DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “during the operating step, the end effector performs the manufacturing step while the jointed member is maintained at a distance from the outer surface of the component as the jointed member moves in an arc spaced from and around the outer surface”. Applicant asserted that this claim language is supported by the current specification and cited the paragraphs [0019] and [0024] on page 8 of the applicant’s argument. Although these paragraphs disclose that the jointed members are movable along the elongated arcuate shape of the jointed member, such that each jointed member would move in an arc space from and around an outer surface of said component, they fail to support that “the end effector performs the manufacturing step … as the jointed member moves in an arc spaced from and around the outer surface” and “the jointed member is maintained at a distance from the outer surface of the component as the jointed member moves in an arc spaced from and around the outer surface” as recited in Claim 1. In other words, the specification fails to disclose that the manufacturing step is performed or the distance is maintained while the jointed member moves in an arc spaced from and around the outer surface.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenda (DE4433925).
Regarding Claim 1, Wenda teaches a method of manufacturing a component (Fig. 11, 100) of a partially manufactured item, utilizing a robotic manufacturing system comprising:
a track (Fig. 11, 40) extending along a length of the component of the partially manufactured item (page 7, lines 9-10: Crane track rails are held …), wherein the component has a non-constant longitudinal shape (Fig. 11, an aircraft (100) typically has a non-constant longitudinal shape), and is supported independently of said component, and said track has a longitudinal shape sympathetic to the non-constant longitudinal shape of said component (The track has to be designed according to the size of the aircraft in order to support the frame members (49) surrounding the aircraft.),
at least one jointed member (Fig. 11, 7) having an elongated arcuate shape (Fig. 1a shows the jointed member (7) in an elongated arcuate shape.),
a mount (Fig. 11, 44 & 45) longitudinally movable along said track and configured to receive said jointed member in an articulating manner (page 7, line 10: a bridge unit runs on these crane runway rails),
at least one end effector (Fig. 11, 8) mounted on said jointed member (Fig. 11, 7),
wherein said jointed member (Fig. 11, 7) is movable along at least a portion of the length of the
component in a path that is sympathetic to the non-constant longitudinal shape of said
component (page 7, lines 15-17: On the side rail elements 50 and 51, a pivot joint 46 and 46’ is arranged, on which the telescopic boom 45 and 45’ are attached. Between the frame rail elements 47 and 48, the running rail 7 can move back and forth.),
wherein the jointed member (Fig. 11, 7) is longitudinally movable relative to said mount (Fig. 11, 44 & 45) along its elongated arcuate shape such that the jointed member will move in an arc spaced from and around an outer surface of said component (page 6, lines 35-38: the running rail 7 can be turned beyond the apex of the aircraft 100…),
wherein at least a portion of the end effector (Fig. 11, 8) is movable along a length of the jointed member (page 6, lines 34-35: It is possible to guide the machining guide device in a running rail 7 or rotated by 180° between two running rails 7.), the method comprising the steps:
moving, in a first moving step, at least one of the mount (Fig. 11, 44 & 45) longitudinally along the track (page 7, line 10: A bridge unit runs on these crane runway rails.), the jointed member (Fig. 11, 7) in a path that is sympathetic to the non-constant longitudinal shape of the component (Fig. 11, 100) (page 6, lines 35-38: the running rail 7 can be turned beyond the apex of the aircraft 100…), or the end effector (Fig. 11, 8) relative to the track (page 6, lines 34-35: It is possible to guide the machining guide device in a running rail 7 or rotated by 180° between two running rails 7.), to position at least a portion of the end effector (Fig. 11, 8) in an operating position relative to the component (Fig. 11, 100),
operating the end effector (Fig. 11, 8) to perform a manufacturing step on the component (Fig. 11, 100) (page 7, lines 22-24: Characterized …, it is possible to process the surface 101 of the aircraft 100 in a contour-conforming manner, uniformly and without any damage.),
wherein, during the operating step, the end effector (Fig. 11, 8) performs the manufacturing step while the jointed member (Fig. 11, 7) is maintained at a distance from the outer surface of the component (Fig. 11, 100) (Figs. 1a-1b and 10 show that the jointed member (7) is positioned at a distance from the outer surface (101) of the component) (page 6, lines 48-53: The scaffold 1 …, so that the exact position of the running rail 7 is adjustable.), and
in a second moving step, at least one of the mount, the jointed member, or the end effector relative to the track to distance the at least a portion of the end effector from the operating position (page 7, lines 19-20: When driving the frame structure with the help of the telescopic boom 45 and 45’ are pulled far up, so that there is an optimal space below.).
Wenda does not explicitly teach during the operating step, the end effector performs the manufacturing step while the jointed member is maintained at a distance from the outer surface of the component as the jointed member moves in an arc spaced from and around the outer surface, and
moving, in a second moving step, at least one of the mount, the jointed member, or the end effector relative to the track to distance the at least a portion of the end effector from the operating position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the jointed member in an arc spaced from and around the outer surface during the operating step, in order to place the end effector against an area of the surface of the component where the end effector is not able to reach by only moving the end effector along the jointed member as suggested in Wenda page 6, lines 35-38.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distance the end effector from the operating position once the operation is complete in order to lift the end effector from the surface and move it to a different area of the aircraft surface for additional operation as suggested om Wenda page 7, lines 19-20.
Regarding Claim 2, Wenda teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first moving step comprises moving a portion of the mount (Fig. 11, 44 & 45) to change a vertical position of the jointed member (Fig. 11, 7) relative to the component (page 7, lines 19: When driving … with the help of the telescopic boom 45 and 45’ are pulled far up.).
Regarding Claim 3, Wenda teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first moving step comprises moving the jointed member (Fig. 11, 7), along the elongated shape of the jointed member relative to the mount, to move the jointed member in an arc spaced from and around an outer surface of said component. (page 6, lines 35-38: the running rail 7 can be turned beyond the apex of the aircraft 100…)
Regarding Claim 4, Wenda teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first moving step comprises moving at least a portion of the end effector through at least one of 2 degrees of freedom of movement relative to the elongated arcuate shape of the jointed member (Fig. 8a shows three arrows surrounding the end effector (8) indicating three degrees of freedom of movement.).
Regarding Claim 5, Wenda teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first moving step comprises moving at least a portion of the end effector:
along a length of the jointed member (page 6, lines 34-35: It is possible to guide the machining guide device in a running rail 7 or rotated by 180° between two running rails 7.) and
laterally relative to the jointed member (Fig. 8a shows an arrow pointing towards and away from a component), or
any combination of these movements.
Regarding Claim 8, Wenda teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the component comprises:
a fuselage of an aircraft (Fig. 11, 100) (page 2, line 11: fuselage).
Regarding Claim 11, Wenda teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the distance between the jointed member and the outer surface varies along a length of the component based on a changing shape of the component. (The distance between the jointed member and the outer surface of the component would vary along the length of the component if the outer surface shape of the component is not constant along its length since the cross-sectional shape (C-shape) of the jointed member would be constant along the length of the component.)
Regarding Claim 13, Wenda teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the end effector is movable radially relative to the jointed member. (page 6, lines 34-35: It is possible to guide the machining guide device in a running rail 7. Since the running rail is in an arc shape, the end effector would move radially while it is guided in the running rail.)
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenda (DE4433925) in view of Stoewer (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0007548)
Regarding Claim 6, Wenda teaches the method according to claim 1, however, do not explicitly teach wherein at least one jointed member is configured to carry a plurality of end effectors, and the first moving step comprises moving each end effector independently on said jointed member.
Stoewer teaches at least one jointed member (Fig. 3, 4) is configured to carry a plurality of end effectors (Fig. 3, 8) ([0013]: at least one riveting machine system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide more than one end effectors to at least one jointed member of Wenda as taught by Stoewer in order to reduce the processing time by moving and performing the work simultaneously by each of more than one end effectors independently.
Regarding Claim 9, Wenda teaches the method according to claim 1, but, does not explicitly teach wherein more than one end effector is movably mounted on said jointed member, such that the first moving step comprises moving more than one end effector simultaneously.
Stoewer teaches at least one jointed member (Fig. 3, 4) is configured to carry a plurality of end effectors (Fig. 3, 8) ([0013]: at least one riveting machine system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide more than one end effectors to at least one jointed member of Wenda as taught by Stoewer in order to reduce the processing time by performing the work simultaneously by more than one end effectors. Therefore, any movement of the at least one of the mount or the jointed member would move the more than one end effectors on the jointed member simultaneously.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed.
Claims 7, 12 and 14 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 and overcome above 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 8-10 of the applicant’s argument, the applicant argues that Wenda fails to teach the newly added language in Claim 1, “wherein, during the operating step, the end effector performs the manufacturing step while the jointed member is maintained at a distance from the outer surface of the component as the jointed member moves in an arc spaced from and around the outer surface”. Particularly, the applicant appears to claim that the position of the running rail is somehow affected by a contact/pressing-force regulation of the surface-processing holder element (8) during operation and therefore, the distance between the jointed member and the outer surface of the component would change during operation. Examiner would like to note that Wenda teaches that the pressing force of the surface processing mounting element 81 is used to adjust the position of the surface processing element 81 which is a part of the machining guide device (8) (page 6, lines 8-18). However, Wenda does not teach that the pressing force changes the position of the running rail. In fact, Wenda teaches that the rollers (6) can be brought out of the contact with the ground by extending the spindle support 3 (last paragraph of page 6) which would fix the scaffold 1 to the ground. Therefore, the distance between the running rail mounted to the scaffold and the outer surface of the component would be maintained during operation. Therefore, the contact/press-force regulation of the surface-process holder element (8) would not be able to move the running rail as it is fixed to the ground by the spindle support. Similarly, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 11 of Wenda, a position of the running rail with respect to the outer surface of the component would be maintained by telescopic boom (45) during operation (page 7, lines 20-24).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, SUNIL SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 9/22/2026
Prosecution Insights