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 .
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, 6, 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/583,413 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are anticipated of the reference pending application. Every limitation in the application under examination claims is recited in the conflicting reference patent claims, and the differences between the claims being the recited workpiece features which aren’t considered part of the claimed invention (clamp apparatus).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 2 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cardon et al. US 2016/0067792.
Cardon discloses an automated clamp capable of clamping a rib web to a rib post or a rib foot of an aircraft wing box, the clamp comprising: a clamp frame (104), a first arm (106) and a second arm (108) extending from a base of the clamp frame, wherein the second arm is moveably mounted to the base of the clamp so as to be moveable towards and away from the first arm (¶0036); a robot end effector connector (112, 114) coupled to the clamp frame; clamp jaws (264) including a first jaw (262, 264) fixed 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 capable of clamping the rib web (102, 150) to the rib post(102, 150) or rib foot (102, 150); wherein one of the clamp jaws defines a tool module docking aperture (272) configured to receive a tool module (110) for providing access to the rib web and rib post or rib foot clamped between the clamp jaws.
As for claim 2, Cardon discloses wherein the clamp frame comprises a linear guide (228, Fig. 16-17), and the second arm (108) is moveably mounted on the linear guide so as to be moveable towards and away (0063) from the first arm (106).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 4, Cardon discloses wherein the robot end effector connector (112, 114) is coupled to the base (116, 218) of the clamp frame (104, see figs. 2-4).
As for claim 5, Cardon discloses wherein the first and second arms (106, 108) extend from a first side of the base (116, 218), and the robot end effector connector is positioned on a second side of the base opposing the first side (see Figs. 2-4).
As for claim 6, Cardon discloses in Fig. 8 wherein the first jaw (262, 264) defines the tool module docking aperture (272).
As for claim 7, Cardon discloses wherein the tool module docking aperture (272) is a through-hole configured to extend to at least one of the rib web, rib post or rib foot (102, 150).
As for claim 8, Cardon discloses a vision system (290), the vision system having one or more imaging devices (292, 294) capable of detecting a datum of the rib web, rib post, or rib foot (¶0109).
As for claim 9, Cardon discloses wherein the vision system includes a first imaging device (292) fixed to the first arm and having a line of sight oriented at an acute angle to a longitudinal axis of the clamp jaws (see Fig. 18) and/or the vision system has a second imaging device fixed to the second arm and having a line of sight oriented at an acute angle to a longitudinal axis of the clamp jaws (¶0109).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardon et al. US 2016/0067792.
As for claim 3, Cardon discloses wherein the clamp frame comprises a linear guide but does not specify wherein two or more linear guides on which the second arm is movably mounted. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, through routine engineering to duplicate multiple linear guides for providing a linear translation between the first and second clamp arms. It has been held by the court that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim(s) 15-16 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.
As for claim 15, Cardon discloses a method of automatically clamping an aircraft assembly using the automated clamp of claim 1, the method comprising: positioning the second jaw (108,166) against a surface (102, 150, 198) of the aircraft assembly; moving the first jaw (106, 262, 264) towards the second jaw (166) to clamp the aircraft assembly; inserting a drilling tool module (110) into the tool module docking aperture (272) and drilling a hole through the clamped aircraft assembly (¶0007).
PNG
media_image2.png
514
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cardon 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 moving the second arm away from the first arm to unclamp the aircraft assembly. 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.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the aircraft assembly (102) 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 is/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 claims in the application are deemed to be directed to a nonobvious improvement over the prior art. The claims recite:
The first jaw and/or the second jaw comprises a contact normalization system, the contact normalization system comprising: a jaw body fixed relative to the respective arm, and a nose-piece rotatably coupled to the jaw body and configured to contact a surface of one of the rib web, rib post and rib foot, wherein the nose-piece is configured to passively rotate relative to the jaw body upon contact with the surface. The prior art of record teaches a nose-piece (166, 202) for engaging a workpiece but does not specify all the limitations as recited above. For the above reasons the claims overcome 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