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 Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 08/04/2025. Claims 1-19 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 05/28/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 06/13/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 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. For example, the amendments “contacting the object surface with the first tool, wherein contacting comprises the end effector system in a first state, the first state comprising the first tool aligned with the motor and the force control such that the first tool contacts the object surface at a first pressure and a first movement speed;” & “wherein contacting comprises the second tool aligned with the force control such that the second tool contacts the object surface at a second pressure and a second movement speed.” recite the limitations “and the force control such that the first tool contacts the object surface at a first pressure and a first movement speed;” & “the force control such that the second tool contacts the object surface at a second pressure and a second movement speed.”, while the specification recites: for example per the specification of the instant application, corresponding to [0025], [0032], [0035]-[0037], & [0041], of the publication, the robot controller 628 may instruct the robot arm and / or force control unit to provide an appropriate force to press the tool against the object surface;, the force control including a second force control for a third or fourth tool or a single force control for all, no recitation of contacting the surface of an object at different pressures and speeds is clearly recited. At best these recitations teach that the pressure of each tool may be controlled by the force control and does not clearly establish control of different tools at different pressures and speed. Therefore, this limitation is directed to new matter as it is not clear where there is support for the claimed limitation.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(a) by virtue of dependency of claim 11.
These claims are subject to a new matter rejection, and therefore no art rejection is provided and no subject matter is indicated as allowable.
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 6-9 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. Claims 6-9 recite the limitation "The robotic system of claim" in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 recites the limitation "The apparatus of claim 8" in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-19 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. Claims 15-19 recite the limitation "The method of claim " in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is 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. The term “within a range from about ninety degrees to about one hundred eighty degrees.” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “within a range from about ninety degrees to about one hundred eighty degrees.” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is unclear what metes and bounds a range of “about” 90 to “about” 180 establishes.
Claim 16 is 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. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the positioning mechanism" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is 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. Claim 19 recites the limitation "changing the position of the first and second tools comprises" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0244551)-IDS.
Regarding claim 5
Liu discloses “A robotic system for preparing an object surface, comprising: a motive robot arm;” (See Liu Fig. 1, Char. 301 disclosing a motive robot arm.).
Liu discloses “an end effector system mounted to the motive robot arm, the end effector system comprising: a first tool configured to contact and prepare the object surface;” (See Liu Fig. 1, Char. 30 disclosing a first polishing assembly.).
Liu discloses “a second tool configured to contact and prepare the object surface;” (See Liu Fig. 1, Char. 50 disclosing a second polishing assembly.).
Liu discloses “a support structure operatively coupled to each of the first and second tools;” (See Liu [0016] and Fig. 2, Chars. 30, 50, and 10 disclosing the first and second polishing assemblies coupled to a base.).
Liu discloses “a positioning mechanism configured to move at least one of the first and second tools into an operational orientation for contacting the object surface,” (See Liu [0027] disclosing when a manipulator drives the polishing mechanism to move above or below the workpiece, enabling the assemblies to polish an outer surface of the workpiece.).
Liu discloses “wherein movement of the second tool into the operational orientation causes the first tool to move out of the operational orientation;” (See Liu [0027] disclosing when the manipulator drives the polishing mechanism to move above the workpiece, the second assembly polishes an outer surface of the base wall of the workpiece. The first assembly is moved out of operational orientation, see Liu Fig. 7, Chars. 201, 30, and 50.).
Liu discloses “and a force control operatively connected to the end effector system, the force control configured to regulate a contact force exerted by the first or second tool while in the operational orientation against the object surface.” (See Liu [0027] disclosing the adjusting assembly can adjust the amount of pressing force of the polishing mechanism on the workpiece when working.).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0244551)-IDS in view of Morimura (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0039212).
Regarding claim 1
Liu discloses “A dual mounted end-effector system mounted on a motive robot arm for preparing an object surface, the end effector system comprising: a first tool configured to contact and prepare the object surface;” (See Liu Fig. 1, Char. 30 disclosing a first polishing assembly.).
Liu discloses “a second tool configured to contact and prepare the object surface;” (See Liu Fig. 1, Char. 50 disclosing a second polishing assembly.).
Liu discloses “a force control to control force for both the first tool and the second tool;” (See Liu [0027] disclosing the adjusting assembly can adjust the amount of pressing force of the polishing mechanism on the workpiece when working.).
Liu discloses “wherein the first and second tools are both coupled to a mounting plate;” (See Liu [0016] and Fig. 2, Chars. 30, 50, and 10 disclosing the first and second polishing assemblies coupled to a base.).
Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1 except “and wherein a rotational movement mechanism is configured to rotate the first and second tools by at least 90° to change an alignment from the first state, where the first tool is aligned with the object surface and the second state, where the second tool is aligned with the object surface.”
Morimura “and wherein a rotational movement mechanism is configured to rotate the first and second tools by at least 90° to change an alignment from the first state, where the first tool is aligned with the object surface and the second state, where the second tool is aligned with the object surface.” (See Morimura [0047]-[0048] and Figs. 3-4, Char. J1 disclosing rotating a joint 180° to change an alignment from a first tool-following position to a second tool-following position.).
