DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
The amendment filed 03/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 16, 23 and 25-26 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/11/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The Examiner notes that the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 06/19/2025 fails to include the International Search Report submitted on the same date. Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
Claims 16 and 25-26 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 and 25 recite the limitation “the oscillation of the work piece” and “the oscillation of either the work piece” respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 16, 23 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FerRobotics in view of Grip.
Regarding claim 1, FerRobotics discloses a universal milling machine assembly tool (see annotated Fig. 1-3 below), the universal milling machine assembly tool comprising: a tool body frame (A); a robotic arm assembly base (B) positioned in communication with the tool body frame; one or more robotic arm assembly base couplers (C), each of the one or more robotic arm assembly base couplers positioned in communication with and arrayed about the robotic arm assembly base; one or more robotic arm assemblies (D), each of the one or more robotic arm assemblies being in articulating communication with one of the robotic arm assembly base couplers, wherein each of the one or more robotic arm assemblies comprise: a proximal attachment end (F), the proximal attachment end comprising a base coupler joint (E) configured to be pivotally attached to one of said one or more robotic arm assembly base couplers; one or more robotic arm assembly connecting rods (G), where a first robotic arm assembly connecting rod of the one or more robotic arm assembly connecting rods (G closest to F) is in communication with the proximal attachment end for each of the one or more robotic arm assemblies; and one or more articulating joints (I) positioned between a pair of robotic arm assembly connecting rods (pair of G), where the one or more articulating joints allow the pair of robotic arm assembly connecting rods a defined range of motion in space about the one or more articulating joints; a distal attachment end (J) for each of the one or more robotic arm assemblies, wherein each distal attachment end is in communication with a distal robotic arm assembly connecting rod (H) of the one or more robotic arm assembly connecting rods; and one or more robotic arm assembly milling tools (K), wherein the one or more robotic arm assembly milling tools are interchangeably attachable to the distal attachment end for each of the one or more robotic arm assemblies (see second paragraph wherein the tools are disclosed as modular and changing the tools is simple and flexible) and wherein the one or more robotic arm assembly milling tools are configured to machine process a work piece (L) and the one or more robotic arm assembly milling tools are configured to accommodate an oscillation of the one or more robotic arm assemblies, or apply an oscillation to the work piece during the machine process (see page 2, wherein griding is disclosed; see attached NPL Grinding, Sanding, Polishing, Deburring, page 5, wherein orbital grinder is disclosed. Therefore, oscillation is applied to the work piece), wherein the oscillation is programmable prior to machining or synthesized in real time during machining (see page 1, wherein RoboDK for path programming is disclosed); wherein the one or more robotic arm assembly milling tools comprise a grinding tool (see page 2, wherein griding is disclosed; see attached NPL Grinding, Sanding, Polishing, Deburring, page 5, wherein orbital grinder is disclosed). FerRobotics fails to disclose one or more quick-connect robotic arm assembly base couplers. However, Grip teaches one or more quick-connect robotic arm assembly base couplers (see Fig. 1, SHW160, SHW200; see page 3 figure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify FerRobotics with a quick-connect robotic arm assembly base coupler, as taught by Grip, to be able to use the same robot in multiple cells; to be able to release the robot arm from one position and use it in another position; and to enable flexibility with robots and optimize resources (see page 2).
Regarding claim 16, FerRobotics discloses the one or more one or more robotic arm assemblies (D) are configured to adaptively respond to an oscillation of a work piece (see first paragraph wherein Adaptive Compliant Technology by FerRobotics is disclosed; see attached NPL Adaptive Compliant Technology, first paragraph, wherein robots are able to offset any sudden counter forces, if objects move for example).
Regarding claim 23, FerRobotics discloses the one or more robotic arm assemblies (D) are self-cleaning (when the robot moves for any reason, i.e., due to vibrations, to change end effectors, to allow for a new work piece to be placed, etc., dust and/or debris will inherently fall off the robot arm assembly. Therefore, it is considered to be self-cleaning. Note that there is no disclosure of what is required to be self-cleaning, i.e., vacuum, air, etc.).
Regarding claim 25, FerRobotics discloses the oscillation of either the work piece (L) or the one or more robotic arm assembly milling tools (K) comprises at least one of a synthesis oscillation or a waveform oscillation, linear motion, reciprocating motion, circular motion, orbital motion, Brownian motion, curvilinear motion along multiple axes, oscillatory motion, simultaneous motions, vibratory motion, wave form synthesis, wave manipulation, floating motion and/or a combination thereof (see page 2, wherein griding is disclosed; see attached NPL Grinding, Sanding, Polishing, Deburring, page 5, wherein orbital grinder is disclosed).
Regarding claim 26, FerRobotics discloses the oscillation of the one or more robotic arm assembly milling tools (K) comprises at least one of a synthesis oscillation or a waveform oscillation, linear motion, reciprocating motion, circular motion, orbital motion, Brownian motion, curvilinear motion along multiple axes, oscillatory motion, simultaneous motions, vibratory motion, wave form synthesis, wave manipulation, floating motion and/or a combination thereof (see page 2, wherein griding is disclosed; see attached NPL Grinding, Sanding, Polishing, Deburring, page 5, wherein orbital grinder is disclosed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that FerRobotics does not disclose or suggest a tool body frame, a robotic arm assembly base with one or more assembly base couplers in communication with and arrayed about the assembly base area, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, MPEP 2125 states “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)”. In this instance, FerRobotics discloses all the structural features of claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that FerRobotics does not disclose or suggest a tool body frame, a robotic arm assembly base with one or more assembly base couplers in communication with an arrayed about the assembly base, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the rejection of claim 1 above, FerRobotics discloses a tool body frame (A), a robotic arm assembly base (B) with one or more assembly base couplers (C) in communication with an arrayed about the assembly base (shown explicitly in Fig. 1). Therefore, FerRobotics discloses “a tool body frame, a robotic arm assembly base with one or more assembly base couplers in communication with an arrayed about the assembly base” as required by claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that FerRobotics discloses a robotic arm that is directly coupled to the table and not to an assembly base with an assembly base coupler, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, FerRobotics discloses a robotic arm (D) coupled to an assembly base (B) with an assembly base coupler (C).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that applied forces are not programmed or synthesized oscillations or waveforms as required by claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. FerRobotics clearly discloses RoboDK on page 1, which allows for preprogramming of the robot arm. Therefore, the oscillation applied to the work piece is programmed.
In view of the arguments presented above, the claims do not overcome the prior art, and the rejections are maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
729
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - FerRobotics
PNG
media_image2.png
466
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 - FerRobotics
PNG
media_image3.png
370
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 - FerRobotics
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618