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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s amendment filed 01/30/2026 has been fully considered and made of record. As such, the objection to the specification and rejection of claims 2-4 and 13-14 under 112 (b), at outlined in the previous Office action, have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s amendment to previously withdrawn claims 20-23 are accepted and as such, claims 20-23 are no longer distinct from examined claims 1-8 and 10-17. Therefore, claims 20-23 are being examined along with previously examined claims 1-8 and 10-17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 10-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crocker et al. (US 6,418,602, hereinafter “Crocker”).
As applied to claims 1, 10 and 13, Crocker teaches a method for damping vibrations in a workpiece, the method comprising steps of:
holding the workpiece (42) by either a plurality of workpiece holders (gates 48, 50, col. 3, lines 32-34) or a plurality of formers (80, 82, 84, 86) disposed one each of the posts (46, see Figs. 4 and 6, a workpiece having a mass and stiffness would have a natural frequency as an intrinsic property);
determining a natural frequency of the workpiece as held (as the workpiece is held, the intrinsic and original natural frequency of the workpiece before being held changes because of additional mass and stiffness of the assembly and thus, the natural frequency of the workpiece as being held is determined based on degree of tightness the workpiece is being held. Therefore, based on the clamping and holding force which is a known quantity applied to the workpiece, the natural frequency of the workpiece as being held can be determined);
vacuum coupling a damping apparatus to one or more selected locations on the workpiece to selectively modify the natural frequency of the workpiece (damping apparatus 90 with a plurality of vacuum cup devices 92 that are individually actuatable by corresponding motive means 172 for moving into and out of contact with the workpiece 42 would necessarily modify the natural frequency of the workpiece once being attached to the workpiece , col. 4, lines 23-29 and col. 6, lines 10-14, Figs. 9 and 12); and
performing a machining operation on the workpiece (machine tool 44 for performing operations on workpiece 42 including drilling holes, inserting fasteners such as rivets or slugs and upsetting the fasteners, col. 4, lines 45-56) as held and with the natural frequency of the workpiece selectively modified using the damping apparatus vacuum coupled to one or more selected locations on the workpiece (Fig. 9).
Figure 9 clearly shows that the workpiece 42 is held by holders (end gates 48) and vacuum cup devices (92) of damping apparatus (90) are coupled to the workpiece (42) while the machining of the workpiece is being performed by drilling tools of head (122, col. 4, lines 45-58).
As applied to claim 2, Crocker teaches the invention cited including further comprising reducing machine-induced vibrations in the workpiece during the machining operation resulting from selective modification of the natural frequency of the workpiece (machine tool 40 carries out the machining operation such as drilling holes in the workpiece 42, inserting the fasteners, and upsetting the fasteners and as such, machine induced vibrations are inherently produced. The plurality of damping apparatus function to control the machine-induced vibrations in the workpiece during the machining operation as each of the posts 46 is equipped with a respective damping apparatus 90, an exemplary one 46 of which can be seen in Figure 12).
As applied to claim 4, Crocker teaches the invention cited including further comprising selectively modifying the natural frequency of the workpiece comprises increasing a stiffness of at least a portion of the workpiece. By selectively engaging the one or more locations on the portion of the workpiece (42) with the vacuum cup devices (92), a natural frequency of at least the portion of the workpiece (42) will inherently be modified. This is because at that portion of the workpiece (42) where the selective engagement has occurred, there will have been an increase in stiffness due to the interfacing between the portion of the workpiece (42) and the vacuum cup devices (92), and it is this increase in stiffness that provides for the modification of the natural frequency.
As applied to claim 5, Crocker teaches the invention cited including wherein the natural frequency of the workpiece is modified such that a modified natural frequency of at least a portion of the workpiece is different than a frequency of an oscillating force applied to the workpiece by a machine tool during the machining operation. Crocker further teaches that by selectively engaging the vacuum cup devices (92) of a given damping apparatus (90), and because the machine tool (44) can be made to perform the machining operation in different locations along the longitudinal axis of the workpiece (42, see machine tool 44 is linearly movable along rails (60, 62, 64, 66) shown in Figure 5) and to perform the machining operation at different angles (see angular positioners (118, 120) of the machine tool (44) shown in Figure 9), for example, adjustments are capable of being made between the selective engagement of the vacuum cup devices (92) and the location and angle of the machining operation as performed by the machine tool (44) so as to yield a frequency of an oscillating force applied to the workpiece (42) by the machine tool (44) during the machining operation which is different than the natural frequency of the at least the portion of the workpiece (42).
