passively aligning the machining bit comprises passively aligning the machining bit by generating a reaction torque that utilizes a compliance of the Cobot system Abstract, 6:57-7:42 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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) 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Kuchta (US 2003/0082019). Regarding claim s 3 and 18: Clark discloses at the linear guiding mechanism comprises: two compression spring-loaded rods 358, 366 ; linear sliders 356 ; and a contact plate 40 . Clark discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the liner guiding mechanism including four compression spring-loaded rods and linear bearings. Kuchta discloses a machining system similar to that of Clark. The system includes an alignment mechanism that includes compression springs 64 , linear bearings 80, 81 – [0021] , liner sliders 60 , and a contact plate 62 . It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Clark so that the linear guiding mechanism includes linear bearings, as taught by Kuchta , in order to have provided lateral support for the rods or sliders [0021] . Clark, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the linear guiding mechanism including four compression spring-loaded rods. However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Clark to include four compression spring-loaded rods, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. , 193 USPQ 8. This would have achieved the predictable results of increasing the degree of flexibility and alignment of the machining bit that was possible. Regarding claim s 4 and 19: W herein the four compression spring-loaded rods are configured to produce the reaction torque by generating an unbalanced force distribution in the machining end-effector Abstract, 6:57-7:42 of Clark . Regarding claim 7: W herein the machining end-effector is configured to complete at least one machining process to a specified hole Abstract, 2:23-40 of Clark and wherein the four compression spring-loaded rods are configured to return the subpart to a home position after completing the at least one machining process return the plate 40 to a position perpendicular to the drill . Regarding claim 8: W herein the at least one machining process comprises single-side deburring, double-side deburring, boring, counterboring, tapping, soft facing, countersinking, or reaming Abstract, 2:23-40 of Clark . Regarding claim 10: W herein the motor is configured to rotate the machining bit with a rotation speed set to a predefined rotation speed the motor rotates the bit at a speed, any rotation of the bit by the motor would be considered a “predefined rotation speed” without further definition or limitation in the claim and the Cobot system is configured to achieve specific machining profiles on both sides of the specified hole by advancing and retreating the machining bit 10:1-27 – drilling through both sides of the working piece . Regarding claim 11: W herein the machining end-effector further comprises a rotational speed sensor 40 – 3:3-23 of McCormick (US 5,349,337, incorporated by reference by Clark in 3:43-49) embedded in the motor, the rotational speed sensor configured to monitor the rotation speed of the machining bit. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Kuchta as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Fischer et al. (US 4,154,311, Fischer). Clark, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the contact plate compris ing a rubber pad configured to minimize slippage and prevent corrosion due to metal-metal contact. Fischer discloses a drilling system that includes an abutment member 11 for aligning the drill bit. The abutment member includes a friction-enhancing layer such as rubber Abstract, 3:33-56, 4:24-31 . It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Clark so that the contact plate included a rubber pad, as taught by Fischer, in order to have provided a friction-enhancing contact surface with the working piece Abstract, 3:33-56, 4:24-31 . This contact would be considered to minimize slippage and prevent corrosion due to metal-to-metal contact as it eliminates metal-to-metal contact. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Kuchta as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Colantonio et al. (US 12,202,128, Colan). Clark, as modified, discloses that the contact plate comprises a vacuum suction cup 85 – Fig 6 . Clark, as modified, fails to disclose that the vacuum suction cup includes with anti-slip treatment configured to minimize slippage and prevent corrosion due to metal-metal contact. Colan discloses a Cobot system that includes a vacuum suction cup 400 . The suction cup is disclosed as having a layer of elastomeric material such as rubber 10:1-51 . It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Clark so that the vacuum suction cup included a layer of elastomeric material, as taught by Colan, in order to have improved the contact between the suction cup and working piece 10:1-51 . The layer of elastomeric material would have been considered an anti-slip treatment and would have prevented corrosion due to metal-to-metal contact as metal-to-metal contact would have been eliminated. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Gombolay et al. (US 2023/00186122, Gombolay ). Clark discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the main part further comprises a camera configured to align the machining end-effector with a specified hole. Gombolay discloses a Cobot system that includes a camera for gathering data regarding the workpiece and where holes should be formed so that the machining bit can be aligned with the proper location [0007], [0022] . It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Clark so that the main part included a camera to align the machining end-effector with a specified hole, as taught by Gombolay , in order to have been able to automate the machining operation [0002]-[0005] . Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Fischer. Clark discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the contact plate comprising a rubber pad configured to minimize slippage and prevent corrosion due to metal-metal contact. Fischer discloses a drilling system that includes an abutment member 11 for aligning the drill bit. The abutment member includes a friction-enhancing layer such as rubber Abstract, 3:33-56, 4:24-31 . It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Clark so that the contact plate included a rubber pad, as taught by Fischer, in order to have provided a friction-enhancing contact surface with the working piece Abstract, 3:33-56, 4:24-31 . This contact would be considered to minimize slippage and prevent corrosion due to metal-to-metal contact as it eliminates metal-to-metal contact. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 12: Clark discloses that the Cobot system includes joints 26 – see McCormick et al. (US 4,611,377, incorporated by reference by Clark in 3:43-49) that include sensors for measuring the displacement of the machining bit 222 of McCormick . Clark fails to disclose that the displacement is monitored via torques measured at the joints. Clark, and the prior art of record, discloses separate displacement and torque measurements. As such, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a Cobot system that includes joints configured to monitor a displacement of the machining bit along the axis of a specified hole via torques measured at the joints as recited in the claimed combination. Regarding claim s 13 and 14: These claims are considered allowable due to their dependence on claim 12. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JENNIFER H GAY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7029 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Thursday, 6-3:30 and every other Friday 6-11 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Anita Y Coupe can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3614 . 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. /JENNIFER H GAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 JHG 4/2/2026