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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 53-54 and 56 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 53, line 5 “the radial plane of the center member” should be “[[the]] a radial plane of the center member”;
In claim 53, line 5 and 6 “the bristles” should be "the plurality of bristles”;
In claim 54, line 5 “the applied force is constant throughout the life” should be “the applied force is constant throughout [[the]] a life”
In claim 56, line 1 “wherein the increase in force applied” should be “wherein [[the]] an increase in force applied”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 54-55 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “the life of the abrasive article” in claim 54 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “life” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 55 depends on claim 54 and is therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b).
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.
Claims 53-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub. No. 2021/0076812) in view of Ionta (US Patent No. 5,903,951) and Luechinger (US Pub. No. 2015/0017878).
Regarding claim 53, Chen discloses: a method (Figures 1-18 and see also paragraph 0031) of abrading a workpiece (element 204) with a robotic abrading system (element 100), comprising:
driving an abrasive article (element 130 and see also paragraph 0034) with a tool (element 708 and see also paragraph 0069), wherein the abrasive article comprises a circular center member (see figure 7 annotated below Detail A) having an outer edge (see figure 7 annotated below Detail B) and a radial line (see figure 7 annotated below Detail C);
a plurality of bristles extending outward from the outer edge of the circular center member (see figure 7 annotated below and see also paragraph 0034 where the prior art discloses element 130 (abrasive article) having a cylindrical form with “a plurality of bristles” and having a central core (see figure 7 annotated below Detail A) with bristles extending from the core outwardly, thus plurality of bristles extending outward from the outer edge of the circular center member);
contacting the driven abrasive article to the workpiece (see figure 7) and positioning the abrasive article at an interference depth between the plurality of bristles and the workpiece (see paragraph 0039 where the prior art discloses having “a depth of brush offset” (interference depth) which is an interaction where approximately 7 mm to 14 mm of the bristles (i.e. abrasive article) interact with the component (i.e. workpiece);
controlling a force applied by the abrasive article to the workpiece using a force control (See paragraph 0069 where the prior art discloses element 708 (tool) operates through an actuation with the actuation controlled by a computing device (element 112), additionally element 708 (tool) moves element 130 (abrasive article) in order to “apply an intended force” against the component (workpiece), thus the controlling of a force (intended force) applies by the abrasive article (combination of elements 708 and element 130) to the workpiece (component) using a force control (element 112 “computing device”));
wherein the force applied is proportional to the interference depth over a range of interference depths from 1.0 mm to 7.6 mm (see paragraph 0070 where the prior art discloses the intended force (force applied) is described “by an amount of brush depth interacting with the component” which is a “level of interaction may be phrased in terms of a depth offset” (interference depth), see also paragraph 0039 where the prior art discloses the depth of brush offset “may be varied” including having an interaction range of “7 mm to 14 mm” of the bristles interact with the component, thus the force applied would is necessarily proportional to the interference depth over a range of interference depths from 1.0 mm to 7.6 mm).
PNG
media_image1.png
932
1059
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Chen appears to be silent wherein plurality of bristles having a projection on the radial plane of the center member, wherein the bristles comprise a plurality of abrasive particles; wherein at least a portion of the bristles orient with the projection at a slant angle relative to the corresponding radial line, wherein the slant angle is in the range of 5 degrees to 60 degrees and monitoring the force applied by the abrasive article to the workpiece using a force control.
Ionta is also concern in providing a method of abrading a workpiece (Figures 1-23 and see also col. 6, ll. 4-18) comprising an abrasive article (Figure 20 element 10a). Ionta further teaches wherein the abrasive article comprises a circular center member (element 12) having an outer edge (see figure 20 annotated below Detail A) and a radial line (element R), a plurality of bristles (element 18) extending outward from the outer edge of the circular center member (see figure 20 annotated below), and wherein plurality of bristles having a projection (see figure 20 annotated below Detail A) on the radial plane of the center member (see figure 20 annotated below), wherein the bristles comprise a plurality of abrasive particles (see col. 3, ll. 5-20 and col. 16, ll. 57-63); wherein at least a portion of the bristles orient with the projection at a slant angle (element α) relative to the corresponding radial line (see figure 20), wherein the slant angle is in the range of 5 degrees to 60 degrees (see col. 11, ll. 4-5 where the prior art discloses the slant angle (element α) being “45°”).
PNG
media_image2.png
577
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen to incorporate the teachings of Ionta to provide wherein plurality of bristles having a projection on the radial plane of the center member, wherein the bristles comprise a plurality of abrasive particles; wherein at least a portion of the bristles orient with the projection at a slant angle relative to the corresponding radial line, wherein the slant angle is in the range of 5 degrees to 60 degrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the plurality of bristles with a desired slant angle would necessarily an arrangement helps minimize breakage of bristles near their root where the bristles join the outer edge of the center portion, therefore the bristle can withstand a greater amount of bending caused by the workpiece as disclosed by Ionta (see col. 10, ll. 55-57 and col. 11, ll. 1-3). Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitation (slant angle is in the range of 5 degrees to 60 degrees) solves any stated problem, indicating simply that the range “can be” within the claimed range and also offers other acceptable ranges (see page 006, ll. 23-25 of the specification0, therefore there is no criticality placed on the claimed slant angle being in the range of 5 degrees to 60 degrees such that it produces an unexpected result.
However, Chen modified appears to be silent monitoring the force applied by the abrasive article to the workpiece using a force control.
Luechinger is also concern in providing a method of abrading a workpiece (Figures 1-10 and see also paragraph 0031) comprising an abrasive article (element 308) and a force control (elements 310/316 and see also paragraph 0032). Luechinger further teaches monitoring the force applied by the abrasive article to the workpiece using a force control (see paragraph 0032 where the prior art discloses utilizing a portion (element 316) of the force control (elements 310/316) to “monitor” a variety of different characteristics including “a force applied between brush and a surface of the electrode region from force sensor” (element 316), thus the force control (elements 310/316) monitors the force applied by element 308 (abrasive article) to the electrode region (workpiece)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen to incorporate the teachings of Luechinger to provide monitoring the force applied by the abrasive article to the workpiece using a force control One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the force control with the additional function of monitoring a force applied would necessarily provide an automated means of to managing the process of the tool and receive information related to various characteristics of the operations, thus allowing the user to make an necessary changes during operations.
Regarding claim 54, Chen modified discloses: the method of claim 53, wherein when the interference depth is kept constant, the applied force is constant throughout the life of the abrasive article (see paragraph 0070 where the prior art discloses applying an intended force (applied force) which is described by an amount of brush depth interacting with the component and phrased in terms of a depth offset (interference depth) being applied at different points of the component (workpiece) with different depth offset (interference depth) ranges, thus the prior art would necessarily have the interference depth and applied force constant throughout a selected period of the life of the abrasive article during operations).
Regarding claim 55, Chen modified discloses: the method of claim 54, wherein the applied force is predetermined (see paragraph 0070 where the prior art discloses “based on the complex curvatures of a footwear article at the provided segments, the depth offset of the first brush is adjusted”, thus the applied force is predetermined).
Regarding claim 56, Chen modified discloses: the method of claim 53, wherein the increase in force applied is linear over the range of interference depths from 1.0 mm to 7.6 mm (see paragraph 0070 where the prior art discloses the intended force (force applied) is described “by an amount of brush depth interacting with the component” which is a “level of interaction may be phrased in terms of a depth offset” (interference depth), see also paragraph 0039 where the prior art discloses the depth of brush offset “may be varied” including having an interaction range of “7 mm to 14 mm” of the bristles interact with the component, thus the force applied would is necessarily be proportional to the interference depth and therefore be applied linear over the range of interference depths from 1.0 mm to 7.6 mm).
Regarding claim 57, Chen modified discloses: the method of claim 53, wherein the slant angle is in the range of 20 degrees to 45 degrees (As described above in the rejection of claim 23 (see page 7), the prior art as modified discloses the slant angle (element α) being “45°”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights