DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to the amendment filed 13 March 2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, and 16-23 are pending. Claims 1, 7, and 17 are independent claims. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 14, and 16-18 are amended. Claims 2, 6, and 15 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are new.
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 .
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 8-13) that the cited references do not teach the newly amended claims which specify travel over the curved part, as well as position sensors. Accordingly, a new basis of rejection is further presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 22 is an exact copy of newly amended claim 16. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 3-5, 16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 2019/0061091 A1) hereinafter known as Schmitz in view of Such (US 2021/0197443 A1) hereinafter known as Such.
Regarding independent claim 1, Schmitz teaches:
A system for surface machining of a curved part, the system including: a chassis configured to travel over the curved part; (Schmitz: Fig. 1 and ¶[0020]; Schmitz teaches a cylindrical tank 34 with a device 20 for grinding operations. Schmitz teaches a cylindrical tank, which is curved.)
a first roller and a second roller, wherein the first and second rollers are each coupled to the chassis and configured to contact a surface of the curved part as the chassis travels over the curved part; (Schmitz: Fig. 1 and ¶[0027]; Schmitz teaches wheels 38 on each side of the tool 52, which travel over the cylindrical tank.)
a cutting tool coupled to the chassis and disposed between the first and second rollers; (Schmitz: Fig. 1 and ¶[0039]-¶[0040]; Schmitz teaches a grinder 52, positioned between the wheels 38. The grinder is interpreted as a cutting tool.)
...
...
An embodiment of Schmitz does not explicitly teach but another embodiment teaches:
one or more position sensors configured to determine a location of the chassis and the cutting tool relative to the curved part; and (Schmitz: ¶[0049]-¶[0050]; Schmitz teaches distance sensors 72 to help control the use of the grinder 52 based on the contour of the surface.)
an actuator configured to adjust a distance between the cutting tool and the chassis based on a local radius of curvature at the location of the cutting tool ... . (Schmitz: Fig. 1 and ¶[0040]-¶[0042]; Schmitz teaches the support assembly 50 has a linear actuator 48 that can move the grinder 52 toward or away from the interior wall 34.)
Schmitz is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to processing guiding a cutting tool on a curved surface. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine an embodiment which teaches a cutting tool which positioned between two wheels on a curved surface with further an embodiment with the cutting tool having an adjustable distance in a radial direction. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow to controllably move the grinder, as suggested by Schmitz: ¶[0040].
Schmitz does not explicitly teach but Such teaches:
... determined by the position sensors. (Such: ¶[0258]; Such teaches position sensors to detect the position of the sensing roller to further determine the force to apply.)
Such is analogous to the present invention, since it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. following a contoured surface. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a cutting tool which positioned between two wheels on a curved surface and using a linear actuator to maintain contact as taught in Schmitz with using position sensors to determine the actuation as taught in Such. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Schmitz to include teachings of Such because the combination would allow determining the force to apply, as suggested by Such: ¶[0258].
Regarding claim 3, Schmitz in view of Such further teaches the system of claim 1.
Schmitz further teaches:
wherein the cutting tool is disposed at a midpoint between the first and second rollers. (Schmitz: Fig. 1 and ¶[0039]-¶[0040]; Schmitz teaches a grinder 52, positioned between the wheels 38.)
Regarding claim 4, Schmitz in view of Such further teaches the system of claim 1.
Schmitz further teaches:
wherein the distance between the cutting tool and the chassis is configured to be adjustable in a direction normal to the surface of the curved part. (Schmitz: Fig. 1 and ¶[0040]-¶[0042]; Schmitz teaches the support assembly 50 has a linear actuator 48 that can move the grinder 52 toward or away from the interior wall 34.)
Regarding claim 5, Schmitz in view of Such further teaches the system of claim 1.
Schmitz further teaches:
wherein the distance between the cutting tool and the chassis is configured to be automatically adjusted. (Schmitz: Fig. 1 and ¶[0028] and ¶0035]; Schmitz teaches the interior surface 34 exhibiting varying geometries, i.e. variations in from perfectly circular or oval geometry). Further, ¶[0040]-¶[0042] teach the support assembly 50 has a linear actuator 48 that can maintain contact between the grinder and the interior wall.)
Regarding claim 16, Schmitz in view of Such further teaches the system of claim 1.
Such further teaches:
wherein the one or more position sensors are external to and separate from the chassis. (The instant specification defines position sensors as being located external and separate from the chassis, such as disposed at a location in the surrounding workspace. Accordingly, Such: ¶[0181]-¶[0182]; Such teaches position sensors, i.e. encoders, which sense position of rollers. Such encoders may be positioned on the back of each motor that are used to control position of the contact and/or the chassis.)
Regarding claim 21, Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such further teaches the system of claim 1.
Schmitz further teaches:
wherein the distance between the cutting tool and the chassis is a first distance, further comprising a sensor system configured to determine a second distance of at least one of the first and second rollers from at least one reference point, and wherein the first distance is adjusted based on the second distance. (Schmitz: Fig. 1 and ¶[0028] and ¶0035]; Schmitz teaches the interior surface 34 exhibiting varying geometries, i.e. variations in from perfectly circular or oval geometry). Further, ¶[0040]-¶[0042] teach the support assembly 50 has a linear actuator 48 that can maintain contact between the grinder and the interior wall.)
Regarding claim 22, Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such further teaches the system of claim 1.
Such further teaches:
wherein the one or more position sensors are external to and separate from the chassis. (The instant specification defines position sensors as being located external and separate from the chassis, such as disposed at a location in the surrounding workspace. Accordingly, Such: ¶[0181]-¶[0182]; Such teaches position sensors, i.e. encoders, which sense position of rollers. Such encoders may be positioned on the back of each motor that are used to control position of the contact and/or the chassis.)
Claims 7-10, 12-14, 17, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (US 5,921,729 A) hereinafter known as Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such.
Regarding independent claim 7, Kikuchi teaches:
a C-shaped chassis configured to wrap around an edge of the part ..., such that a first portion of the chassis is disposed on a first surface of the part and a second portion of the chassis is disposed on a second surface of the part, the second surface being a reverse side of the first surface; (Kikuchi: Fig. 1; Kikuchi teaches a machining system which grasps a workpiece on both sides.)
a first roller and a second roller each coupled to the first portion of the chassis and configured to contact the first surface ...; (Kikuchi: Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 42-56; Kikuchi teaches rollers 45, 47, 35, and 37 which are guiding the workpiece.)
a third roller and a fourth roller each coupled to the second portion of the chassis and configured to contact the second surface; (Kikuchi: Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 1-15; Kikuchi teaches rollers 45, 47, 35, and 37 which are guiding the workpiece.)
a cutting tool disposed between the first and second rollers;
...
...
and coupled to the first portion of the chassis via an actuator, wherein the system is configured such that a distance between the cutting tool and the first portion of the chassis is adjustable using the actuator. (Kikuchi: Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 1-11; Kikuchi teaches cutting tools 15 and 17, which are coupled to upper spindle head 7 and lower spindle head 9. The upper and lower spindle heads are driven vertically by independent z-axis feed mechanisms, such as a servomotor.)
Schmitz does not explicitly teach but Schmitz teaches:
one or more position sensors configured to determine a location of the chassis and the cutting tool relative to the part; and (Schmitz: ¶[0049]-¶[0050]; Schmitz teaches distance sensors 72 to help control the use of the grinder 52 based on the contour of the surface.)
an actuator coupling the cutting tool to the first portion of the chassis and the actuator configured to adjust a distance between the cutting tool and the first portion the chassis based on a local radius of curvature at the location of the cutting tool .... (Schmitz: Fig. 1 and ¶[0040]-¶[0042]; Schmitz teaches the support assembly 50 has a linear actuator 48 that can move the grinder 52 toward or away from the interior wall 34.)
Schmitz is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to processing guiding a cutting tool on a curved surface. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a C-shaped chassis used for cutting as taught in Kikuchi with using an actuator to adjust the distance between the cutting tool and the chassis as taught in Schmitz. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow for to controllably move the grinder, as suggested by Schmitz: ¶[0040].
Kikuchi in view of Schmitz does not explicitly teach but Such teaches:
... and configured to travel over the part ... (Such: Figs. 6B-7 and ¶[0198]; Such teaches traveling over the part.)
... as the chassis travels over the part; (Such: Figs. 6B-7 and ¶[0198]; Such teaches traveling over the part.)
.. determined by the position sensors. (Such: ¶[0258]; Such teaches position sensors to detect the position of the sensing roller to further determine the force to apply.)
Such is analogous to the present invention, since it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. following a contoured surface. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a cutting tool for a curved surface as taught in Kikuchi in view of Schmitz with using position sensors to determine the actuation and further traveling over the surface as taught in Such. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Schmitz to include teachings of Such because the combination would allow determining the force to apply, as suggested by Such: ¶[0258].
Regarding claim 8, Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such further teaches the system of claim 7.
Kikuchi further teaches:
wherein the part is a curved part, such that the first surface is an inner surface of the curved part and the second surface is an outer surface of the curved part. (Kikuchi: Fig. 1; Kikuchi teaches defining X, Y, and Z axes in Fig. 1 and showing a curvature in the workpiece.)
Regarding claim 9, Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such further teaches the system of claim 7.
Such further teaches:
further comprising a robotic arm coupled to the chassis, wherein the robotic arm is configured to control a position of the chassis relative to the part. (Such: Figs. 6B-7 and ¶[0166] and ¶[0198]; Such teaches the rollers traveling over the part which are attached to a robotic arm.)
Regarding claim 10, Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such further teaches the system of claim 7.
Kikuchi further teaches:
wherein the cutting tool is a first cutting tool and the actuator is a first actuator, the system further comprising: a second cutting tool disposed between the third and fourth rollers and coupled to the second portion of the chassis via a second actuator, such that a distance between the second cutting tool and the second portion of the chassis is adjustable. (Kikuchi: Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 1-11 and lines 22-26; Kikuchi teaches cutting tools 15 and 17, which are coupled to upper spindle head 7 and lower spindle head 9. The upper and lower spindle heads are driven vertically by independent z-axis feed mechanisms, e.g. independent servomotors.)
Regarding claim 12, Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such further teaches the system of claim 7.
Kikuchi further teaches:
wherein the cutting tool is disposed at a midpoint between the first and second rollers. (Kikuchi: Fig. 2; Kikuchi teaches disposing the cutting tools 15 and 17 between the rollers 45, 47, 35, and 37.)
Regarding claim 13, Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such further teaches the system of claim 7.
Kikuchi further teaches:
wherein the distance between the cutting tool and the first portion of the chassis is configured to be adjustable in a direction normal to the first surface of the part. (Kikuchi: Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 1-11; Kikuchi teaches cutting tools 15 and 17, which are coupled to upper spindle head 7 and lower spindle head 9. The upper and lower spindle heads are driven vertically by independent z-axis feed mechanisms, such as a servomotor.)
Regarding claim 14, Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such further teaches the system of claim 7.
Schmitz further teaches:
wherein the distance between the cutting tool and the chassis is configured to be automatically adjusted. (Schmitz: Fig. 1 and ¶[0028] and ¶0035]; Schmitz teaches the interior surface 34 exhibiting varying geometries, i.e. variations in from perfectly circular or oval geometry). Further, ¶[0040]-¶[0042] teach the support assembly 50 has a linear actuator 48 that can maintain contact between the grinder and the interior wall.)
Regarding claims 17-18, these claims recite a method that performs the function of the system of claims 7-10; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 23, Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such further teaches the method of claim 17.
Schmitz further teaches:
wherein the distance between the cutting tool and the chassis is a first distance, further comprising adjusting a radius of curvature by adjusting the first distance and adjusting a second distance between the two rollers. (Schmitz: Fig. 1 and ¶[0040]-¶[0042]; Schmitz teaches the support assembly 50 has a linear actuator 48 that can move the grinder 52 toward or away from the interior wall 34.)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such in view of Furusawa (US 2024/0335920 A1) hereinafter known as Furusawa.
Regarding claim 11, Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such further teaches the system of claim 7.
Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such does not explicitly teach but Furusawa teaches:
further comprising: a fifth roller coupled to the second portion of the chassis and disposed between the third and fourth rollers, such that the fifth roller is configured to contact the second surface. (Furusawa: Fig. 2; Furusawa teaches multiple rollers to guide the material.)
Furusawa is analogous to the present invention, since it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. guiding a workpiece using rollers. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a C-shaped chassis for cutting a workpiece that has two rollers on each side of the material as taught in Kikuchi with an extra roller on one side of the material as taught in Furusawa. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Kikuchi to include teachings of Furusawa because the combination would allow using rollers to transfer the material in the predetermined direction, as suggested by Furusawa: ¶[0038].
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such in view of Madden (US 2023/0139916 A1) hereinafter known as Madden.
Regarding claim 19, Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such teaches the method of claim 17.
Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such does not explicitly teach but Madden teaches:
the method further comprising: measuring a force or displacement imparted by a surface irregularity of the curved part. (Madden: ¶[0011], ¶[0019], ¶[0030]-¶[0031], ¶[0098]; Madden teaches measuring properties, such as force and displacement, of a region of contact between the smart roller and a target surface.)
Madden is analogous to the present invention, since it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. measuring surfaces using rollers. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a method for surface machining using rollers as taught in Schmitz with the rollers being able to measure forces and displacement imparted by a surface as taught in Madden. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Schmitz to include teachings of Madden because the combination would allow measuring properties of a region of contact, as suggested by Madden: ¶[0011].
Regarding claim 20, Kikuchi in view of Schmitz in view of Such in view of Madden teaches the method of claim 19.
Madden further teaches:
wherein measuring the force is performed using one or more load cells coupled to at least one of the two rollers; and wherein measuring the displacement is performed using one or more encoders coupled to at least one of the two rollers. (Madden: ¶[0011], ¶[0019], ¶[0030]-¶[0031], ¶[0098]; Madden teaches measuring properties, such as force and displacement, of a region of contact between the smart roller and a target surface using a variety of sensors.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights