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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 9, 11-13, and 16-17 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendments / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the non-final rejection dated 9 January 2026.
The objections from the prior office action are withdrawn. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior office action are withdrawn. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 from the prior office action are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the prior art rejections from the prior office action, have been fully considered. With respect to the argument that the mathematical model is different from the prior art cited in the prior office action, this argument is not persuasive. When the additional terms in the prior art cited in the prior office action are equal to one, the equations are the same. One of ordinary skill understands that equations can be simplified for field deployment versus laboratory research and would simplify an equation. Furthermore, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
With respect to the argument that the solution and determination process is different from the prior art cited in the prior office action, specifically the newly amended limitation in Claim 1 “by a numerical integration method to obtain a cutting force and a displacement of the end of the cutter”, this argument is persuasive and overcomes the prior art cited in the prior office action. However, new prior art, necessitated by amendment, was found for this new limitation (see below).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (including that some of the prior art cited in the prior office action is directed solely towards laboratory experiments and that other prior cited in the prior office action art does not teach what is taught by the primary reference), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to Applicant’s statement that Claim 11 contains similar features to currently amended Claim 1, Claim 11 does not include the limitation “by a numerical integration method to obtain a cutting force and a displacement of the end of the cutter”; therefore, the argument regarding this limitation does not apply to Claim 11.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“vibration acquisition platform” in Claims 2 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“vibration acquisition platform” is a “BVM-100-2S dual-channel vibration data collector”, or equivalents thereof (see at least paragraph [0033] of the specification).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“in the step (S1)” in Claim 2.
“in the step (S2)” in Claim 3.
“in the step (S1)” in Claim 12.
“in the step (S2)” in Claim 13.
“in the step (S8)” in Claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ScienceDirect Article Posture-dependent stability prediction of a milling industrial robot based on inverse distance weighted method (Chen et al., hereinafter, Chen) in view of Manufacturing Technology Article Chatter Stability of Metal Cutting and Grinding (Altintas and Weck, hereinafter, Altintas) in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0001409 (hereinafter, Gagne).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses A robot material-reducing processing method…, the … robot material-reducing processing method comprising the following steps (see at least the Abstract on page 993):
(S1), obtaining frequency response data of an end of a cutter controlled by a robot by performing an impact hammer test (see at least Section 3.1 Modal parameters identification of tool tip FRFs on page 995 and Figure 3 on page 996);
(S2), obtaining a modal parameter of the end of the cutter controlled by the robot by using a modal analysis software (see at least Section 3.1 Modal parameters identification of tool tip FRFs on page 995 and Figure 3 on page 996);
(S3), obtaining a damping matrix [C] and a stiffness matrix [K] by using a free vibration equation of a damped system (see at least Figure 7 on page 998 and Equation 10 on page 998);
(S4), establishing a dynamic model of a three-degree-of-freedom robot processing system, wherein the dynamic model of three-degree-of-freedom robot processing system comprises first dynamic equation of a parameter Kx and a parameter Cx established on an X axis, a second dynamic equation of a parameter Ky and a parameter Cy established on a Y axis, and a third dynamic equation of a parameter Kz and a parameter Cz established on a Z axis (see at least Figure 7 on page 998);
(S5), obtaining a milling force coefficient matrix [Kc] of the cutter by performing a calibration experiment (see at least equation 10 on page 998 and section 4 Stability Lobes Diagram of a robot milling operation on page 999: “The cutting force coefficients are obtained by cluster of calibration test”);
(S6), solving, according to the spindle speeds, the modal parameter, and the milling force coefficient matrix [Kc], a fourth dynamic equation…, wherein the fourth dynamic equation is as follows:
M
x
(
t
)
¨
y
(
t
)
¨
z
(
t
)
¨
+
C
x
(
t
)
˙
y
(
t
)
˙
z
(
t
)
˙
+
K
x
(
t
)
y
(
t
)
z
(
t
)
=
K
c
x
(
t
)
-
x
(
t
-
T
)
y
(
t
)
-
y
(
t
-
T
)
-
(
z
(
t
)
-
z
(
t
-
T
)
)
,
wherein [M], [C] and [K] respectively represent a modal mass matrix, the damping matrix and the stiffness matrix of the end of the cutter controlled by the robot; [Kc] represents a milling force coefficient matrix; t and T respectively represent a current time and a cutter tooth period;
x
(
t
)
-
x
(
t
-
T
)
,
y
(
t
)
-
y
(
t
-
T
)
and
z
(
t
)
-
z
(
t
-
T
)
respectively represent dynamic cutting thicknesses generated in X, Y and Z directions; x(t), y(t) and z(t) respectively represent dynamic displacements of the end of the cutter in the X, Y and Z directions;
x
(
t
)
˙
,
y
(
t
)
˙
and
z
(
t
)
˙
respectively represent first derivatives of x(t), y(t) and z(t); and
x
(
t
)
¨
,
y
(
t
)
¨
and
z
(
t
)
¨
respectively represent second derivatives of x(t), y(t) and z(t) (see at least Equation 10 on page 998, Figure 7 on page 998, and section 4 Stability Lobes Diagram of a robot milling operation on page 998: “Through IDW method these modal parameters can be obtained at any specific posture. The full-discretization method (FDM) [19] is applied to obtain the position-dependent stability lobe diagrams (SLDs) according to the time domain stability model proposed by Ding et al.”);
(S7), determining, based on the cutting force and the displacement of the end of the cutter, axial cutting depths under the spindle speeds, and drawing, according to the spindle speeds and the axial cutting depths, a lobe diagram of flutter stability of a milling process performed by the robot (see at least Figure 8 on page 998); and
(S8), obtaining process parameters below a stable boundary of the lobe diagram of flutter stability as stable milling process parameters (see at least Figure 10 on page 999 and section 4 Stability Lobes Diagram of a robot milling operation on page 999: stable parameters are obtained and verified).
S9, performing, by the robot, the milling process … based on the stable milling process parameters (see at least section 4 Stability Lobes Diagram of a robot milling operation on page 999: “Verification experiments are conducted”).
Chen does not explicitly disclose solving…a fourth dynamic equation by a numerical integration method to obtain a cutting force and a displacement of the end of cutter.
Altintas, in the same field of cutting and grinding processes, and therefore analogous art, teaches solving…a fourth dynamic equation by a numerical integration method to obtain a cutting force and a displacement of the end of cutter (see at least section 5.3 Time domain modeling of dynamic milling including Figure 14: the dynamic equation is solved numerically).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to substitute the known specific numerical solution process described in Altintas for the solution process of Chen as it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The motivation would be to use a method that can be computed based on simple experimental test (see at least Altintas Figure 14).
Additionally, Chen does not explicitly disclose A robot material-reducing processing method… is An in-situ robot material-reducing processing method for a hydraulic turbine top cover and (S9), performing, by the robot, the milling process on the hydraulic turbine top cover.
Gagne, in the same field of maintaining parts using a robot, and therefore analogous art, teaches An in-situ robot material-reducing processing method for a hydraulic turbine top cover (see rejection for Claim 1) and performing, by the robot, the milling process on the hydraulic turbine top cover (at least [0009], [0012], [0024], [0068], [0072], and [0079]: “a precision reconditioning apparatus, portable and storable, that may be used in a hydroelectric power plant, or near the power generation system, to perform reconditioning of the heavy parts. This device allows the reconditioning of heavy parts while avoiding costs and lost time associated with transporting the workpiece to an external site.”; “A first aspect is an in-situ reconditioning process of a heavy workpiece mounted on the floor. The method is characterized in that there is the assembly of a jig mounted on the floor, to be placed in proximity of the part to be reconditioned, also mounted on the floor, the jig carrying a mount on which is mounted the precision robotic arm carrying at least one machining unit. The method also includes the alignment of the workpiece and the jig with the aid of a precision laser alignment tool in order to allow the jig, the frame and the robotic arm to create a precision machining apparatus. The process also comprise machining the workpiece using the precision machining device.”; “The gantry is also configured to accommodate the robotic arm attached to the reconditioning tool. The configuration between the reconditioning tool and the robotic arm, placed on the gantry, may allow the reconditioning tool to have access to all of at least one surface of the heavy workpiece in order to carry out the necessary overhaul. The reconditioning tool may be, for example, a machining tool, adapted to remove material from the heavy workpiece.”; “Once the alignment is completed, it is now possible to recondition the machine in step 611. The reconditioning may be aimed at repairing certain workpieces or make certain shape transformations to the heavy workpiece in order to optimize its functionality. The reconditioning may be, for example, a cutting or machining of the heavy workpiece, or welding thereof. Thus, the robotic arm may support, for example, a machining and welding tool. The reconditioning process may be undertaken entirely numerically, as the alignment has made it possible to obtain precise dimensions of the jig, the heavy workpiece and the placement of the heavy workpiece with respect to the jig and the gantry. Moreover, the gantry, fixed to the robotic arm, may allow the reconditioning tool to access the entirety of a surface from the heavy workpiece, in order to recondition the surface anywhere without manual intervention.”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of Chen with the use of hydroelectric turbine reconditioning of Gagne with the motivation of reduced costs and delays with reconditioning hydroelectric turbine components (see at least Gagne [0005]-[008]).
Regarding Claim 3, the Chen, Altintas, and Gagne combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Chen further discloses wherein in the step (S2), the frequency response data are analyzed by the modal analysis software to obtain a frequency response function (see at least Figure 4 on page 996), and the modal parameter is obtained by solving the frequency response function (see at least section 2 Inverse distance weighted (IDW) model on page 994 and 3.1 Modal parameters identification of tool tip FRFs on page 995: “The PolyMax algorithm is used to identify modal parameters after obtaining the impacting data”; “With the measured FRF curves, the PolyMAX method is used to determine the natural frequencies of the tool”), wherein the modal parameter comprises a modal mass matrix [M] (see at least section 4 Stability Lobes Diagram of a robot milling operation on page 998 and Equation 10 and page 998: mqq denotes the system modal mass).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Altintas in further view of Gagne in further view of ARVIX article Dynamic behavior analysis for a six axis industrial machining robot (Bisu et al., hereinafter, Bisu).
Regarding Claim 2, the Chen, Altintas, and Gagne combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Chen further discloses wherein in the step (S1), when the impact hammer test is carried out, an acceleration sensor is placed…, and the end of the cutter is hammered with a hammer, the acceleration sensor is configured to collect the frequency response data, and a vibration acquisition platform is configured to obtain the frequency response data from the acceleration sensor (see at least Figure 3 on page 996).
The Chen, Altintas, and Gagne combination does not explicitly teach an acceleration sensor is placed at an end of a milling electric spindle facing towards the cutter.
Bisu, in the same field of robots for machining tasks, and therefore analogous art, teaches an acceleration sensor is placed at an end of a milling electric spindle facing towards the cutter (see at least Figure 2).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of Bisu with the Chen, Altintas, and Gagne combination to substitute the location of the acceleration sensor in Bisu into the location of the acceleration sensor in Chen. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so in order to have a location for the acceleration sensor that does not interrupt the milling process / is not directly on the cutter as disclosed by Chen (see at least Bisu Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 9, the Chen, Altintas, and Gagne combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Chen further discloses A robot material-reducing processing system… (see at least Abstract on page 993), wherein the in-situ robot material-reducing processing system is configured to perform the … robot material-reducing processing method … as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection for Claim 1), and the … robot material-reducing processing system comprises the robot and a milling electric spindle (see at least Figure 9 on page 999), a fixed end of the robot is installed on a base (see at least Figure 9 on page 999), and an output shaft of the milling electric spindle is configured for installing the cutter for milling (see at least Figure 9 on page 999).
Furthermore, Gagne further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) A robot material-reducing processing system… is An in-situ robot material-reducing processing system for a hydraulic turbine top cover (see at least Figure 1A).
The Chen, Altintas, and Gagne combination does not explicitly teach a free end of the robot is provided with a six-axis force sensor, the milling electric spindle is installed on the six-axis force sensor.
Bisu, in the same field of robots for machining tasks, and therefore analogous art, teaches a free end of the robot is provided with a six-axis force sensor, the milling electric spindle is installed on the six-axis force sensor (see at least Section 2 Experimental setup and Figure 1: “a 6D forces dynamometer is positioned between the end of the robot and the HSM spindle”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of Chen, Altintas, and Gagne with Bisu to provide the necessary measurement of cutting forces (see at least section 2 Experimental setup of Bisu).
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Gagne.
