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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 09/18/2024. The preliminary amendment submitted on 09/18/2024 is acknowledged. Claim 19 is canceled. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 4-5, 10, and 12-16 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.
Regarding claims 4 (Original) and 5 (Original), the term “the actuator” is indefinite because in claim 1 there is recited two actuators a “first actuator” and a “second actuator” and a reference to “the actuator” is unclear as to which actuator is being referenced to. Does the term “the actuator” refer to the first or the second actuator? For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the term to read as “the second actuator”.
Regarding claim 10 (Original), the limitation “The system of claim 9, wherein the hooks of the hook and loop system are part of the article” is indefinite because in claim 9 the hooks are associated with the tool, but now the hooks are also associated with the article. For a hook and loop system that one of ordinary skill in the art would know and understand, there are usually loops that are associated with either the tool or the article, opposite the hooks, so if both the tool and the article have the hooks, where are the loops? Therefore, the limitation is indefinite since one of ordinary skill in the art would not know where the loops are supposed to be.
Regarding claims 12-16, the limitation(s) “The method of claim (9 or 10)” is indefinite because claims 9 and 10 are system claim(s) not method claim(s). For purposes of examination the office will interpret the limitation(s) to read as “The method of claim [[(9 or 10)]]11”.
Regarding claim 16 (Original), the limitation “wherein the coupling comprises a hook and loop system” is indefinite because a hook and loop system was previously claimed in the method claim 11 (or claim 1, if the dependency on claim 9 is correct), of “contacting the robotic tool to a second article, wherein the robotic tool couples to the second article using a hook and loop system”. Is this a new hook and loop system or is it the same system. Further, this limitation does not appear to further limit claim 11 (or claim 1) since the hook and loop system was already claimed.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bosio et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0362905), hereinafter referred to as Bosio.
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Bosio discloses a robotic system for modifying a surface [Bosio, fig 1, 1], the system comprising:
a motive robot arm with an arm movement mechanism [Bosio, fig 1, and page 3, pp 042, 40];
a tool coupled to the arm movement mechanism [Bosio, fig 1, 10], wherein the tool is configured to removably couple to an article configured to contact the surface [Bosio, fig 1, 10 is removably coupled to 10]; and
a first actuator that causes the arm movement mechanism to move the tool into a pickup position with respect to the article [Bosio, page 3, pp 0042, teaching that 40 includes actuators and components to move and adjust 40 in at least one degree of freedom]; and
a second actuator [Bosio, fig 1, 70] that causes a shearing motion, during an article attachment step, between the article and the tool [Bosio, page 3, pp’s 0044, 0049, 0051, teaching that 70 moves and adjusts 75, which is part of 70 of the relative movement between the tool 10 and the article 20, where in the instant case, 20 is moved relative to 10, while 10 remains stationary and is capable of being a linear and/or rotational movement], wherein the coupling between the article and the tool comprises a hook and loop system [Bosio, page 3, pp 0041].
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Bosio further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the shearing motion is a movement of the motive robot arm or a component of the motive robot arm [Bosio, page 3, pp 0049, teaching that 10 can be the component that moves].
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Bosio further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the shearing motion is a movement of an article storage component [Bosio, fig 1, 70 is a storage component for at least storing at least one article and can the component that moves].
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Bosio further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the second actuator is remote from the motive robot arm [Bosio, fig 1, 70 is not a component of 40].
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Bosio further discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the second actuator is associated with a storage component of the article [Bosio, fig 1, where 70 holds at least one article 20].
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Bosio further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein moving comprises an arc, a partial rotation, a linear movement [Bosio, figs 3-7, showing a linear movement of 70].
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Bosio further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein moving comprises vibratory movement [Bosio, figs 3-4, the vibration frequency has a long frequency equal to that of the stroke of 72].
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Bosio further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein moving comprises a rocking motion [Bosio, fig 10, showing that 70 is capable of rocking by alternating pairs of 75a and 75c and 75b and 75d].
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Bosio further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the hooks of the hook and loop system are part of the tool [Bosio, page 3, pp 0041].
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Bosio further discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the hooks of the hook and loop system are part of the article [Bosio, page 3, pp 0041, use of the term “vise versa” implies that the Velcro can be reversed].
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Bosio discloses a method of replacing an abrasive article, the method comprising:
removing a first article from a robotic tool [Bosio, page 6, claim 16];
contacting the robotic tool to a second article [Bosio, page 3, pp 0049, teaching that 70 moves and adjusts 20 to contact 10], wherein the robotic tool couples to the second article using a hook and loop system [Bosio, page 3, pp 0041];
wherein contacting comprises contact between hook components and loop components [Bosio, page 3, pp 0041 using Velcro]; and
moving the robotic tool or the article to increase a coupling between the hook components and loop components during an initial coupling of the abrasive article to the robotic tool [Bosio, page 3, pp’s 0044, 0049, 0051, teaching that 70 moves and adjusts 75, which is part of 70 of the relative movement between the tool 10 and the article 20, where in the instant case, 20 is moved relative to 10, while 10 remains stationary and is capable of being a linear and/or rotational movement].
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Bosio further discloses the method of claim [[9]]11, wherein moving comprises movement in an X-Y plane [Bosio, since 70 and 75 adjust vertically, the X-Y plan can be a plane that is vertical since X-Y are coordinates that are not defined by the claim].
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Bosio further discloses the method of claim [[10]]11, wherein moving comprises an arc, a partial rotation, a linear movement, a random orbital movement, or any combination thereof [Bosio, figs 3-7, showing a linear movement of 70].
Regarding claim 14 (Original), Bosio further discloses the method of claim [[10]]11, wherein moving comprises vibratory movement [Bosio, figs 3-4, the vibration frequency has a long frequency equal to that of the stroke of 72].
Regarding claim 15 (Original), Bosio further discloses the method of claim [[10]]11, wherein moving comprises a rocking motion [Bosio, fig 10, showing that 70 is capable of rocking by alternating pairs of 75a and 75c and 75b and 75d].
Regarding claim 16 (Original), Bosio further discloses the method of claim [[9]]11, wherein the coupling comprises a hook and loop system [Bosio, page 3, pp 0041].
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greenwood (US Patent No. 7,144,313), hereinafter referred to as Greenwood.
Regarding claim 17 (Original), Greenwood discloses a storage component for an abrasive article [Greenwood, fig 9, 29], wherein the storage component comprises a material that is deformable or compressible [Greenwood, fig 9, 33].
The Office has interpreted claim 17 as an independent claim. However, there is a question if claim 17 was intended to be a dependent claim of claim 5 due to the structure claimed in claim 5 and the single limitation being claimed of claim 17. The Office is hoping that within the remarks the Applicant can clarify the intent of this claim, if this is supposed to be a dependent claim or an independent claim.
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), Greenwood further discloses the storage component of claim 17, wherein the material is a sleeve within the storage component [Greenwood, fig 9, showing that 33 wraps wound 32], and wherein the sleeve is housed within a rigid housing [Greenwood, fig 9, 33 is within 35].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Multhammer (US PGPUB No. 2015/0328734) teaches a grinding disk installation and replacing a grinding disk. Naderer (US PGPUB No. 2022/0143837) teaches in figure 5 a relative movement of the tool and article in steps S3 and S4. German Patent Publication No. DE202013101858 teaches a device for removing a grind disk and replacing a new grind disk and a sleeve for new grind disks to be used in the replacement step as shown in figures 4 and 5. WIPO Publication No. WO2018029181 teaches in figures 1 and 2 a robot for replacing a tool and for replacing grind disks on the tool(s) and at least one storage compartment for unused grinding disks. Naderer (US PGPUB No. 2019/0152015) teaches a changing station for a robotic disk grinder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights