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 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) 1-7, 9, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cardon et al. US 2016/0067792.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cardon discloses an automated clamp (100) comprising: a clamp frame (104) having a first arm (106) and a second arm (108) extending from the base of the clamp frame, wherein the second arm (108) is moveable towards and away from the first arm (106, ¶0036); a robot end effector (104, 112) connector coupled to the clamp frame; clamp jaws including a first jaw fixed (262, 264) at a distal end of the first arm, and a second jaw (166) fixed at a distal end of the second arm, the clamp jaws configured to clamp an aircraft assembly (102), wherein one of the jaws (262, 264) comprises a tool module docking aperture (272) into which a tool module (110) is insertable for accessing the aircraft assembly; and a swarf channel (190) extending into the tool module docking aperture (272), the swarf channel fluidically connected to a vacuum source (188) and configured to extract waste material adjacent the aircraft assembly (¶0089).
PNG
media_image2.png
506
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, Cardon discloses wherein the tool module docking aperture is a through-hole (272, see Fig. 8).
As for claim 3, Cardon discloses wherein the tool module docking aperture (272) comprises a collet bore for receiving an expanding collet (214) of a tool module (110, 118, 120), and wherein the swarf channel (190) enters into the tool module docking aperture (272) at a position between the collet bore and an end of said one of the jaws.
As for claim 4, Cardon discloses wherein the first jaw (106) comprises the tool module docking aperture (272).
PNG
media_image3.png
690
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claim 5, Cardon discloses wherein the swarf channel (190) extends along an arm (106, 262, 264) of the clamp frame (104), preferably the first arm.
As for claim 6, Cardon discloses wherein the swarf channel (190, 284) is located at least partially in a housing (106, 262, 264) of the arm.
As for claim 7, Cardon discloses wherein the swarf channel is substantially rigid (see Fig. 8 above).
As for claim 9, Cardon discloses a vision system (290), the vision system having an imaging device (292) fixed to the arm and having a line of sight for detecting a datum of the aircraft assembly (¶0109), wherein the path of the swarf channel curves around the line of sight (see Fig. 18).
As for claim 11, Cardon discloses wherein the swarf channel (190) is releasably attached to the arm (262, 264) of the clamp frame (see Fig. 8).
As for claim 13, Cardon discloses a method of automatically assembling an aircraft assembly using the automated clamp of claim 1, the method comprising: clamping the aircraft assembly (102) between the clamp jaws (106, 108); inserting a drilling tool module (110) into the tool module docking aperture (272); supplying a vacuum (284) through the swarf channel (190) via the vacuum source (188); and drilling a hole through the clamped aircraft assembly (¶0007).
As for claim 15, Cardon discloses wherein the aircraft assembly comprises a rib web and a rib post of an aircraft wing box or a rib web and a rib foot of an aircraft wing box (obstructions, 150, including ribs, etc. of an aircraft ¶0041-42).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardon et al. US 2016/0067792 in view of Russell et al. US 7291002.
As for claim 8, Cardon discloses all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein the swarf channel is 3D printed. However, the use of a 3D printer for printing 3D objects is well known in the art as evidence by Russell who teaches an apparatus and method for 3D printing 3D objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to provide a swarf channel produced by a 3D printer as taught by Russell as an alternative means of producing a product (swarf channel as disclosed by Cardon) by a process (3D printing as taught by Russell).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardon et al. US 2016/0067792 in view of Smeyers US 8171615.
PNG
media_image4.png
292
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for claim 10, Cardon discloses all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein the swarf channel comprises a main channel that splits into two sub-channels, the sub-channels extending either side of the line of sight. However, Smeyers teaches a swarf channel comprising a main channel (42) that splits into two sub-channels (41), the sub-channels extending either side of the line of sight (see Fig. 4 above, col. 5, lines 47-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the swarf channel into a main channel and two sub-channels as taught by Smeyers in order to provide additional suction around the processing tool for removing debris from the processed workpiece.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardon et al. US 2016/0067792 in view of Bonomi et al. US 4955119.
PNG
media_image5.png
514
770
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As for claim 14, Cardon discloses a drilling tool module but does not specify wherein removing the drilling tool module from the tool module docking aperture; inserting a fastening tool module into the tool module docking aperture to fasten the aircraft assembly; and unclamping the aircraft assembly and disconnecting the vacuum supply. However, Bonomi teaches a multiple-task end effector having three independent tool drivers having a drill (1A), a sealant applicator (2A), and a rivet/fastener setting hammer (3A) (col. 9, lines 37-41) capable of being inserted into a tool module docking aperture (43, 45, 46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the tool module of Cardon to include a multiple tool module providing a means to drill the workpiece, provide a fastener setting tool, and a sealant tool as taught by Bonomi in order to provide a means for processing a workpiece with a single end effector tool.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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. The claim in the application are deemed to be directed to a nonobvious improvement over the prior art. The claim recites the following: wherein the jaw of the arm comprises a contact normalization system, the contact normalization system comprising: a jaw body fixed relative to the arm, and a nose-piece rotatably coupled to the jaw body and configured to contact a surface of the aircraft assembly, wherein the nose-piece is configured to passively rotate relative to the jaw body at a bearing surface therebetween upon contact with the surface, wherein an inlet of the swarf channel extends across the bearing surface so that a portion of the inlet is formed in the jaw body and a portion of the inlet is formed in the nose-piece. The prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or suggest the contact normalization system as claimed. For the above reason the claim overcomes the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723