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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maloney (US 2012/0220194).
As per claim 1, Maloney (US 2012/0220194) discloses a system comprising:
an abrasive toolhead coupled to a set of actuators (see at least para. 33 for robotic surface finishing tool; see at least para. 32 for multi-axis robot arm);
a force sensor coupled to the abrasive toolhead (see at least para. 42 for contact force sensor measure actual force of contact between robotic finishing tool and surface of workpiece); and
a controller (see at least para. 70 for computer controlled robotic finishing tools) configured to:
access a first toolpath defining navigation of the abrasive toolhead across a part (see at least para. 33 for three-dimensional motion path for a robotic surface finishing tool to follow along the surface of a machined part); and
during a first processing cycle (robot path execution 116 and robot path application 120):
access a first series of force values from the force sensor representing forces applied by the abrasive toolhead to the part (see at least para. 42 for contact force sensor measure actual force of contact between robotic finishing tool and surface of workpiece); and
trigger the set of actuators to:
navigate the abrasive toolhead across the part according to the first toolpath (robot path execution 116); and
deviate the abrasive toolhead from the first toolpath to reduce differences between the first series of force values and a target force (see at least para. 47-48 for force feedback control with real time on the fly adjustment of position and orientation to track the target contact force profile).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney in view of Ghaderi (WO 2023/249903).
As per claim 2, Maloney is silent regarding, but Ghaderi teaches wherein the controller is configured to:
access a set of contact characteristics representing contact between the part and an abrasive media on the abrasive toolhead (see at least pg. 11 ln. 6-9 and pg. 19 ln. 31 to pg. 20 ln. 6 for modeling how the abrasive article changes over time based at least in part on abrasive parameters);
characterize a degradation of the abrasive media based on the set of contact characteristics (see at least pg. 11 ln. 6-9 and pg. 19 ln. 31 to pg. 20 ln. 6 for modeling how the abrasive article changes over time based at least in part on abrasive parameters; see also pg. 27 ln. 6-10 for examples of abrasive degradation and remaining abrasive life that are displayed to the operator); and
in response to the degradation exceeding a threshold degradation, trigger replacement of the abrasive media on the abrasive toolhead (see at least pg. 8 ln. 24-27 for stopping an abrading operation when the abrasive article has reached end of life, changing out old abrasive article for new abrasive article, and then continue abrading operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Maloney with the features taught by Ghaderi because it allows for tracking of when an abrasive article is nearing the end of its useful life to facilitate timely replacement of said abrasive article.
As per claim 10, Ghaderi teaches an optical sensor coupled to the set of actuators (see at least pg. 19, ln. 16-18, for robot arm moves a topography capturing system relative to the component in a pre-operation topography operation; see at least pg. 34, ln 30-31, for pre-operation topography device is the post-operation topography device); and
wherein the controller is configured to:
following the processing cycle, trigger the set of actuators to navigate the optical sensor over a processed region of the part (see at least pg. 11, ln. 4-15 for post-abrasive evaluation by comparing pre- and post-abrasion images);
access an image captured by the optical sensor depicting the processed region on the part (see at least pg. 11, ln. 4-15 for post-abrasive evaluation by comparing pre- and post-abrasion images);
derive a set of surface finish characteristics of the processed region based on the image (see at least pg. 11, ln. 4-15 for post-abrasive evaluation by comparing pre- and post-abrasion images to determine an actual amount of material removed and an abrasive efficacy); and
in response to the set of surface finish characteristics exceeding a threshold deviation from a target set of surface finish characteristics, trigger replacement of an abrasive media on the abrasive toolhead (see at least pg. 11, ln 23-27, for if abrasive efficacy is below an acceptable level then install a new abrasive article).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Maloney with the features taught by Ghaderi because it allows for tracking when an abrasive article is nearing the end of its useful life to facilitate timely replacement of said abrasive article.
Claim(s) 4-5, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney in view of Aubin (US 2020/0171620).