Regarding Claim 11, Chen discloses A robot material-reducing processing method…, the … robot material-reducing processing method comprising the following steps (see rejection for Claim 1):
(S1), obtaining frequency response data of an end of a cutter controlled by a robot by performing an impact hammer test (see rejection for Claim 1);
(S2), obtaining a modal parameter of the end of the cutter controlled by the robot by using a modal analysis software according to the frequency response data (see at least Section 3.1 Modal parameters identification of tool tip FRFs on page 995 and Figure 3 on page 996);
(S3), obtaining a damping matrix [C] and a stiffness matrix [K] by using a free vibration equation of a damped system (see rejection for Claim 1);
(S4), establishing a dynamic model of a three-degree-of-freedom robot processing system, wherein the dynamic model of three-degree-of-freedom robot processing system comprises a first dynamic equation of a parameter Kx and a parameter Cx established on an X axis, a second dynamic equation of a parameter Ky and a parameter Cy established on a Y axis, and a third dynamic equation of a parameter Kz and a parameter Cz established on a Z axis (see rejection for Claim 1);
(S5), obtaining a milling force coefficient matrix [Kc] of the cutter by performing a calibration experiment according to the damping matrix [C], the stiffness matrix [K], and a modal mass matrix [M] (see at least equation 10 on page 998 and section 4 Stability Lobes Diagram of a robot milling operation on page 999: “The cutting force coefficients are obtained by cluster of calibration test”);
(S6), solving a fourth dynamic equation by a numerical integration method to obtain a result, wherein the fourth dynamic equation is as follows:
M
x
(
t
)
¨
y
(
t
)
¨
z
(
t
)
¨
+
C
x
(
t
)
˙
y
(
t
)
˙
z
(
t
)
˙
+
K
x
(
t
)
y
(
t
)
z
(
t
)
=
K
c
x
(
t
)
-
x
(
t
-
T
)
y
(
t
)
-
y
(
t
-
T
)
-
(
z
(
t
)
-
z
(
t
-
T
)
)
,
wherein [M], [C] and [K] respectively represent a modal mass matrix, the damping matrix and the stiffness matrix of the end of the cutter controlled by the robot; [Kc] represents a milling force coefficient matrix; t and T respectively represent a current time and a cutter tooth period;
x
(
t
)
-
x
(
t
-
T
)
,
y
(
t
)
-
y
(
t
-
T
)
and
z
(
t
)
-
z
(
t
-
T
)
respectively represent dynamic cutting thicknesses generated in X, Y and Z directions; x(t), y(t) and z(t) respectively represent dynamic displacements of the end of the cutter in the X, Y and Z directions;
x
(
t
)
˙
,
y
(
t
)
˙
and
z
(
t
)
˙
respectively represent first derivatives of x(t), y(t) and z(t); and
x
(
t
)
¨
,
y
(
t
)
¨
and
z
(
t
)
¨
respectively represent second derivatives of x(t), y(t) and z(t) (see at least Equation 10 on page 998 and section 4 Stability Lobes Diagram of a robot milling operation on page 998: “Through IDW method these modal parameters can be obtained at any specific posture. The full-discretization method (FDM) [19] is applied to obtain the position-dependent stability lobe diagrams (SLDs) according to the time domain stability model proposed by Ding et al.”; the full-discretization method is a linear interpolation method);
(S7), drawing a lobe diagram of flutter stability of a milling process performed by the robot according to the result (see at least Figure 8 on page 998);
(S8), obtaining stable milling process parameters according to the lobe diagram of flutter stability (see rejection for Claim 1); and
(S9), performing, by the robot, the milling process … based on the stable milling process parameters (see at least section 4 Stability Lobes Diagram of a robot milling operation on page 999: “Verification experiments are conducted”).
Chen does not explicitly disclose A robot material-reducing processing method… is An in-situ robot material-reducing processing method for a hydraulic turbine top cover and performing, by the robot, the milling process on the hydraulic turbine top cover.