Liu and Morimura are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Morimura to include rotating a dual headed end-effector robot, with two tools, by 180°. Doing so provides a known method in the art for controlling robotic end-effector systems, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously enables use of two different end effectors for respective purposes without changing end effectors according to the types of tasks, see Morimura [0009].
Regarding claim 2
Liu discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the first tool is selected from the group consisting of a sander, a polisher, a denibber, a sprayer, a fluid applicator, or a fluid removal tool.” (See Liu [0018] disclosing the first polishing assembly includes a disc sander.).
Regarding claim 4
Liu discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the first and second tool are different.” (See Liu [0023] disclosing the second polishing assembly includes a disc sander larger than that of the first polishing assembly.).
Regarding claim 6
Liu discloses “The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the first and second tools are arranged relative to each other at an angle within a range from about ninety degrees to about one hundred eighty degrees.” (See Liu Fig. 2, Chars. 30 & 50 disclosing the first and second tools arranged at a 90° angle.).
Regarding claim 7
Liu modified in view of Morimura discloses “wherein the positioning mechanism comprises a rotational plate pivotably secured to the support structure and configured to move the first and second tools into respective operational orientations relative to the object surface.” (See Morimura [0047]-[0048] and Figs. 3-4, Char. J1 disclosing rotating a joint 180° to change an alignment from a first tool-following position to a second tool-following position. The joint is depicted as coupled to a plate.).
Liu and Morimura are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Morimura to include a rotatable structure for rotating end effector tools. Doing so provides a known method in the art for controlling robotic end-effector systems, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously enables use of two different end effectors for respective purposes without changing end effectors according to the types of tasks, see Morimura [0009].
Regarding claim 9 and similarly with respect to claims 8 and 15
Liu modified in view of Morimura discloses “wherein the sensor is selected from the group consisting of a pressure sensor, a flex sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, or a distance sensor, the at least one sensor.” (See Morimura [0044] disclosing a pressure sensor for detecting a pressure applied from an object to an end effector and/or detecting the position information of the end-effector.).
Liu and Morimura are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Morimura to include any of the claimed generic sensors. Doing so provides known structure in the art for robotic end-effector systems, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously enables use of two different end effectors for respective purposes without changing end effectors according to the types of tasks, see Morimura [0009].
Regarding claim 10 and similarly with respect to claim 17
Liu modified in view of Morimura discloses “further comprising a control circuit in communication with the sensor, the control circuit configured to adjust at least one operating parameter of the first or second tool based on signals from the at least one sensor.” (See Morimura [0049] disclosing using sensor data such a temperature of a cutting point from a temperature sensor to position an end effector for operation.).
Liu and Morimura are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Morimura to include using sensor data to adapt an end effector for performing operations on an object. Doing so provides a known method in the art for controlling robotic end-effector systems, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously enables use of two different end effectors for respective purposes without changing end effectors according to the types of tasks, see Morimura [0009].
Regarding claim 16
Liu modified in view of Morimura discloses “wherein the positioning mechanism comprises a rotational platform secured to the support structure, and actuating the positioning mechanism includes rotating the platform such that the second tool is pivoted into the operative contact with the object surface.” (See Morimura [0047]-[0048] and Figs. 3-4, Char. J1 disclosing rotating a joint 180° to change an alignment from a first tool-following position to a second tool-following position. The joint is depicted as coupled to a plate.).
The rationale for combining the Liu and Morimura is similar to the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 18
Liu modified in view of Morimura discloses “further comprising dispensing a fluid onto the object surface through a nozzle while the first or second tool is in operative contact with the object surface.” (See Morimura [0057]-[0058] disclosing a fluid nozzle. The nozzle may be used to perform work on an object such as a workpiece, see Morimura [0045].).
Liu and Morimura are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Morimura to include a nozzle as an end effector tool for dispensing fluid on an object. Doing so provides known structure in the art for robotic end-effector systems, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously enables use of different end effectors for respective purposes, such as cutting an object with a fluid nozzle, providing a reduction in frequency of changing end effectors to shorten the down time of the machine tool, see Morimura [0016] and [0045].
Regarding claim 19
Liu discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein changing the position of the first and second tools comprises rotating a pivot axis of the support structure from a first angular orientation to a second angular orientation such that the first tool is moved away from an operative position and the second tool is brought into the operative position relative to the object surface.” (See Liu [0027] disclosing when the manipulator drives the polishing mechanism to move above the workpiece, the second assembly polishes an outer surface of the base wall of the workpiece. The first assembly is moved out of operational orientation, see Liu Fig. 7, Chars. 201, 30, and 50.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0244551)-IDS in view of Morimura (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0039212) in further view of Yu (C.N. Publication No. 206,536,335)-IDS.
Regarding claim 3
Liu modified in view of Morimura discloses “The system of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the first and second tool are the same.”
Yu discloses “wherein the first and second tool are the same.” (See Yu Claims 1 & 3 disclosing a single PLC controller for controlling the force of the double grinding head.).
Liu, Morimura, and Yu are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Yu to include arranging a dual headed end-effector robot with duplicate tools. Doing so provides known structure in the art for robotic end-effector systems, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously is an obvious choice of design, see Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431, & Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70, and the trouble of conversion grinding head, production efficiency and the rate of driving of robot are greatly promoted while production quality is met, See Yu Operation Principle section.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights