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 Objections
Claims 9 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 9, the claim refers to “the end effector” which has not been previously defined.
As per claim 14, the claim refers to “the optical sensor” which has not been previously defined.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 8, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 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.
As per claim 5, the claims refers to “the second surface contour” which has not been previously defined. The claim is rendered indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim should be dependent on claim 2 instead.
As per claim 8, the claim is dependent upon claim 1 but refers to the second toolpath and the second processing cycle which has not been previously defined. This renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted to be dependent on claim 2 in which the second toolpath and the second processing cycle is defined.
As per claims 11-12, 15, and 17-19, the claims refer to either “the second toolpath” or “the second processing cycle” which have not been previously defined. This renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether the claim should be depend on claim 10 instead since they are numbered after claim 10. For the purposes of examination they will be interpreted to be dependent on claim 10. Claim 13 is also rejected for being dependent upon claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney (US 2012/0220194) in view of Crampton (US 2005/0166413) in view of Zhao (US 2021/0220993).
As per claim 1, Maloney teaches a method comprising:
accessing a target model representing a workpiece (see at least para. 34-36 for CAD model for the part);
generating a toolpath (see at least para. 40 for generating path for surface finishing of a workpiece);
during a processing cycle:
accessing a first sequence of force values output by a force sensor coupled to an abrasive head (see at least para. 42 and 67 for using force sensor to measure actual contact force between robotic surface finishing tool and surface of the work piece);
navigating the abrasive head across the first surface contour on the workpiece according to the first toolpath to remove material from the first surface contour and to reduce the first difference (see at least para. 47 and 53-55 for controlling a sanding/polishing tool using a motion path); and
based on the first sequence of force values, deviating the abrasive head from the first toolpath to maintain forces of the abrasive head on the workpiece proximal a first target force (see at least para. 42 for adjusting position of the robot to follow a target contact force profile).
Maloney is silent regarding, but Crampton teaches:
navigating a probe into contact with the workpiece at a set of probe locations on the workpiece (see at least para. 426 for measurement is carried out by contact probe; see at least para. 439 for measuring surface of object);
detecting a first set of positions of the probe in contact with the workpiece at the set of probe locations (see at least para. 439 for measuring surface of object);
interpreting a first surface contour of the workpiece based on the first set of positions (see at least para. 440 for referencing measured surface to CAD model of object);
detecting a first difference between the first surface contour and a first target contour, corresponding to the first surface contour, defined in the target model (see at least Zhao US 2021/0220993 para. 51 for determining dimensional difference between a measured model and an ideal model; see at least para. 441 for generating error map based on comparison of measured surface with CAD model).
Crampton also teaches accessing a target model representing a workpiece (see at least para. 440 for referencing CAD model of object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Maloney with the features of Crampton because it enables using contact or non-contact problem for accurately measuring an object in order to perform a finishing operation.
Modifed Maloney is silent regarding, but Zhao teaches:
in response to the first difference exceeding a threshold difference, generating a first toolpath spanning the first surface contour (Zhao is not explicit regarding what the threshold difference is but it is implied there is one since a motion path is adjusted when there is a difference between the measurements and the ideal model in para. 49-51).
Zhao also teaches detecting a first difference between the first surface contour and a first target contour, corresponding to the first surface contour, defined in the target model (see at least para. 51 for determining dimensional difference between a measured model and an ideal model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Maloney with the features of Zhao because it enables the robot to automatically adjust a processing path according to the differences between actual measurements of a part and an ideal model of the part to create consistent finished products regardless of how different each unfinished product is.
As per claim 7, Maloney further teaches:
wherein generating the first toolpath comprises:
defining the first toolpath comprising an ordered sequence of keypoints located on the first target surface, corresponding to the first surface contour, defined in the target model of the workpiece; and
for each keypoint in the ordered sequence of keypoints:
calculating a vector normal to the target model at a location of the keypoint on the target model; and
storing the vector in the keypoint; and
wherein navigating the abrasive head across the workpiece according to the first toolpath during the first processing cycle comprises, during the first processing cycle:
for a first keypoint in the ordered sequence of keypoints:
locating the abrasive head at a first position intersecting the first keypoint;
aligning an axis of the abrasive head to a first vector contained in the first keypoint; and
driving the abrasive head, coaxial with the first vector, toward the workpiece to match force values, in the first sequence of force values read from the force sensor, to the first target force (see at least para. 67 for measuring an actual force vector and comparing it to a target variable force vector associated with an initial motion path; see also para. 70 for normal direction displacement; see also para. 44 for actual and target forces are defined in a direction normal to the surface).
As per claim 20, Maloney teaches a method comprising:
accessing a target model representing a workpiece (see at least para. 34-36 for CAD model for the part); and
during a processing cycle:
accessing a first sequence of force values output by a force sensor coupled to an abrasive head (see at least para. 42 and 67 for using force sensor to measure actual contact force between robotic surface finishing tool and surface of the work piece);
navigating the abrasive head across the first surface contour on the workpiece according to the first toolpath to remove material from the first surface contour and to reduce the first difference (see at least para. 47 and 53-55 for controlling a sanding/polishing tool using a motion path); and
based on the first sequence of force values, deviating the abrasive head from the first toolpath to maintain forces of the abrasive head on the workpiece proximal a first target force (see at least para. 42 for adjusting position of the robot to follow a target contact force profile).
Maloney is silent regarding, but Crampton teaches:
accessing a first set of positions of a probe in contact with the workpiece at a set of probe locations (see at least para. 426 for measurement is carried out by contact probe; see at least para. 439 for measuring surface of object);
interpreting a first surface contour of the workpiece based on the first set of positions (see at least para. 440 for referencing measured surface to CAD model of object);
detecting a first difference between the first surface contour and a first target contour, corresponding to the first surface contour, defined in the target model (see at least Zhao US 2021/0220993 para. 51 for determining dimensional difference between a measured model and an ideal model; see at least para. 441 for generating error map based on comparison of measured surface with CAD model).
Crampton also teaches accessing a target model representing a workpiece (see at least para. 440 for referencing CAD model of object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Maloney with the features of Crampton because it enables using contact or non-contact problem for accurately measuring an object in order to perform a finishing operation.
Modifed Maloney is silent regarding, but Zhao teaches:
based on the first difference, generating a first toolpath spanning the first surface contour (a motion path is adjusted when there is a difference between the measurements and the ideal model in para. 49-51).
Zhao also teaches detecting a first difference between the first surface contour and a first target contour, corresponding to the first surface contour, defined in the target model (see at least para. 51 for determining dimensional difference between a measured model and an ideal model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Maloney with the features of Zhao because it enables the robot to automatically adjust a processing path according to the differences between actual measurements of a part and an ideal model of the part to create consistent finished products regardless of how different each unfinished product is.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney (US 2012/0220194) in view of Crampton (US 2005/0166413) in view of Zhao (US 2021/0220993) and further in view of Chankaramangalam (US 2021/0260720).
As per claim 9, Maloney further teaches:
wherein navigating the abrasive head across the first surface contour during the first processing cycle comprises navigating the abrasive head across the first surface contour via a robotic arm (see at least robot arm 306):
comprising a set of actuators (implied as the robot can can move the sanding/polishing tool 502); and
supporting the abrasive head (see Fig. 5 for robot arm supporting sanding/polishing tool), the abrasive head comprising an orbital sander with conformable pad).
Modified Maloney is silent regarding, but Chankaramangalam teaches the sanding/polishing tool being an orbital sander (see at least para. 23 for Active Orbital Kit) and wherein accessing the first sequence of force values comprises accessing the first sequence of force values output by the force sensor arranged between the end effector and the abrasive head (see at least para. 24 for force adjust 40 includes force sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Maloney with Chankaramangalam to provide one of many known means for performing a sanding operation and one of many known means for determining a contact force.
As per claim 16, Maloney further teaches generating the first toolpath based on a geometry of the workpiece represented in the target model (see at least para. 62 for creating the nominal motion path using CAD model); and
wherein navigating the abrasive head across the workpiece during the first processing cycle comprises, during the first processing cycle:
accessing a first sequence of force values output by the force sensor (see at least para. 42 and 67 for using force sensor to measure actual contact force between robotic surface finishing tool and surface of the work piece); and
via a set of actuators coupled to the abrasive head a set of actuators (implied as the robot can move the sanding/polishing tool 502; see Fig. 5 for robot arm supporting sanding/polishing tool), the abrasive head comprising an orbital sander with conformable pad):;
navigating the abrasive head across the workpiece according to the first toolpath (see at least para. 47 and 53-55 for controlling a sanding/polishing tool using a motion path); and
based on the first sequence of force values, deviating the abrasive head from the first toolpath to maintain forces of the abrasive head on the workpiece proximal a first target force (see at least para. 42 for adjusting position of the robot to follow a target contact force profile).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,883,961 in view of Maloney (US 2012/0220194).
As per claim 1 and 20, claim 2 of patent ‘961 teaches all the limitations except for deviating the abrasive head from the first toolpath to maintain forces of the abrasive head on the workpiece proximal a first target force during the processing cycle.
However, Maloney teaches deviating the abrasive head from the first toolpath to maintain forces of the abrasive head on the workpiece proximal a first target force during the processing cycle (see at least para. 42 for adjusting position of the robot to follow a target contact force profile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify patent ‘961 with Maloney because it enables the robot to automatically adjust the position of the sanding device to follow a target contact force profile to provide a more constant pressure which results in a more uniform surface finish.
As per claim 2, modified claim 2 of patent ‘961 teaches all the limitations.
As per claim 4, claim 3 in view of modified claim 2 of patent ‘961 teaches all the limitations.
As per claim 10, claim 1 of patent ‘961 teaches all the limitations except for deviating the abrasive head from the first toolpath to maintain forces of the abrasive head on the workpiece proximal a first target force during a second processing cycle.
As per claim 10, claim 4 of patent ‘961 teaches all the limitations except for deviating the abrasive head from the first toolpath to maintain forces of the abrasive head on the workpiece proximal a first target force during a second processing cycle.
However, Maloney teaches deviating the abrasive head from the first toolpath to maintain forces of the abrasive head on the workpiece proximal a first target force during the processing cycle (see at least para. 42 for adjusting position of the robot to follow a target contact force profile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify patent ‘961 with Maloney because it enables the robot to automatically adjust the position of the sanding device to follow a target contact force profile to provide a more constant pressure which results in a more uniform surface finish.
As per claim 11, claim 6 in view of modified claim 1 of patent ‘961 teaches all the limitations.
As per claim 12, claim 5 in view of modified claim 1 of patent ‘961 teaches all the limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619