As applied to claim 6, Crocker teaches the invention cited including wherein the natural frequency of the workpiece is modified such that a modified natural frequency of at least a portion of the workpiece is less than a frequency of an oscillating force applied to the workpiece by a machine tool during the machining operation. Crocker further teaches that by selectively engaging the vacuum cup devices (92) of a given damping apparatus (90), and because the machine tool (44) can be made to perform the machining operation in different locations along the longitudinal axis of the workpiece (42, see machine tool 44 is linearly movable along rails (60, 62, 64, 66) shown in Figure 5) and to perform the machining operation at different angles (see angular positioners (118, 120) of the machine tool (44) shown in Figure 9), for example, adjustments are capable of being made between the selective engagement of the vacuum cup devices (92) and the location and angle of the machining operation as performed by the machine tool (44) so as to yield the natural frequency of the at least the portion of the workpiece (42) being “less than” a frequency of the oscillating force applied to the workpiece (42) by the machine tool (44) during the machining operation.
As applied to claims 11 and 12, Crocker teaches the invention cited including the plurality of workpiece holders (fixed end gate 48 and the moveable end gate 50, or the plurality of formers 80, 82, 84, 86 that are disposed on each of the posts 46 as shown in Figure 4) and selectively modifying the natural frequency of the workpiece. Furthermore, when a given one of the damping apparatus (90) is coupled to a first surface of the workpiece (42), as shown in Figure 12, the first surface of the workpiece (42) being coupled to the vacuum cup devices (92) of the damping apparatus (90), this coupling occurs “between a directly adjacent pair of plurality of workpiece holders.” For example, the coupling occurs between the two adjacent workpiece holders (82, 84) that flank the given one of the damping apparatus (90). As depicted in Figure 7 each damping apparatus (90) is flanked by formers 82 and 84 of the corresponding post (46).
In addition, the damping apparatus (90) of the post (46) that is disposed farthest to the left in Figure 6 be coupled to the workpiece (42), this coupling of the damping apparatus (90) will occur between, for example, former 80 on that same post (46) that again is disposed farthest to the left in Figure 6 and former 80 on the post (46) that is disposed second from the left in Figure 6 with respect to the direction extending left-to-right/right-to-left from the perspective of Figure 6. These are examples of ways in which, the damping apparatus is coupled to a first surface of the workpiece between a directly adjacent pair of the plurality of workpiece holders and further comprising selectively modifying the natural frequency of a portion the workpiece that extends between the directly adjacent pair of the plurality of workpiece holders.
As applied to claim 15, Crocker teaches the invention cited including wherein each one of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92,Figure 12) comprises a respective linear actuator and a respective vacuum cup, noting that a given linear actuator is the rod/piston at the end distal of which the corresponding vacuum cup is coupled. In addition, each vacuum cup functions to grip the workpiece (42) using vacuum (col. 6, lines 6-9). Furthermore, Crocker teaches that each one of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) has a corresponding “actuator control unit.” Each actuator control unit is a combination of the controlled manner for controlling the pneumatic operation for application of the vacuum (col. 6, lines 6-9) and the motive means (172) which is an actuator (col. 6, lines 44-45) that when prompted by a control system (200, col. 6, lines 38-55), controls the extension and retraction of the corresponding linear actuator so as to place the vacuum cup in contact with the workpiece (42).
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crocker et al. (US 6,418,602, hereinafter “Crocker”).
As applied to claim 16, Crocker teaches the invention cited including step of vacuum coupling the damping apparatus to the workpiece includes each one of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) to further comprise a power-transmitting component in the form of air, for example, for driving the extension and the retraction of the linear actuator. This is because the respective motive means (172) for each of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) can be embodied as an air servo cylinder (col. 6, lines 10-15). In addition, the actuator control unit engages the power-transmitting component to extend the linear actuator from a retracted first position to an extended second position that places the corresponding vacuum cup in contact with the workpiece (42) like in Figure 12, for example. Furthermore, upon contact of the vacuum cup with the workpiece (42), the actuator control unit is capable of disengaging the corresponding power-transmitting component “to enable free extension of the linear actuator.” This means that the actuator control unit is capable of stopping the supply of air to the linear actuator, which results in said linear actuator having free extension. This is made possible by the control system (200, see Figure 13) disengaging the motive means (172) of the actuator control unit. The vacuum cup in contact with the workpiece (42) as shown in Figure 12, the controlled manner for controlling the pneumatic operation for application of the vacuum (col. 6, lines 6-9 which is part of the actuator control unit) can apply the vacuum to further extend the corresponding linear actuator. By applying the vacuum while the linear actuator is in free extension and the vacuum cup is in contact with the workpiece (42), the result will be said linear actuator incurring extension into a third position.
Crocker does not explicitly teach that each one of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) further comprising “an actuator stop-lock that selectively locks a position of the linear actuator” wherein “actuator control unit engages the actuator stop-lock to lock the linear actuator.”
Since Applicant has not traversed the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice that the use of an actuator stop-lock (for a linear actuator) that can be engaged by an actuator control unit is well-known and widely used in the art, therefore this would be considered as admission that use of an actuator stop-lock (for a linear actuator) that can be engaged by an actuator control unit is well-known and widely used in the art and such results in the linear actuator being able to be locked at a selected linear position when the actuator control unit engages the actuator stop-lock, and thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill the art at the time invention was filed to have provided each one of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) of Crocker with a respective actuator stop-lock that can be engaged by an actuator control unit, as is well-known, for the purpose of being able to lock the linear actuator of each of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) at a selected linear position by engagement of the actuator stop-lock with the actuator control unit that corresponds to the linear actuator.
In making this modification, each of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) further comprises an actuator stop-lock that selectively locks a position of the linear actuator, wherein the actuator stop-lock can be engaged such that the linear actuator is locked in the aforementioned third position, for example, when the power-transmitting component is disengaged and when the vacuum is formed between the vacuum cup and the workpiece (42).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crocker et al. (US 6,418,602, hereinafter “Crocker”) in view of Bauer et al. (DE 102013105562 A1, hereinafter “Bauer”).
As applied to claim 3, Crocker teaches the invention cited including selectively controlling the natural frequency of the workpiece but does not explicitly teach the selection comprises increasing a mass of at least a portion of the workpiece.
Bauer teaches (see English machine translation) that it is well-known in the art of machining a workpiece (i.e., rotor blade, wind turbine, page 3, 5th full paragraph) that the natural frequency depends on the stiffness and mass of the oscillateable component (page 1, last paragraph) and further teaches that by controlling (increasing and decreasing) the stiffness and mass the desired natural frequency is reached (page 3, 4th full paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of increasing the mass of the workpiece to control the natural frequency of the workpiece of Crocker, as taught by Bauer, resulting in a more controlled machining of the component which results in more enhanced surface finish of the component and less wear of the machining tool.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crocker et al. (US 6,418,602, hereinafter “Crocker”) in view of Volokh et al. (US 8,221,036, hereinafter “Volokh”).
As applied to claims 7-8, Crocker teaches the invention cited including selectively controlling the natural frequency of the workpiece by using a damper which modifies the natural frequency of the workpiece or at least portion of the workpiece in contact with the grippers of the holding device such that the damper absorbs the kinetic energy that occurs in the workpiece as a result of the machining operation which implies that by using the damper the natural frequency of the workpiece would be different than the frequency of the oscillating force applied to the workpiece by the machine tool during the machining operation. However, Crocker does not explicitly teach that the natural frequency of the workpiece is less than approximately one-half of the frequency of the oscillating force applied to the workpiece by the machine tool (as in claim 7) and that the natural frequency of the workpiece is less than approximately one-third of the frequency of the oscillating force applied to the workpiece by the machine tool (as in claim 8).
Volokh teaches that during a milling process the end mill will suffer from an impact load due to the milling movement between the end mill and the material processed during the milling operation, and thus a vibration of the end mill results. When the vibration frequency of the end mill is approximately equal to the natural frequency of the workpiece, a resonance vibration takes place and the processing quality and the life span of the end mill is severely affected (col. 1, lines 40-50). As such, it is imperative to have the frequency of the oscillation force of the machine tool and the natural frequency of the workpiece to be different in order to avoid undesirable resonance vibration condition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to selectively control the natural frequency of the workpiece and modify the natural frequency to be different than the frequency of the oscillating force applied by the machine tool during the machining process of the workpiece, as taught by Volokh, in order to prevent causing a resonance condition thus, prolonging the lifespan of the machining tool while enhancing the machined surface of the workpiece.
As for the claimed limitations “less than approximately one-half,” and “less than approximately one-third” for the relationship between the natural frequency of the workpiece and the frequency of the oscillation force applied by the machine tool, it would have been a matter of design choice to select different values for the natural frequency of the workpiece and frequency of the oscillating force applied by the machine tool to the workpiece including the claimed values since Applicant has not disclosed that only the claimed values provide any advantages, are used for any particular purposes, or solve any stated problems. As such, it seems that one of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with any other values for the natural frequency of the workpiece and the frequency of the oscillation force applied by the machine tool as long as they are different from one another, such as one thought by Crocker and Volokh or the claimed ones because either ones perform same function of forming damping to reduce machine-induced vibrations in the workpiece during the machining process which would result in enhancing the machined surface of the workpiece while prolonging the lifespan of the machining tool.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ into the method of Crocker values for the natural frequency of the workpiece and the frequency of the oscillation force applied by the machine tool to be not only different from one another but also within the claimed ranges of “less than approximately one-half” and “less than approximately one-third,” depending on the specific design requirement which would result in a more controlled machining of the component which results in more enhanced surface finish of the component and less wear of the machining tool.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crocker et al. (US 6,418,602, hereinafter “Crocker”) in view of O’Connor (US 9,677,641).
As applied to claim 14, Crocker teaches the invention cited including determining the natural frequency of the workpiece and that the one or more locations on the workpiece for vacuum coupling of the one or more of the plurality of grippers is selected such that a modified natural frequency of at least a portion of the workpiece is less than a frequency of an oscillating force applied to the workpiece by a machine tool during the machining operation. However, Crocker does not teach that the natural frequency of the workpiece is determined by analyzing a real-time model of the workpiece.
O’Connor teaches a method of machining a part(s) wherein a vibration damping system is used to reduce part vibration, enhance tool lifecycles and to improve surface part surface finish. The damping system stiffness is controlled in real time to dampen the vibrations in accordance with at least one predetermined algorithm (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a real time model to be analyzed to determine the natural frequency of the workpiece of Crocker, as taught by O’Connor, as an effective means of determining the natural frequency of the workpiece during the machining process resulting in an accurate and precise damping adjustment by fully accommodating the changing workpiece vibration characteristics (see O’Connor, col. 1, lines 43-44).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crocker et al. (US 6,418,602, hereinafter “Crocker”) in view of Blatt (US 6,024,392)
As applied to claim 17, Crocker teaches the invention cited contacting the vacuum cups with workpiece but does not explicitly teach the detecting the contact of the vacuum cup with the workpiece.
Blatt teaches that it is well-known to provide a detector/sensor to sense contact between a vacuum cup and a workpiece in order to avoid having to have a vacuum continually operated. Rather than having to continually operate the vacuum, an output signal sense contact and causes the vacuum to be applied to the vacuum cup (col. 1, lines 48-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided each one of the plurality of grippers/ vacuum cup devices (92) of Crocker with a respective sensor that senses contact between a vacuum cup and a workpiece, as taught by Blatt, so as to provide the advantage of not having to have a vacuum continually operate. As such, it is only after contact has been sensed that the vacuum has to be applied to those vacuum cups of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) that have come into contact with the workpiece (42).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crocker et al. (US 6,418,602, hereinafter “Crocker”) in view of O’Connor (US 9,677,641).
