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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 and 8 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.).
Although Wenda does not explicitly teach 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 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.
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).
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 7 is 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.
Conclusion
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 4/3/2026
Prosecution Insights