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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: Per 37 CFR 1.75 (i) please paragraph (further indent) claim 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by applicant cited Maloney et al (US2012/0220194).
A grinding system (“lapping system”) comprising:
a grinding device including a grinding tool (fig. 3 at 304 & 202) configured to grind a target material (fig. 3 at 306);
a pressing force measurement device (0066 last sentence) configured to measure a grinding pressing force acting on the target material (fig. 1 at 110) from the grinding tool (0007 “A variable contact pressure profile between the finishing tool and the work piece along the first three-dimensional motion path”); and
a control device (0032 “computer numerically controlled (CNC) machine”, 0042 “robotic control system to maintain a constant contact force between the robotic surface finishing tool and the surface of the work piece”) configured to generate, based on a three-dimensional shape of a surface of the target material and a position and shape of a removal target in the target material (0040 “global setting of a target contact force, over the entire three-dimensional motion path”, 0042 last sentence, 0069 “the initial nominal three-dimensional motion path 1210 and a target variable force vector along the nominal three-dimensional motion path”), a trajectory of the grinding tool for grinding out the removal target, and control the grinding device to move the grinding tool based on the trajectory (0038 “smoothing the trajectories of the path and spacing the trajectories as precisely as desired, such as closer together, further apart, with more uniformity or having one or more other desired properties for the trajectory of the three-dimensional motion path”, 0065 “a sinusoidal path 1308 that oscillates along a trajectory around the edge of the surface of the work piece 1300…the work piece 1300 can be used with the path shape to determine the nominal path 1210 path trajectory”),
wherein the control device is configured to generate the trajectory so that at least one of a movement velocity of the grinding tool relative to the target material (0070 “measured variables can include at least a target force vector…a target velocity and an actual velocity”) or the grinding pressing force (0007 “A variable contact pressure profile between the finishing tool and the work piece along the first three-dimensional motion path is estimated. A second three-dimensional motion path is calculated based on the estimated variable contact pressure profile and the first three-dimensional motion path. The second three-dimensional motion path has an approximately constant contact pressure profile between the finishing tool and two or more surfaces of the work piece.”) will change depending on a position of the grinding tool (0066 first 2 sentences, claim 9).
Regarding claim 2 Maloney discloses the grinding system according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to generate the trajectory so that both the movement velocity of the grinding tool relative to the target material and the grinding pressing force will change depending on the position of the grinding tool (0039 “a three dimensional motion path can be modified to achieve one or more of the following features:…a uniform force, a uniform pressure…a smoothness of pressure, bounds on the slope (i.e. changes) for a variable”, 0043 1st sentence).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by applicant cited Maloney et al (US2012/0220194).
A trajectory generation method of generating a trajectory (Fig. 12 “three-dimensional motion path generation”) for controlling a grinding tool (fig. 3 at 304 & 202) that grinds a target material (fig. 3 at 306), the trajectory generation method comprising:
measuring a three-dimensional shape of a surface of the target material (0008, 0033 or 0041);
recognizing a position and shape of a removal target (0062 “such as a three-dimensional CAD model that represents a target shape for the finished part”) in the target material (0040 “global setting of a target contact force, over the entire three-dimensional motion path”, 0042 last sentence, 0069 “the initial nominal three-dimensional motion path 1210 and a target variable force vector along the nominal three-dimensional motion path”); and
generating the trajectory so that at least one of a velocity of the grinding tool relative to the target material (0070 “measured variables can include at least a target force vector…a target velocity and an actual velocity”) or a grinding pressing force (0007 “A variable contact pressure profile between the finishing tool and the work piece along the first three-dimensional motion path is estimated. A second three-dimensional motion path is calculated based on the estimated variable contact pressure profile and the first three-dimensional motion path. The second three-dimensional motion path has an approximately constant contact pressure profile between the finishing tool and two or more surfaces of the work piece.”) acting on the target material from the grinding tool will change depending on a position of the grinding tool (0066 first 2 sentences, claim 9), based on the three-dimensional shape of the surface and a posture of the target material (0022 & fig. 13, 0062 “generating the nominal three-dimensional motion path 1210 can include a three-dimensional part model 1212, such as a three-dimensional CAD model that represents a target shape for the finished part as described earlier”) and the position and shape of the removal target (0062 “such as a three-dimensional CAD model that represents a target shape for the finished part”).
Regarding claim 9 Maloney discloses a product manufacturing method (0071 “The described embodiments can also be embodied as computer readable code on a computer readable medium for controlling manufacturing operations or as computer readable code on a computer readable medium for controlling a manufacturing line used to fabricate thermoplastic molded parts.”) comprising grinding out a removal target in a target material (0055 1st sentence) by controlling a grinding tool (“sanding/polishing tool 502”) based on a trajectory generated by executing the trajectory generation (0065 e.g., “nominal path 1210 path trajectory”) method according to claim 8.
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.
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant cited Maloney et al (US2012/0220194).
Maloney discloses the control device is configured to generate the trajectory so that an angle of approach when the grinding tool comes into contact with the target material (0032 last sentence, 0033 “robot path execution 116 that can control one or more of a position, an angle, a speed, a velocity and other factors that can affect material removal by the robotic surface finishing tool”). Maloney does not specify that the angle of approach will be 30 degrees or less with respect to a tangent to the target material.
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill to vary the angle of approach of the grinding tool in contact with the target material to be 30 degrees or less. A motivation for this particular angle of approach range would be to find a particularly advantages angle for a selected speed and texture of the target material; a well-known ubiquitous motivation. Well known case law has held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 This obviousness combination follows the KSR case law rationale E; “Obvious to try” -choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (angle of approach), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. None of the prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 form teaches a grinding system with the mathematical functional parameters cited in claim 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 .
Prosecution Insights