As per claim 4, Maloney is silent regarding, but Aubin teaches further comprising a torque sensor coupled to the abrasive toolhead (see at least Fig. 3 for torque sensor 130 coupled to sanding tool 102); and
wherein the controller is configured to: access a series of torque values, from the torque sensor, representing torque output by the abrasive toolhead to rotate an abrasive media arranged on the abrasive toolhead; characterize a coefficient of friction from the part by the abrasive media based on the series of torque values; and in response to the coefficient of friction falling below a threshold material removal rate, trigger replacement of the abrasive media on the abrasive toolhead (see at least para. 75 for measuring torque in real time to determine coefficient of friction and when coefficient of friction is below a threshold then issue an alert to replace the abrasive surface; see at least para. 79 for material removal rate is a function of the coefficient of friction).
While Aubin teaches determining a coefficient of friction and corresponding threshold instead of a material removal rate and corresponding threshold. Aubin also teaches that material removal rate is proportional to the coefficient of friction (see at least para. 78-79). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify system to use material removal rate instead of coefficient of friction as it would only involve routine skill in the art to substitute parameters that have a proportional mathematical relationship to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Maloney with the features taught by Aubin because it enables the system to determine when to replace the abrasive surface as the abrasive surfaces wears down during use or deteriorates over time.
As per claim 5, Maloney is silent regarding, but Aubin teaches a torque sensor coupled to the abrasive toolhead (see at least Fig. 3 for torque sensor 130 coupled to sanding tool 102); and
wherein the controller is configured to:
access a series of torque values, from the torque sensor, representing torque output by the abrasive toolhead to rotate an abrasive media arranged on the abrasive toolhead; characterize an abrasiveness of the abrasive media based on the series of torque values; and in response to the abrasiveness of the abrasive media falling below a threshold abrasiveness, trigger replacement of the abrasive media on the abrasive toolhead (see at least para. 75 for measuring torque in real-time to determine coefficient of friction and when coefficient of friction is below a threshold then issue an alert to replace the abrasive surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Maloney with the features taught by Aubin because it enables the system to determine when to replace the abrasive surface as the abrasive surfaces wears down during use or deteriorates over time.
As per claim 17, Maloney teaches a system comprising:
an abrasive toolhead coupled to a set of actuators (see at least para. 33 for robotic surface finishing tool; see at least para. 32 for multi-axis robot arm); and
a controller (see at least para. 70 for computer controlled robotic finishing tools) configured to:
access a toolpath defining navigation of the abrasive toolhead across a part (see at least para. 33 for three-dimensional motion path for a robotic surface finishing tool to follow along the surface of a machined part).
Maloney is silent regarding, but Aubin teaches further comprising a torque sensor coupled to the abrasive toolhead (see at least Fig. 3 for torque sensor 130 coupled to sanding tool 102); and
wherein the controller is configured to: access a series of torque values, from the torque sensor, representing torque output by the abrasive toolhead to rotate an abrasive media arranged on the abrasive toolhead; characterize a coefficient of friction from the part by the abrasive media based on the series of torque values; and in response to the coefficient of friction falling below a threshold material removal rate, trigger replacement of the abrasive media on the abrasive toolhead (see at least para. 75 for measuring torque in real time to determine coefficient of friction and when coefficient of friction is below a threshold then issue an alert to replace the abrasive surface; see at least para. 79 for material removal rate is a function of the coefficient of friction).
While Aubin teaches determining a coefficient of friction and corresponding threshold instead of a material removal rate and corresponding threshold. Aubin also teaches that material removal rate is proportional to the coefficient of friction (see at least para. 78-79). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify system to use material removal rate instead of coefficient of friction as it would only involve routine skill in the art to substitute parameters that have a proportional mathematical relationship to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Maloney with the features taught by Aubin because it enables the system to determine when to replace the abrasive surface as the abrasive surfaces wears down during use or deteriorates over time.
As per claim 20, Maloney teaches a system comprising:
an abrasive toolhead coupled to a set of actuators (see at least para. 33 for robotic surface finishing tool; see at least para. 32 for multi-axis robot arm); and
a controller (see at least para. 70 for computer controlled robotic finishing tools) configured to:
access a toolpath defining navigation of the abrasive toolhead across a part (see at least para. 33 for three-dimensional motion path for a robotic surface finishing tool to follow along the surface of a machined part); and
during a processing cycle (robot path execution 116 and robot path application 120):
trigger the set of actuators to navigate the abrasive toolhead across the part according to the toolpath (robot path execution 116).
