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 Applicant’s amendment filed 05/26/2026 has been fully considered and made of record. As such, claims 1-8, 12, 14, 17 and 20-28 are pending.
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) 20-21, 24-25 and 27-28 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 Pott et al. (DE102009014766A1, hereinafter “Pott”).
As applied to claim 20, Crocker teaches a computer-implemented method (programmable controller 200 connected with a computer, Fig. 13, col. 6, lines 38 and 48-50) 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 on 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) extending between directly adjacent pair of plurality of workpiece holders (any portion between 48 and 50 or any portion between each pair of adjacent 80, 82, 84, 86) being different 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 (i.e., the portion could be extended between directly adjacent pair of the plurality of workpiece holders) 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 portion of 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).
Crocker does not teach that the natural frequency of the workpiece as held is determined by analyzing a real-time model of the workpiece.
Pott teaches a device and method for a handling unit 3 for receiving a tool 2 or a workpiece 1 to be machined and for the movement of a received element on a predetermined target path of motion relative to a coordinate system K1. A stationary receiving unit 4 is arranged in the coordinate system and is dynamically decoupled from the handling unit for receiving the work piece to be machined. A compensation actuator is formed for executing a compensation movement relative to the coordinate system with another incorporated element. An independent claim is also included for a method for machining a work piece (abstract). Pott further teaches that the device for machining a workpiece with a tool has a handling unit designed to receive a tool and/or a workpiece to be machined and to move the element received (i.e. the tool or the workpiece) on a predetermined target movement path relative to a first, stationary coordinate system (paragraph [0013]). Any deviations of the first element moved by the handling unit from its target path of movement are compensated for and to enable this compensation, the device according to the invention can include a measuring and control unit with which, during the machining of a workpiece with a tool, an actual movement path of the first element picked up and moved by the handling unit can be recorded in real time and can be evaluated with regard to the difference (i.e. the spatial deviation) to the target movement path of the first element (paragraph [0014]). Depending on the size of deviation, the handling unit and a compensation actuator are controlled by a measuring and control unit. With the help of the compensating actuators, compensatory movements with several hundred Hz (for example to compensate for vibrations of the handling unit or the robot arm in the corresponding frequency range) are easily possible in real time (paragraph [0018]). In order to compensate for the deviations, the position measuring system 6 is connected to a
control and regulation unit 7 in the form of a computer system. The measured values recorded by the position measuring system 6 and the calculated position values derived from them. Distance data is transmitted to the control unit 7, which then adjusts the settings depending on the size of the unit. Distance of the deviation and/or frequency of the deviation movement (see above) either controls the handling unit 3 itself or the compensation actuator 5 to carry out a corresponding compensation movement in real time. Thus, (high-frequency) vibrations of the robot arm and necessary fine adjustments are usually compensated or made by a corresponding compensating movement using the compensating actuator 5. The distance to be regulated can thus be set with high precision in real time during processing, by using the highly dynamic compensation actuator 5 to immediately compensate for the inaccuracies of the robot arm movement for fine-tuning (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a computing device for analyzing a real time model of the workpiece as being held by the work holder to determine the vibration and natural frequency of the workpiece of Crocker while being held, as taught by Pott, as an effective means of eliminating unwanted vibrations which could lead to machining errors on the workpiece as being held by the work holder (see Pott, paragraph [0003]).
As applied to claim 21, Crocker as modified by Pott 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 a first surface (any surface of workpiece in contact with vacuum cup including between directly adjacent pair of plurality of workpiece holders can be considered).
As applied to claims 24 and 25, Crocker as modified by Pott teaches the invention cited. Crocker further teaches wherein each one of the plurality of grippers/vacuum cup devices (92, Figure 12) of vibration-damping apparatus (90) are coupled to a first surface of the workpiece (any surface of workpiece 42 in between a pair of directly adjacent work holders 48 and 50 or any portion between each pair of adjacent work holders 80, 82, 84, 86 can be considered as first surface and any other surface of work piece 42 that is between each pair of adjacent work holders work holders 48 and 50 or directly adjacent pair of 80, 82, 84, 86 can be considered as second surface to be machined).
As applied to claim 27, Crocker as modified by Pott teaches the invention cited. Crocker teaches the method 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 28, Crocker as modified by Pott 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).
Claim(s) 26 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 Pott et al. (DE102009014766A1, hereinafter “Pott”) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Bauer et al. (DE 102013105562 A1, hereinafter “Bauer”).
As applied to claim 26, Crocker as modified by Pott 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/Pott, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 12, 14 and 17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitations of the newly amended claim 1 which also includes previous claims 10-11, 13 and 15-16 in addition to newly added limitations. In particular, the prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations including the steps of while vacuum cup is in contact with the first surface of the workpiece, disengaging a power-transmitting component of the selected one or more of the plurality of grippers of the vibration-damping apparatus that drives the linear actuator to enable free extension of the linear actuator while maintaining the contact between the vacuum cup and the workpiece, applying vacuum between the vacuum cup and the first surface of the workpiece to vacuum coupling a couple the selected one or more of the plurality of grippers of the vibration-damping apparatus to one or more selected locations on the first surface of the workpiece such that the vacuum draws the vacuum cup and the linear actuator into a position of free extension, thereby preventing inducement of an undesirable load in the workpiece, with the vacuum cup coupled to the first surface of the workpiece at the one or more selected locations and drawn to the position of free extension, engaging an actuator stop-lock of the selected one or more of the plurality of grippers of the vibration-damping apparatus, thereby selectively modifying the held natural frequency of at least a portion of the workpiece extending between the directly adjacent pair of the plurality of workpiece holders.
Claims 22-23 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the steps of engaging a power-transmitting component of the at least the one of the plurality of grippers to extend the linear actuator from a first position to a second position that places the vacuum cup in contact with first surface of the workpiece; upon contact of vacuum cup with the first surface of the workpiece, disengaging the power-transmitting component to enable free extension of the linear actuator; with the vacuum cup in contact with the first surface of the workpiece and the power-transmitting component disengaged, further extending pulling the linear actuator to a third position in response to the step of applying the vacuum between the vacuum cup and the workpiece, thereby preventing inducement of an undesirable load in the workpiece; and with the vacuum formed between the vacuum cup and the first surface of the workpiece and the power-transmitting component disengaged, engaging an actuator stop-lock of the at least the one of the plurality of grippers to lock the linear actuator in the third position, thereby selectively modifying the held natural frequency of the portion of the workpiece extending between the directly adjacent pair of the plurality of workpiece holders and in combination with the rest of the limitations intervening claim 21 and claim 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 10-23 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.
Please note that Applicant's main arguments with respect to primary art of Crocker is only being addressed.
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 and that Crocker discloses vacuum cups that function to hold a workpiece and maintain its curvature. 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.
Please note that the examiner contacted Applicant’s attorney, Mr. Yaksich, in a telephone call made on 08/17/2026, indicating that claims 1-8, 12, 14 and 17 are allowable and suggesting that claim 20 and claims depending from claim 20 could be cancelled by examiner’s amendment in order to place the application in condition for allowance. However, in a subsequent telephone call received from Mr. Yaksich on 08/19/2026, a voicemail message was left for the examiner indicating that a formal Office action be mailed thus allowing the Applicant additional time to consider such proposed amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 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 08/20/2026
Prosecution Insights