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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated December 10, 2025 filed in reply to the Non-final Rejection dated September 10, 2025.
The drawing objection in the Non-final Rejection is withdrawn in view of the replacement drawings addressing the objection.
The claim objections in the Non-final Rejection are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments addressing the objections.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the previous Non-final Rejection are maintained for the reasons given in the response below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, starting in the last paragraph of page 8 of the Amendment, none of the cited references either individually or in combination discloses, suggests or recognizes the combined structural and functional interactions required by the claims. In making this argument, in the bottom half of page 9, Applicant argues Hong’s feed separator (CN 111496073 A) depends entirely on downward gravitational flow and does not function within a horizontal tray like the one disclosed in Jaubert (FR 2881666) such that it contains no teaching of lateral tube advancement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The bottom of storage chamber 51 and material distribution inclined platform 52 in Fig. 10 of Hong are both inclined from left to right to laterally advance tubing from left to right so that tubes are fed to jaws 55. See paragraphs [0042] through [0045]. Hong uses inclined surfaces to advance tubing laterally in the same way Jaubert discloses using inclined plane 27 in Fig. 1 to advance tubing laterally such that it would have been obvious to incorporate Hong’s pneumatic feed separator mechanism 5 into Jaubert’s loading magazine 26 as stated in numbered paragraph 13 on page 5 of the Non-final Rejection.
In the section spanning from page 9 to page 10, Applicant argues Examiner’s assertion that Hong suggests pneumatic cylinders is unsupported by Hong’s explicit disclosure. Examiner agrees Hong does not explicitly disclose cylinders 54 are pneumatically operated, as was acknowledged in numbered paragraph 12 on page 5 of the Non-final Rejection. But Hong discloses other portions of Hong’s machine are pneumatically driven. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude Hong at least suggests cylinders 54 are pneumatically driven as well by Hong’s silence on the subject. Accordingly, Examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
In the first full paragraph of page 10, Applicant disparages Kidera (U.S. Patent No. 3,431,759) as “simple” and “primitive” and argues Kidera does not disclose or suggest integrating a pneumatic cylinder into a robotic bending environment with high-precision three-dimensional manipulation or coordinated tube rotation during bending. However, Kidera was not cited as teaching “high-precision three-dimensional manipulation or coordinated tube rotation during bending”. Kidera was cited as teaching it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to us pneumatics to actuate a robotic arm gripper. See numbered paragraph 15 on page 5 of the Non-final Rejection. Citation of Kidera was only necessary because Jaubert is silent regarding the type of actuation used to drive gripping clamp 16. See numbered paragraph 16 on page 5 of the Non-final Rejection. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Next, in the bottom half of page 10, Applicant argues Examiner’s reliance on Seidel (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0330775 A1) is a mischaracterization by pointing to other portions of Seidel not relied upon in Examiner’s rejection. Examiner cited paragraph [0003] as teaching it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use force/torque sensing equipment as collision detection in robotic arm manipulators. See numbered paragraph 18 on page 6 of the Non-final Rejection. Examiner takes the position paragraph [0003] of Seidel teaches it was known to use force/torque sensing equipment as collision detection in robotic arm manipulators such that it would have been obvious to employ collision detection in Jaubert’s machine as stated in numbered paragraph 19 on page 6 of the Non-final Rejection. Therefore Applicant’s arguments regarding Seidel are unpersuasive.
Next, starting at the bottom of page 11, Applicant argues Hong’s jaws 55 do not slide tubes in a horizontal direction, but instead release and retain tubes vertically. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The top of Hong’s right jaw 55 is laterally inclined in the same direction as the inclination of inclined platform 52 to perform the claimed function of the first jaw of claim 2. See “Lateral Inclination” annotation to Fig. 10 of Hong below. Therefore, Examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
987
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the last three sentences of the paragraph continued at the top of page 12, Applicant argues Examiner’s reliance on Hong for the proximity sensors claimed in claim 3 is misplaced. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds clearance holes 531 and adjusting screw 533 are configured to carry out the function of two proximity sensors as claimed. Accordingly, Examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
Next, in the first full paragraph of page 12, Applicant argues the rejection of claim 4 is improper because claim 4 requires the entire tube feeding tray move horizontally to adjust for tube length. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of claim 4. Claim 4 claims a slider used to adjust the horizontal length of the tube feeding tray to correspond to the length of the tube to be bent. Zhang teaches this aspect as explained in numbered paragraphs 27 and 28 on page 8 of the Non-final Rejection. Therefore, Examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
Next, in the first part of the last full paragraph of page 12, Applicant argues the rejection of claim 7 is improper because Schlosser (U.S. Patent No. 950,212) does not disclose or teach multi-axis rotational bending dies. However, Schlosser was not cited to teach this aspect. Schlosser was cited to teach it was known to use guide pins in the construction of bending dies of a pipe bending machine, as explained in numbered paragraphs 32 and 33 on pages 9 and 10 of the Non-final Rejection. Therefore, Applicant’s argument regarding claim 7 is unpersuasive.