Maloney is silent regarding, but Aubin teaches a torque sensor coupled to the abrasive toolhead (see at least Fig. 3 for torque sensor 130 coupled to sanding tool 102); and
wherein the controller is configured to:
access a series of torque values, from the torque sensor, representing torque output by the abrasive toolhead to rotate an abrasive media arranged on the abrasive toolhead; characterize an abrasiveness of the abrasive media based on the series of torque values; and in response to the abrasiveness of the abrasive media falling below a threshold abrasiveness, trigger replacement of the abrasive media on the abrasive toolhead (see at least para. 75 for measuring torque in real-time to determine coefficient of friction and when coefficient of friction is below a threshold then issue an alert to replace the abrasive surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Maloney with the features taught by Aubin because it enables the system to determine when to replace the abrasive surface as the abrasive surfaces wears down during use or deteriorates over time.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,017. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims are directed towards a method and the instant claims are directed towards a system claim that includes the structure required to perform a similar method.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,017 in view of Aubin (US 2020/0171620). Please see 103 rejection of claim 4above for recited subject matter taught by Aubin and motivation to combine).
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,017 in view of Ghaderi (WO 2023/249903). Please see 103 rejection of claim 10 above for recited subject matter taught by Ghaderi and motivation to combine).
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,017 in view of Aubin (US 2020/0171620). Please see 103 rejection of claim 17 above for recited subject matter taught by Aubin and motivation to combine).
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,820,017 in view of Aubin (US 2020/0171620). Please see 103 rejection of claim 20 above for recited subject matter taught by Aubin and motivation to combine).
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,257,712. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims are directed towards a method and the instant claims are directed towards a system claim that includes the structure required to perform a similar method.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,257,712 in view of Aubin (US 2020/0171620). Please see 103 rejection of claim 4 above for recited subject matter taught by Aubin and motivation to combine).
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,257,712 in view of Ghaderi (WO 2023/249903). Please see 103 rejection of claim 10 above for recited subject matter taught by Ghaderi and motivation to combine).
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,257,712 in view of Aubin (US 2020/0171620). Please see 103 rejection of claim 17 above for recited subject matter taught by Aubin and motivation to combine).
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,257,712 in view of Aubin (US 2020/0171620). Please see 103 rejection of claim 20 above for recited subject matter taught by Aubin and motivation to combine).
Claims 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,683 in view of Maloney.
Maloney teaches:
a controller (see at least para. 70 for computer controlled robotic finishing tools) configured to:
access a first toolpath defining navigation of the abrasive toolhead across a part (see at least para. 33 for three-dimensional motion path for a robotic surface finishing tool to follow along the surface of a machined part); and
during a first processing cycle (robot path execution 116 and robot path application 120):
access a first series of force values from the force sensor representing forces applied by the abrasive toolhead to the part (see at least para. 42 for contact force sensor measure actual force of contact between robotic finishing tool and surface of workpiece); and
trigger the set of actuators to:
navigate the abrasive toolhead across the part according to the first toolpath (robot path execution 116); and
deviate the abrasive toolhead from the first toolpath to reduce differences between the first series of force values and a target force (see at least para. 47-48 for force feedback control with real time on the fly adjustment of position and orientation to track the target contact force profile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of the patent with the features of Maloney to enable the robotic system to adjust the position in order to maintain a constant sanding force.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,683 in view of modified Claim 1 as applied above.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,683 in view of modified Claim 1 as applied above.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over modified claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,683 as applied above.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,683 in view of modified Claim 1 as applied above.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,683 in view of modified Claim 1 as applied above.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,683 in view of modified Claim 1 as applied above.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,683 in view of modified Claim 1 as applied above.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,683 in view of modified Claim 1 as applied above.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,683 in view of modified Claim 1 as applied above.
Claim 13-14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,683 in view of modified Claim 1 as applied above.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,683 in view of modified Claim 1 as applied above.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,683 in view of modified Claim 1 as applied above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 18, and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art is regarded to be Naderer (US 2019/0152015) as it is directed towards automatically changing a grinding pad but does not teach that the reservoir aperture is coplanar with the first guide surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM 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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619