As applied to claim 20, Crocker teaches a method for damping vibrations in a workpiece, the method comprising steps of:
holding the workpiece (42) by either a plurality of workpiece holders (gates 48, 50, col. 3, lines 32-34) or a plurality of formers (80, 82, 84, 86) disposed one each of the posts (46, see Figs. 4 and 6, a workpiece having a mass and stiffness would have a natural frequency as an intrinsic property);
determining a natural frequency of the workpiece as held (as the workpiece is held, the intrinsic and original natural frequency of the workpiece before being held changes because of additional mass and stiffness of the assembly and thus, the natural frequency of the workpiece as being held is determined based on degree of tightness the workpiece is being held. Therefore, based on the clamping and holding force which is a known quantity applied to the workpiece, the natural frequency of the workpiece as being held can be determined);
selecting one or more locations on the workpiece by engaging the vacuum cup devices (92) of a given damping apparatus (90), and because the machine tool (44) can be made to perform the machining operation in different locations along the longitudinal axis of the workpiece (42, see machine tool 44 is linearly movable along rails (60, 62, 64, 66) shown in Figure 5) and to perform the machining operation at different angles (see angular positioners (118, 120) of the machine tool (44) shown in Figure 9), for example, adjustments are capable of being made between the selective engagement of the vacuum cup devices (92) and the location and angle of the machining operation as performed by the machine tool (44) so as to yield the natural frequency of the at least the portion of the workpiece (42) being “less than” a frequency of the oscillating force applied to the workpiece (42) by the machine tool (44) during the machining operation;
vacuum coupling a damping apparatus to one or more selected locations on the workpiece to selectively modify the natural frequency of the workpiece (damping apparatus 90 with a plurality of vacuum cup devices 92 that are individually actuatable by corresponding motive means 172 for moving into and out of contact with the workpiece 42 would necessarily modify the natural frequency of the workpiece once being attached to the workpiece , col. 4, lines 23-29 and col. 6, lines 10-14, Figs. 9 and 12); and
performing a machining operation on the workpiece (machine tool 44 for performing operations on workpiece 42 including drilling holes, inserting fasteners such as rivets or slugs and upsetting the fasteners, col. 4, lines 45-56) as held and with the natural frequency of the workpiece selectively modified using the damping apparatus vacuum coupled to one or more selected locations on the workpiece (Fig. 9). In addition, Figure 9 clearly shows that the workpiece 42 is held by holders (end gates 48) and vacuum cup devices (92) of damping apparatus (90) are coupled to the workpiece (42) while the machining of the workpiece is being performed by drilling tools of head (122, col. 4, lines 45-58).
However, Crocker does not teach that the natural frequency of the workpiece as held is determined by analyzing a real-time model of the workpiece.
O’Connor teaches a method of machining a part(s) wherein a vibration damping system is used to reduce part vibration, enhance tool lifecycles and to improve surface part surface finish. The damping system stiffness is controlled in real time to dampen the vibrations in accordance with at least one predetermined algorithm (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a real time model to be analyzed to determine the natural frequency of the workpiece of Crocker, as taught by O’Connor, as an effective means of determining the natural frequency of the workpiece during the machining process resulting in an accurate and precise damping adjustment by fully accommodating the changing workpiece vibration characteristics (see O’Connor, col. 1, lines 43-44).
As applied to claim 21, Crocker as modified by O’Connor teaches the invention cited. Crocker further teaches wherein each one of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92, Figure 12) comprises a respective linear actuator and a respective vacuum cup, noting that a given linear actuator is the rod/piston at the end distal of which the corresponding vacuum cup is coupled. In addition, each vacuum cup functions to grip the workpiece (42) using vacuum (col. 6, lines 6-9). Furthermore, Crocker teaches that each one of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) has a corresponding “actuator control unit.” Each actuator control unit is a combination of the controlled manner for controlling the pneumatic operation for application of the vacuum (col. 6, lines 6-9) and the motive means (172) which is an actuator (col. 6, lines 44-45) that when prompted by a control system (200, col. 6, lines 38-55), controls the extension and retraction of the corresponding linear actuator so as to place the vacuum cup in contact with the workpiece (42).
As applied to claim 22, Crocker as modified by O’Connor teaches the invention cited. Crocker further teaches the step of vacuum coupling the damping apparatus to the workpiece includes each one of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) to further comprise a power-transmitting component in the form of air, for example, for driving the extension and the retraction of the linear actuator. This is because the respective motive means (172) for each of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) can be embodied as an air servo cylinder (col. 6, lines 10-15). In addition, the actuator control unit engages the power-transmitting component to extend the linear actuator from a retracted first position to an extended second position that places the corresponding vacuum cup in contact with the workpiece (42) like in Figure 12, for example. Furthermore, upon contact of the vacuum cup with the workpiece (42), the actuator control unit is capable of disengaging the corresponding power-transmitting component “to enable free extension of the linear actuator.” This means that the actuator control unit is capable of stopping the supply of air to the linear actuator, which results in said linear actuator having free extension. This is made possible by the control system (200, see Figure 13) disengaging the motive means (172) of the actuator control unit. The vacuum cup in contact with the workpiece (42) as shown in Figure 12, the controlled manner for controlling the pneumatic operation for application of the vacuum (col. 6, lines 6-9 which is part of the actuator control unit) can apply the vacuum to further extend the corresponding linear actuator. By applying the vacuum while the linear actuator is in free extension and the vacuum cup is in contact with the workpiece (42), the result will be said linear actuator incurring extension into a third position.
Crocker does not explicitly teach that each one of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) further comprising “an actuator stop-lock that selectively locks a position of the linear actuator” wherein “actuator control unit engages the actuator stop-lock to lock the linear actuator.”
Since Applicant has not traversed of Examiner’s taking of Official Notice that the use of an actuator stop-lock (for a linear actuator) that can be engaged by an actuator control unit is well-known and widely used in the art, therefore this would be considered as admission that use of an actuator stop-lock (for a linear actuator) that can be engaged by an actuator control unit is well-known and widely used in the art and such results in the linear actuator being able to be locked at a selected linear position when the actuator control unit engages the actuator stop-lock, and thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill the art at the time invention was filed to have provided each one of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) of Crocker with a respective actuator stop-lock that can be engaged by an actuator control unit, as is well-known, for the purpose of being able to lock the linear actuator of each of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) at a selected linear position by engagement of the actuator stop-lock with the actuator control unit that corresponds to the linear actuator.
In making this modification, each of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) further comprises an actuator stop-lock that selectively locks a position of the linear actuator, wherein the actuator stop-lock can be engaged such that the linear actuator is locked in the aforementioned third position, for example, when the power-transmitting component is disengaged and when the vacuum is formed between the vacuum cup and the workpiece (42).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crocker et al. (US 6,418,602, hereinafter “Crocker”) in view of O’Connor (US 9,677,641) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Blatt (US 6,024,392)
As applied to claim 23, Crocker as modified by O’Connor teaches the invention cited including contacting the vacuum cups with workpiece but does not explicitly teach the detecting the contact of the vacuum cup with the workpiece.
Blatt teaches that it is well-known to provide a detector/sensor to sense contact between a vacuum cup and a workpiece in order to avoid having to have a vacuum continually operated. Rather than having to continually operate the vacuum, an output signal sense contact and causes the vacuum to be applied to the vacuum cup (col. 1, lines 48-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided each one of the plurality of grippers/ vacuum cup devices (92) of Crocker/O’Connor with a respective sensor that senses contact between a vacuum cup and a workpiece, as taught by Blatt, so as to provide the advantage of not having to have a vacuum continually operate. As such, it is only after contact has been sensed that the vacuum has to be applied to those vacuum cups of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92) that have come into contact with the workpiece (42).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 10-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 10-17 filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Crocker does not disclose a natural frequency of a workpiece is being established or determined (see Remarks, paragraph bridging pages 1-2). The examiner respectfully disagrees with such argument. The examiner submits that as the workpiece is held, the intrinsic and original natural frequency of the workpiece before being held changes because of additional mass and stiffness of the assembly and thus, the natural frequency of the workpiece as being held is determined based on degree of tightness the workpiece is being held. Therefore, based on the clamping and holding force which is a known quantity applied to the workpiece, the natural frequency of the workpiece as being held in in fact being determined.
Applicant further argues that Crocker does not disclose selectively modifying the natural frequency of a workpiece by vacuum coupling a damping device to selected location on the workpiece. Crocker discloses vacuum cups that function to hold a workpiece and maintain its curvature (see Remarks, page 2, 1st full paragraph). The examiner respectfully disagrees with such argument. The examiner submits that it is true that the vacuum cups are also holding the workpiece however, damping apparatus 90 with a plurality of vacuum cup devices 92 that are individually actuatable by corresponding motive means 172 for moving into and out of contact with the workpiece 42 would necessarily modify the natural frequency of the workpiece once being attached to the workpiece due to the increased mass and stiffness being applied to the workpiece.
As for the rejection of dependent claims 2-8 and 10-17 over Crocker in view of secondary applied art, Applicant only argues that the secondary art do not remedy the deficiency of Crocker.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 02/21/2026