Next, in the last part of the last full paragraph on page 12, Applicant argues the rejection of claim 8 is improper because Schlosser’s bearing-mounted runner 15x is designed for a hand-operated pressure die and replacing Jaubert’s jaws 8 and 12 with Schlosser’s runner 15x would defeat the clamping function of Jaubert’s jaws. Examiner does not find these arguments persuasive. The fact Schlosser discloses using hand operation is immaterial. The design of the pressure surfaces of runner 15x would not need to be changed to be employed in Jaubert. And, runner 15x is used to perform a clamping function in the same way Jaubert’s jaws 8 and 12 do with runner 15x allowing some movement of the tube while being clamped.
Next, in the paragraph spanning from page 12 to 13, Applicant argues Pickering (GB 2528892 A) does not contain the claimed architecture. However, Pickering was not cited as teaching the architecture. Jaubert discloses “movement means” in the three different dimensional spaces without specifying the nature of the movement means. See the last seven lines of page 9 through the first six lines of page 10 of the European Patent Office translation provided with the Non-final Rejection. Pickering was cited as teaching it was known to use servo motors as means to move components of bending machines such that it would have been obvious to use servo motors as Jaubert’s disclosed “movement means” as expressed in numbered paragraph 40 on page 11 of the Non-final Rejection.
Finally, in the first full paragraph of page 13, Applicant appears to argue claim 10 claims translational movement of the bend head because, as best understood by Examiner, claim 1 claims a bend head “coupled to the robotic arm assembly in an opposite direction”. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because Applicant’s bend head 230 in Fig. 1 is not “coupled to” robotic arm assembly 130 such that robotic arm assembly 130 moves bend head 230. Bend head 230 is “coupled to” robotic arm 130 by way of the base structure shown in Fig. 1 intercoupling the two together. Jaubert may reasonably be interpreted as disclosing the coupling of bend head 1 to robotic arm assembly 18 and 21 through the floor which intercouples the two together in the same way Applicant’s base structure does.
Applicant’s statements in the bottom half of page 13 are a general averment the rejections are improper. Examiner respectfully disagrees with these statements. Each claim rejection addresses each claim as claimed as explained in the maintained rejections below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent Publication No. 2 881 666 by Jaubert, hereinafter “Jaubert”, in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 111496073 A by Hong et al., hereinafter “Hong”, and U.S. Patent No. 3,431,759 to Kidera et al., hereinafter “Kidera”, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0330775 A1 by Seidel et al., hereinafter “Seidel”.
Regarding claim 1, Jaubert discloses a robotic tube bending machine (robotic tube bending machine unit of Fig. 1; line 18 of page 8) comprising:
a tube feeder unit (feeder unit loading magazine 26 in Fig. 1; line 16 of page 10) comprising:
a tube feeding tray (tray inclined plane 27 in Fig. 1; line 17 of page 10) configured to load a plurality of tubes to be bent (Fig. 1 shows loaded tubes to be bent);
a robotic arm assembly (arm assembly 18 and 21 in Fig. 1; lines 1-15 of page 10) in communication with a controller (controller central programmable management unit 32 in Fig. 1; lines 24 and 25 of page 10), wherein the robotic arm assembly comprises:
a robotic arm (arm 18 and/or 21 in Fig. 1);
a tube gripping unit (gripping clamp unit 16 in Fig. 1; lines 29 and 30 of page 9) comprising:
a gripper and at least two gripper fingers (Fig. 2 shows gripping clamp 16 has two fingers) configured to pick up each tube from the tube feeder unit by simultaneous movement of a plurality of axis of the robotic arm to reach a three-dimensional coordinate upon receiving a signal from the controller (Fig. 4a shows gripping clamp 16 picking up a tube from loading magazine 26);
a bend head coupled to the robotic arm assembly in an opposite direction (bend head 1 in Fig. 1; line 23 of page 9), wherein the bend head comprises:
a bending die configured to clamp each tube from the plurality of tubes (bending die form 2 in Figs. 2-4; lines 10 and 11 of page 9); and
a pressure die configured to apply pressure on the bending die (pressure die clamping jaws 8 and 12 on arm 4 in Fig. 2; lines 18-29 of page 9) to bend each tube in intricate three dimensional shapes by rotating the tubes at a plurality of predefined angles by maneuvering the robotic arm upon receiving a maneuvering signal from the controller (Figs. 4a-4m show gripping clamp 16 bending a tube; lines 8-10 of page 11).
Jaubert does not disclose feeder unit loading magazine 26 in Fig. 1 has a pneumatic feed separator comprising at least two jaws configured to move in a reciprocating motion to separate each tube from the plurality of tubes loaded by the tube feeding tray for sequential operation.
In the same field of robotic tube bending machines, Hong teaches an automatic all-in-one punching and pipe bending machine (Fig. 1; ¶[0002]) which uses blank feeding mechanism 5 to feed pipe blanks to tube bending device 11 by way of robotic blank transfer mechanism 6. See paragraph [0034]. Figs. 9 and 10 show blank feeding mechanism 5 has storage chamber 51 as a tube feeding tray configured to load a plurality of tubes to be bent and a feed separator comprising two jaws 55 which move in an up-and-down reciprocating motion to separate each tube from the plurality of tube for sequential operation. See paragraphs [0042] through [0045]. Hong does not specify what type of actuation drives ejection cylinders 54 in Fig. 10. However, other portions of Hong’s machine uses pneumatics to drive portions of the machine. See, e.g., paragraphs [0046] and [0047]. Hong therefore at least suggests ejection cylinders 54 in Fig. 10 would also be pneumatically driven cylinders as well.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hong’s pneumatic feed separator mechanism 5 into Jaubert’s loading magazine 26 in the same way Hong teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized apply the teaching of Hong to Jaubert’s disclosed machine would achieve the predictable result of providing improved feeding of tubing to Jaubert’s gripping clamp 16.
Jaubert is silent regarding the type of actuation used to drive gripping clamp 16.
In the same field of robotic tube bending machines, Kidera teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use pneumatics to actuate a robotic arm gripper with at least two gripper fingers. See Figs. 3-6 showing robotic arm manipulator 12 with gripping fingers 28 and 29 pneumatically actuated by pneumatic cylinder 31. Reference column 2, lines 45-67.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use pneumatics to actuate the gripping fingers of Jaubert’s gripping clamp unit 16 in the same way Kidera teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying Kidera’s teaching to Jaubert’s machine would have achieved the predictable result of Jaubert’s machine using a pneumatically-actuated tube gripping unit.
Lastly, Jaubert does not disclose the robotic arm assembly comprises a collision detection module configured to:
detect presence of the robotic arm across a non- intended area by measuring force of the robotic arm; and
deactivate the robotic arm based on a control signal received from the controller upon detecting a condition of collision.
In the same field of robotic arm manipulators, Seidel teaches in was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use force/torque sensing equipment as collision detection in robotic arm manipulators. See paragraph [0003].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ collision detection force sensing sensors in Jaubert’s machine in the same way Seidel teaches. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized applying the teaching of Seidel to Jaubert’s machine would achieve the predictable result of Jaubert’s machine with a collision detection module.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art reference combination of Jaubert in view of Hong, Kidera and Seidel renders the machine of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Hong further teaches wherein the at least two jaws (ejection plate jaws 55 in Fig. 10), comprises a first jaw configured to enable sliding motion for a successive tube from the plurality of tubes into an alighting area (the right jaw 55 in Fig. 10 is configured to enable sliding motion of a tube from the plurality of tubes in storage chamber 51 into alighting area V-shaped placement rack 53) and a second jaw configured to stop a preceding tube from the plurality of tubes in the tube feeding tray by performing a reciprocating motion (the left jaw 55 in Fig. 10 is configured to stop tubes from storage chamber 51 by reciprocating up and down).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art reference combination of Jaubert in view of Hong, Kidera and Seidel renders the machine of claim 2 unpatentable as explained above. Hong further teaches the alighting area comprises:
at least two proximity sensors, configured to sense position of each tube in the alighting area (proximity sensor clearance holes 531 and adjusting screw 533 in Fig. 9 are configured to sense position of each tube in alighting area V-shaped placement rack 53);
a pushing rod coupled on the tube feeder unit, wherein the pushing rod is configured to align each tube at a predefined position in the alighting area by pushing each tube upon detection of misalignment sensed by the at least two proximity sensors (pushing rod positioning cylinder 532 in Fig. 9 aligns the tube in V-shaped rack 53 with holes 531 and adjusting screw 533).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Jaubert in view of Hong, Kidera and Seidel renders the machine of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Seidel’s teaching of force/torque equipment as collision detection in robotic arm manipulators further teaches robotic flange adapter 60 in Fig. 7 configured to connect sensors, such as collision sensors, to robot wrist 48. See paragraph [0037].
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Jaubert in view of Hong, Kidera and Seidel renders the machine of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Jaubert further discloses the at least two gripper fingers are configured to rotate each tube upon receiving a rotation signal from the controller at a predetermined angle by simultaneous movement of the plurality of axis. Page 9, line 29-33 disclose the gripping fingers of gripping clamp 16 in Fig. 1 rotate the tube about X, Y and Z axes as directed by program controller 32.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art reference combination of Jaubert in view of Hong, Kidera and Seidel renders the machine of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Jaubert further discloses the robotic arm assembly is coupled to a linear motion guide rails via a motor to perform movement along a linear feed axis. Robotic arm assembly 18 and 21 in Fig. 1 is coupled to linear motion guide rails 19 and 20 to move along linear feed axis X.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaubert in view of Hong, Kidera and Seidel and further in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 110038974 A by Zhang et al., hereinafter “Zhang”.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Jaubert in view of Hong, Kidera and Seidel renders the machine of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However the combination does not teach the tube feeding tray is configured to move along a horizontal axis using a slider to adjust length corresponding to each tube to be bent.
In the same field of automatic bending devices, Zhang teaches an automatic bending device (Fig. 1; ¶[0042]) which uses tube feeder unit silo 10 to load tubes to be bent 50 as shown in Figs. 4-6. See paragraph [0045] and [0046]. Fig. 3 shows silo 10 includes partition 14 which may be horizontally slid along slide rod 15 to accommodate different lengths of tubes to be bent. See paragraph [00047].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a slidable partition on Jaubert’s loading magazine 26 to accommodate tubes of different length in the same way Zhang teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Zhang to the machine of Jaubert would achieve the predictable result of Jaubert’s machine with a slidable partition on loading magazine 26.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaubert in view of Hong, Kidera and Seidel and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 950,212 to Schlosser et al., hereinafter “Schlosser”.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Jaubert in view of Hong, Kidera and Seidel renders the machine of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Jaubert further discloses bending die form 2 in Figs. 2 and 3 comprises a die clamping nut (see “Nut” annotation to Fig. 3 of Jaubert reproduced below), a die holding pin (see “Pin” annotation below), an upper bending die (10a in Fig. 2), a lower bending die (11a in Fig. 2), a die holding sub base (4 in Fig. 2), a main center shaft (the shaft of motor 7 on which bending die form 2 is mounted) and a die holding main base (3 in Fig. 2). See the paragraph spanning from the bottom of page 8 to the top of page 9.
PNG
media_image2.png
1141
1489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jaubert does not disclose bending die form 2 comprises at least two bending die guide pins.
In the same field of pipe bending machines, Schlosser teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use at least two bending die guide pins in the construction of the bending die of a pipe bending machine. Fig. 3 shows guide pin keys 13 are used as part of the construction of die 7. See page 1, line 56-70.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use guide pins in the construction of Jaubert’s bending die form 2 in the same way Schlosser teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Schlosser to the machine of Jaubert would achieve the predictable result of using guide pins to construct the bending die of Jaubert’s machine.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art reference combination of Jaubert in view of Hong, Kidera and Seidel renders the machine of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Jaubert further discloses pressure die tool clamping jaws 8 and 12 in Fig. 3 held by pressure die tool carrier arm 4 in Fig. 2. But Jaubert does not disclose the pressure die comprises runners with bearings.
Schlosser teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a bearing-mounted runner in a pressure die. Schlosser’s bending machine uses pressure die runner 15 mounted on pin 19 via roller bearings 15x in Fig. 3 to press pipe 30 against bending die 7. See page 1, line 71-89.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use bearing-mounted runners in place of Jaubert’s clamping jaws 8 and 12 as pressure die surfaces pressing against Jaubert’s bending die form 2 in the same way Schlosser teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Schlosser to the machine of Jaubert would render the predictable result of Jaubert’s machine with bearing-mounted pressure runner pressing dies.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaubert in view of Hong, Kidera and Seidel and further in view of United Kingdom Patent Application Publication No. GB 2528892 A by Pickering et al., hereinafter “Pickering”.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art reference combination of Jaubert in view of Hong, Kidera and Seidel renders the machine of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However, Jaubert does not disclose the bend head comprises:
a first set of servo motors and a first gearbox to rotate a main center shaft of the bending die to perform the movement in first predefined coordinates;
a second set of servo motors and a second gear box coupled to a pressure die tool carrier perform the movement in second predefined coordinates; and
a third servo motor, a ball screw and guide ways to move the bend head in left and right direction along x-axis.
In the same field of pipe bending machines, Pickering teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sets of servo motors and gear units to move pipe bending machines in the respective three dimensional planes necessary to bend pipes. See the Abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sets of servo motors and gear boxes to move Jaubert’s bending machine in the respective three dimensional planes necessary to bend pipes as Pickering teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Pickering to the machine of Jaubert would achieve the predictable result of a servo-motor-actuated bending machine.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725