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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2023 and 08/12/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there are 19 figures have not been thoroughly checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in these figures. For examples, in Figure 11, it is unclear what the references 1100, 1101, 1103, 1105 are pointing to. Similar to Figures 13-14, it is unclear what the references 1102, 1300 are pointing to; it is unclear what the references 1600, 1602 are pointing to in Figure 16. 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 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims are 1-6,11-12,15-16,19,21,23,26-29,33,35 and 73 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.
The preamble of Claim 1 “A method of performing an OPERATION on a workpiece” that is unclear since the claim body does not recite any OPERATION. There is nothing to operate on the workpiece (until later claims 2, 4…), as claim 1 is written, it appears claiming that “a gripper attachment grips a workpiece by vacuum” which is conflicted the preamble. If an art has a machine tool that includes a gripper and a seal for gripping a workpiece by vacuum, it meets the claimed invention (regardless the preamble), right?
Claim 1, the language “conformable” in the limitation “a conformable foam seal” is unclear since the claim is not defined structures how the foam seal can be considered as “conformable”. If an art has a foam seal, it meets a conformable foam seal, right? As a result, the recitation of “a conformable foam seal” is indefinite because it is unclear what differences are permitted while still being considered a “conformable” foam seal. Claims 6, 11, 21, 23, 29, 35, 73.
Claim 15 “a normal orientation in relation to the desired location on the work surface of the workpiece” in the recitation is not clear. As the claim is written, it does not provide a guidance to understand what the “normal orientation” is. What is the constitution of the normal orientation? (What is NOT a normal orientation)? Claim 16 has the same issue.
The preamble of claim 73 is directed to “a gripper attachment” however, the claim body, second paragraph “configured to receive a bit clamp…a working bit” are unclear whether they are positively claimed or not. Verification is required.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-6,11-12,15-16,19, 35 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allan (WO 2004028755) in view of Foland (US 2021/0323173).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Allan teaches a method (abstract and Figures 1-5) for performing an operation on a workpiece (W), the method comprising:
moving a machine tool assembly (Figure 1) to a desired location on a work surface of the workpiece (Figure 1 and see abstract “a robotic manipulator…displace the tool in x, y, z planes”, the machine tool assembly defining a proximal end and a distal end and comprising a gripper attachment affixed to the distal end (suction pads 30 on the distal end), the gripper attachment comprising a
activating a vacuum source to draw a vacuum on the work surface through the
vacuum clamping the machine tool assembly to the work surface at the desired location in response to the vacuum drawn on the work surface (Figure 1).
However, Allan fails to discuss that the suction pads or cups are “conformable” foam seals.
Foland shows a robotic machine (Figure 1) having a gripper (108) being formable foam as discussed in para. 23.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the suction cups of Allan to have a formable foam seal or suction, as taught by Foland, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement known technique to improve similar devices for the same purpose, as per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale C.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified method of Allan teaches that the operation to be performed on the workpiece comprises at least one of drilling a hole (see Allan’s Figure 1, there is a drill bit for drilling a hole on the workpiece W).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of Allan teaches that the workpiece comprises at least one of a composite workpiece (see page 1, the last paragraph of Allan “carbon composite”).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Allan teaches that the machine tool assembly comprises at least one of a power drill assembly (20, Allan’s Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of Allan teaches that the work surface of the workpiece comprises a two-dimensional portion (see Allan’s Figure 1, the workpiece is a two-dimensional portion).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of Allan teaches that the conformable foam seal comprises at least one of an open cell foam and a closed cell foam (this is inherent limitations because open cell foam is for communicating suction force and closed cell foam is walls to form the suction holes. See the discussion of conformable foam in the art of Foland).
Regarding claim 11, the modified method of Allan teaches that the gripper attachment defines a seal vacuum compartment in fluid communication with the vacuum source and the conformable foam seal in conjunction with drawing the vacuum on the work surface (see 4 cups have 4 chambers for communicating vacuum as seen in Allan’s Figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, the modified method of Allan teaches activating the machine tool assembly and engaging a working bit of the machine tool assembly with the work surface of the workpiece at the desired location (see claim 1 and Allan’s Figure 1); and performing the operation on the work surface at the desired location using the machine tool assembly and the working bit to change the workpiece (see Allan’s Figure 1 for drilling a hole on the workpiece W).
Regarding claim 15, the modified method of Allan teaches the vacuum clamping of the machine tool assembly comprising:
positioning the machine tool assembly to a normal orientation in relation to the desired location on the work surface of the workpiece in response to the vacuum drawn on the work surface (Allan’s Figure 1); and
securing the machine tool assembly to the work surface in the normal orientation (Allan’s Figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, the modified method of Allan teaches that the machine tool assembly comprises an end effector (10, Allan’s Figure 1) attached to a robotic arm of an articulated robot (RM), and wherein the desired location comprises a predetermined location known to the articulated robot (Figure 1), and wherein the vacuum clamping of the machine tool assembly comprises: positioning of the robotic arm while the articulated robot is in a hand guiding mode (Allan’s abstract); adjusting the machine tool assembly to a normal orientation in relation to the predetermined location on the work surface; and securing the machine tool assembly to the work surface in the normal orientation (see Allan’s Abstract for displacement the tool in x, y, z plants and see page 4, the last paragraph).
Regarding claim 19, the modified method of Allan teaches that the machine tool assembly comprises a handheld machine tool assembly (see the drill spindle 20, Allan’s figure 1 and see page 5, the middle paragraph “a drill spindle 20 that is coupled to a drill feed 21…” that means the drill spindle can be decoupled to be a handheld tool), and
wherein the moving of the machine tool assembly comprises: moving the handheld machine tool assembly to the desired location on the work surface of the workpiece in response to an operator holding and positioning the handheld machine tool assembly to the desired location (Page 2, the last paragraph of Allan discusses manual and automatic operations), and
wherein the activating of the vacuum source comprises: activating the vacuum source in response to the operator turning on the vacuum source to draw the vacuum on the work surface while the operator continues holding the handheld machine tool assembly in position at the desired location (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
With regards to a manual operation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had a manual operation mode to the method of Allan, in order to allow drill a custom hole position or quickly modify a hole position.
Regarding claims 35 and 73, the modified method (device) of Allan shows all of the limitations as stated above. The machine tool assembly for performing an operation on a workpiece, comprising:
a machine tool (see claim 1) comprising: a housing (arm RM, Allan’s Figure 1) defining a first proximal end and a first distal end;
a rotational drive (10, see claim 1) disposed within the housing that selectively provides a rotational force (see the abstract “robotic…” that means any movement of the arm, it has a movement force); a drive shaft coupled to the rotational drive that selectively rotates in response to the rotational force from the rotational drive (see the discussion device 20); and
a bit clamp (23) attached to the drive shaft that rotates in response to the rotational force, the bit clamp configured to selectively receive and secure a working bit (22); and
a gripper attachment (cups 30 and see the modification above) affixed to the first distal end of the housing for the machine tool, the gripper attachment comprising: a body defining a central bore (see Allan’s figure 1 for receiving the bit) and a seal vacuum compartment (see suction cups and the modification above), the central bore along a longitudinal axis extending from a second proximal end of the body to a second distal end, the seal vacuum compartment isolated from the central bore and defining a seal vacuum port extending through the second proximal end of the body, the seal vacuum compartment further defining an opening proximate the second distal end of the body that encircles the central bore (see Allan’s Figure 4 and see all claims above), the central bore receiving the bit clamp of the machine tool at the second proximal end of the body (15) and providing a clearance fit that permits rotation of the bit clamp within the central bore;
a cover (28, 13) attached to the body over the opening of the seal vacuum compartment, the cover defining a plurality of apertures dispersed about an area of the cover over the opening to the seal vacuum compartment (suction holes of cups 30, Allan’s Figure 4); and a conformable foam seal attached to the cover over the plurality of apertures, the conformable foam seal defining a hole aligned with the central bore to provide a clearance fit for the bit clamp (see the modification and see Allan’s Figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 23, 26-28, 29, 33 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: claim 21 does not anticipate or render obvious the features of structures of a power drill, a drill bit, a bit clamp, a sleeve attached to the power drill over the bit clamp, the sleeve providing a clearance fit to permit rotation of the bit clamp, and wherein the gripper attachment defines a central bore extending from a second proximal end of the gripper attachment to a second distal end and a chip vacuum compartment in fluid communication with the central bore, the central bore receiving the sleeve of the power drill assembly, the sleeve comprising multiple openings that provide fluid paths to the chip vacuum compartment for debris resulting from the operation performed on the workpiece, and wherein the conformable foam seal defines a hole aligned with the central bore of the gripper attachment to provide a clearance fit for the sleeve, in combination with the limitations as set forth in the independent claim and any intervening claims 1 and 21, 29.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 2/18/2026