Gagne, in the same field of maintaining parts using a robot, and therefore analogous art, teaches An in-situ robot material-reducing processing method for a hydraulic turbine top cover (see rejection for Claim 1) and performing, by the robot, the milling process on the hydraulic turbine top cover (at least [0009], [0012], [0024], [0068], [0072], and [0079]: “a precision reconditioning apparatus, portable and storable, that may be used in a hydroelectric power plant, or near the power generation system, to perform reconditioning of the heavy parts. This device allows the reconditioning of heavy parts while avoiding costs and lost time associated with transporting the workpiece to an external site.”; “A first aspect is an in-situ reconditioning process of a heavy workpiece mounted on the floor. The method is characterized in that there is the assembly of a jig mounted on the floor, to be placed in proximity of the part to be reconditioned, also mounted on the floor, the jig carrying a mount on which is mounted the precision robotic arm carrying at least one machining unit. The method also includes the alignment of the workpiece and the jig with the aid of a precision laser alignment tool in order to allow the jig, the frame and the robotic arm to create a precision machining apparatus. The process also comprise machining the workpiece using the precision machining device.”; “The gantry is also configured to accommodate the robotic arm attached to the reconditioning tool. The configuration between the reconditioning tool and the robotic arm, placed on the gantry, may allow the reconditioning tool to have access to all of at least one surface of the heavy workpiece in order to carry out the necessary overhaul. The reconditioning tool may be, for example, a machining tool, adapted to remove material from the heavy workpiece.”; “Once the alignment is completed, it is now possible to recondition the machine in step 611. The reconditioning may be aimed at repairing certain workpieces or make certain shape transformations to the heavy workpiece in order to optimize its functionality. The reconditioning may be, for example, a cutting or machining of the heavy workpiece, or welding thereof. Thus, the robotic arm may support, for example, a machining and welding tool. The reconditioning process may be undertaken entirely numerically, as the alignment has made it possible to obtain precise dimensions of the jig, the heavy workpiece and the placement of the heavy workpiece with respect to the jig and the gantry. Moreover, the gantry, fixed to the robotic arm, may allow the reconditioning tool to access the entirety of a surface from the heavy workpiece, in order to recondition the surface anywhere without manual intervention.”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of Chen with the use of hydroelectric turbine reconditioning of Gagne with the motivation of reduced costs and delays with reconditioning hydroelectric turbine components (see at least Gagne [0005]-[008]).
Regarding Claim 16, the Chen and Gagne combination teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Furthermore, Chen further discloses wherein in the step (S8), after the lobe diagram of flutter stability is obtained, the stable milling process parameters are determined according to the lobe diagram of flutter stability, and process parameters below a stable boundary of the lobe diagram of flutter stability are parameters in which no flutter is generated during the milling process, and the stable milling process parameters comprise a rotational speed of a milling electric spindle and a milling depth of the cutter (see at least Figure 10 on page 999 and section 4 Stability Lobes Diagram of a robot milling operation on page 999).
Claims 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Gagne in further view of Bisu.
Regarding Claim 12, the Chen and Gagne combination teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Furthermore, Chen further discloses Chen further discloses wherein in the step (S1), when the impact hammer test is carried out, an acceleration sensor is placed…, and the end of the cutter is hammered with a hammer, the acceleration sensor is configured to collect the frequency response data, and a vibration acquisition platform is configured to obtain the frequency response data from the acceleration sensor (see rejection for Claim 2).
Chen does not explicitly disclose an acceleration sensor is placed at an end of a milling electric spindle facing towards the cutter.
Bisu, in the same field of robots for machining tasks, and therefore analogous art, teaches an acceleration sensor is placed at an end of a milling electric spindle facing towards the cutter (see rejection for Claim 2).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of Bisu with the Chen and Gagne combination to substitute the location of the acceleration sensor in Bisu into the location of the acceleration sensor in Chen. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so in order to have a location for the acceleration sensor that does not interrupt the milling process / is not directly on the cutter as disclosed by Chen (see at least Bisu Figure 1 and Chen Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 13, the Chen, Gagne, and Bisu combination teaches the limitations of Claim 12. Furthermore, Chen further discloses wherein in the step (S2), the frequency response data are analyzed by the modal analysis software to obtain a frequency response function, and the modal parameter is obtained by solving the frequency response function, wherein the modal parameter comprises the modal mass matrix [M] (see rejection for Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 17, the Chen and Gagne combination teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Furthermore, Chen further discloses wherein the … robot material-reducing processing method is performed by an … robot material-reducing processing system comprising the robot and a milling electric spindle (see at least Figure 9 on page 999), a fixed end of the robot is installed on a base (see at least Figure 9 on page 999), and an output shaft of the milling electric spindle is configured for installing the cutter for milling (see at least Figure 9 on page 999). Gagne further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 11) an in-situ robot material-reducing processing system (see at least Figure 1A).
The Chen and Gagne combination does not explicitly disclose a free end of the robot is provided with a six-axis force sensor, the milling electric spindle is installed on the six-axis force sensor.
Bisu, in the same field of machining with robots, and therefore analogous art, teaches a free end of the robot is provided with a six-axis force sensor, the milling electric spindle is installed on the six-axis force sensor (see rejection for Claim 9).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of Chen and Gagne with Bisu to provide the necessary measurement of cutting forces (see at least section 2 Experimental setup of Bisu).
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 ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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 Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658