2020004500 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2021)

The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 6, 2021

2020004500 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/333,915 10/25/2016 Fei Cai 60070/16-1270-US-NP 1238 122219 7590 05/06/2021 von Briesen & Roper, s.c./ The Boeing Company One North Franklin Street Suite 2350 Chicago, IL 60606 EXAMINER TRAVERS, MATTHEW P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3726 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): bmatthias@vonbriesen.com patentadmin@boeing.com ynunez@vonbriesen.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FEI CAI, TANNI SISCO, MATTHEW RYAN DUNAJ, and BRIAN JOSEPH COBB Appeal 2020-004500 Application 15/333,915 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Independent claim 19 and dependent claim 20 are withdrawn. Non-Final Act. 1 (“Non-Final Act.” refers to the Non-Final Office Action, mailed Sept. 23, 2019). Appeal 2020-004500 Application 15/333,915 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Subject Matter on Appeal Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. An end effector adapted to secure and drill through a pair of components in a one up assembly under clamp loads to avoid separation of the components for deburring after drilling, the end effector comprising: a face from which extend a) a vacuum chute; b) an expansible clamp holster; c) an automated drilling head including a drill; and d) an expansible clamp dispenser configured to insert, expand, and remove expansible clamps into and out of various pre-drilled pilot holes in the components during a final drilling of fastener holes in the components; wherein the end effector is configured to sequentially a) dispense and torque expansible clamps into the pre-drilled pilot holes to temporarily clamp the components together at selective portions of the components, b) drill fastener holes in the component adjacent the expansible clamps, and c) untorque and remove the expansible clamps from each selective portion during each instance of the final drilling of fastener holes in the components. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Bloch et al. (“Bloch”) US 8,805,575 B1 Aug. 12, 2014 Sarh (“Sarh ’488”) US 2008/0244888 A1 Oct. 9, 2008 Sarh et al. (“Sarh ’437”) US 2010/0217437 A1 Aug. 26, 2010 Cole et al. (“Cole”) US 2015/0298825 A1 Oct. 22, 2015 Carson et al. (“Carson”) US 2016/0067783 A1 Mar. 10, 2016 Crothers US 2016/0243702 A1 Aug. 25, 2016 Appeal 2020-004500 Application 15/333,915 3 CLECO Fasteners, “What Are Cleco Fasteners?” pp. 1–3 (June 16, 2016), retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20160616135813/ http://clecofasteners.info/ (last viewed September 17, 2019). Rejections Claims 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cole and Sarh ’488.3 Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cole, Sarh ’488, and Bloch or Carson. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cole, Sarh ’488, and Sarh ’437. Claims 10–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cole, Sarh ’488, and Crothers, and alternatively, Bloch or Carson. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cole, Sarh ’488, Crothers, and alternatively, Bloch or Carson, and Sarh ’437. ANALYSIS Claims 1–8 The Appellant argues claims 1–8 as a group. Appeal Br. 7–9. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group. Claims 2–8 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 3 Cole refers to CLECO fasteners. See, e.g., Cole ¶ 1 (“The field of the present disclosure relates generally to manufacturing assemblies using temporary fasteners and, more specifically, to an apparatus and methods of automated insertion and/or removal of [CLECO] fasteners from assemblies.”). The Examiner cites to CLECO Fasteners as an “evidentiary reference” to explain Cole’s teachings in greater detail. See Non-Final Act. 3, 10. Appeal 2020-004500 Application 15/333,915 4 The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cole and Sarh ’488. Non-Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds that Cole’s end effector 302 corresponds to the claimed “end effector.” Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that Cole’s cutting mechanism 318 corresponds to the claimed end effector’s “automated drilling head including a drill.” Id. The Examiner finds Cole’s first sub-assembly 304 and second sub-assembly 308 correspond to the claimed end effector’s “expansible clamp dispenser.” Id. The Examiner finds Cole’s feed system 320 corresponds to the claimed “an expansible clamp holster,” except that feed system 320 does not extend from the end effector’s face as required by claim 1. See id. at 4. The Examiner also finds that Cole does not disclose a vacuum chute on the face. Id. To remedy these deficiencies the Examiner turns to Sarh ’488’s teachings. Id. (“Sarh[ ’488] teaches a fastening system having multiple tools (including a drill 44) located on-board a face (24) of the system, including a vacuum chute (40) and a holster (152[)].” (citing Sarh ’488 ¶¶ 54–55, Figs. 13, 14)). The Examiner determines “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to have included a vacuum for the purpose of removing chips from the drilling process” and to “provid[e] all of the tools, including the holster, on the face of the end effector . . . since it prevents the need for hoses and wires to connect the fastener installation equipment to off-board subsystems.” Id. (citing Sarh ’488 ¶¶ 3–4, 34). The Appellant argues that the combination of teachings from Cole and Sarh ’488, as proposed by the Examiner, is not supported because “there is absolutely no need, hence no suggestion in Cole, to include a vacuum system.” Appeal Br. 7. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Appeal 2020-004500 Application 15/333,915 5 The Examiner’s reason for modifying Cole’s end effector to include a vacuum chute is “for the purpose of removing chips from the drilling process.” Non-Final Act. 4. The support for this reasoning comes from Sarh ’488, i.e., “[t]ool 40 may comprise a chip removal system, which may use a vacuum to remove chips and other debris that have been formed as a result of drilling a hole in the skin 22.” Sarh ’488 ¶ 34 (emphasis omitted). As explained by the Examiner, Cole’s end effector “performs a drilling operation (which would be understood to produce drilling debris or chips).” Ans. 4. We determine that the Examiner’s reasoning is adequately supported. The Appellant argues that the combined teachings of Cole and Sarh ’488 fail to “suggest[] Appellant’s expansible clamp dispenser, or for that matter any type of dispenser capable of supplying expansible clamps to preload two components together.” Appeal Br. 7–8. The Appellant asserts that Cole teaches the use of temporary fasteners for “pre-alignment of parts to be fastened,” which is distinct from the Appellant’s transient preloading by clamping by use of expansible clamps. See id. at 8. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Appellant’s argument is directed to the following recitation of claim 1, “an expansible clamp dispenser configured to insert, expand, and remove expansible clamps into and out of various pre-drilled pilot holes in the components.” We note that claim 1 does not use the phrase “preload two components together,” but preloading two components together is a practical effect of expanding an expansible clamp in corresponding holes of two components. Appeal 2020-004500 Application 15/333,915 6 As discussed above, the Examiner finds that Cole’s first sub- assembly 304 and second sub-assembly 308 correspond to the claimed “expansible clamp dispenser.” Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Cole ¶¶ 22, 25–26). Additionally, the Examiner finds that Cole’s temporary fastener 200, 329, openings 328, and components 324, 326 correspond to the claimed “expansible clamps,” “pre-drilled pilot holes,” and “components,” respectively. See id. Cole’s temporary fastener 200 engages assembly 322, which includes first and second components 324, 326, through openings 328. Cole ¶ 24. In other words, Cole’s sub-assemblies 304, 308 insert, expand, and remove temporary fasteners (e.g., CLECO fasteners) into an out of openings 328 in components 324, 326 of assembly 322. Id. ¶¶ 1–3, 22, 24–26. The Examiner explains that Cole’s use of temporary fasteners corresponds with the Appellant’s use of expansible clamps. Ans. 4–5; see, e.g., CLECO Fasteners (“The plier-operated (K) series Clecos sheet holder clamp are the standard temporary fastener solution. These spring-loaded and steel bodied fasteners are dedicated to light clamping forces.”). In view of the foregoing, we determine the Examiner’s finding that Cole teaches the “expansible clamp dispenser,” as required by claim 1, is adequately supported. The Appellant argues that the combined teachings of Cole and Sarh ’488 are “devoid of any suggestion of an apparatus that both dispenses and torques Appellant’s temporarily applied expansible clamps 60 prior to drilling, then untorques and removes the expansible clamps (from the pre- drilled pilot holes 28) after each instance of drilling a fastener hole 40 adjacent an expansible clamp 60.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Spec. ¶ 27). The Appellant’s argument arises from a suggestion that claim 1 invokes Appeal 2020-004500 Application 15/333,915 7 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, and the claimed “end effector” is “‘configured’ to be programed to automatically perform” the functions of dispensing, torqueing, untorqueing, and removing. Id. at 8–9. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Appellant’s argument is directed to the following “wherein clause” of claim 1, with paragraphing added: wherein the end effector is configured to sequentially a) dispense and torque expansible clamps into the pre- drilled pilot holes to temporarily clamp the components together at selective portions of the components, b) drill fastener holes in the component adjacent the expansible clamps, and c) untorque and remove the expansible clamps from each selective portion during each instance of the final drilling of fastener holes in the components. Initially, we do not agree with the Appellant that claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. In this regard, we note that claim 1 does not use the term “means” or use a substitute for “means.” Simply put, we do not understand the term “end effector” to be a substitute for “means.” However, even if we were to understand the term “end effector” to be a substitute for “means,” the remainder of the claim is modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions; namely, “the end effector comprising: a face from which extend a) a vacuum chute; b) an expansible clamp holster; c) an automated drilling head including a drill; and d) an expansible clamp dispenser.” See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2181(I) (9th ed., rev. 10, June 2020). Stated otherwise, the “end effector” of claim 1 is not claimed in a purely functional manner. Therefore, we disagree with the Appellant’s suggestion that claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Appeal 2020-004500 Application 15/333,915 8 Further, we do not agree with the Appellant that the claimed “end effector” is configured to be programed to automatically perform the functions of dispensing, torqueing, untorqueing, and removing. Although claim 1 calls for the “end effector” to be “adapted to” and “configured to” perform certain functions, the “end effector” of claim 1 is not programmed to automatically perform any function. Turning to the rejection, the Examiner finds that Cole’s end effector 302 performs the functional requirements recited in the “wherein clause” of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Cole’s end effector 302 dispenses, torques, untorques, and removes the temporary fasteners that are rotatably actuated in expanded and unexpanded states from complementary openings 328 of assembly 322’s components 324, 326. See Ans. 5 (citing Cole ¶¶ 28, 31); Non-Final Act. 3; Cole ¶¶ 16, 22, 24, Figs. 3– 5. The Examiner also finds Cole’s end effector 302 includes cutting mechanism 318. Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. Cole discloses that cutting mechanism 318 may form openings in assembly 322 of various size at predetermined locations. See Cole ¶ 24 (“openings 328 of varying size may be formed in assembly 322” (emphasis omitted)); id. ¶ 25 (“[C]utting mechanism 318 translates axially along cutting mechanism center point 330 to form openings 328 in assembly 322 at predetermined locations.” (emphasis omitted)). We find that there is adequate support for the finding that Cole’s end effector is configured to perform functions a, b, and c, of the “wherein clause” of claim 1. Additionally, after Cole’s end effector 302 performs function a, i.e., “dispense and torque expansible clamps into the pre-drilled pilot holes to temporarily clamp the components together at selective portions of the Appeal 2020-004500 Application 15/333,915 9 components,” we do not understand there to be any impediments to end effector 302 performing function b, i.e., “drill fastener holes in the component adjacent the expansible clamps,” and then function c, i.e., “untorque and remove the expansible clamps from each selective portion during each instance of the final drilling of fastener holes in the components.” In view of the foregoing, we find that the Examiner had a sound basis for believing that Cole’s end effector is configured to sequentially perform the functions of the “wherein clause.” We determine that the Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it fails to offer an explanation that uses evidence and/or technical reasoning why Cole’s end effector is not configured to sequentially perform functions a, b, and c, of the “wherein clause” of claim 1. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2–8, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cole and Sarh ’488. Claim 2 The Appellant does not present any arguments for the separate patentability of dependent claim 2, except that Bloch or Carson do not cure the deficiency of the rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 includes any deficiency. Therefore, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 as unpatentable over Cole, Sarh ’488, and Bloch or Carson. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 2. Appeal 2020-004500 Application 15/333,915 10 Claim 9 The Appellant does not present any arguments for the separate patentability of dependent claim 9, except that Sarh ’437 does not cure the deficiency of the rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9–10. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 includes any deficiency. Therefore, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 as unpatentable over Cole, Sarh ’488, and Sarh ’437. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. Claims 10–17 The Appellant argues claims 10–17 as a group. Appeal Br. 10. We select claim 10 as the representative claim for this group. Claims 11–17 stand or fall with claim 10. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Cole, Sarh ’488, Crothers, and alternatively, Bloch or Carson, for similar reasons as those discussed above for the rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10. And, for similar reasons as discussed above, we determine that the Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Further, it is notable that claim 10 recites “[a] system using a plurality of electronically programmable end effectors to sequentially preload and drill selective portions of a workpiece.” Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner explains that although “[c]laim 10 recites ‘electronically programmable’ end effectors,” the claim “does not require the end effector[] to actually be programmed with any specific algorithm or otherwise link the programmability of the end effector[] to the recited functions.” Ans. 7. We agree. Also, we note the Examiner finds that Cole’s end effector is Appeal 2020-004500 Application 15/333,915 11 electronically programmable. See Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Cole ¶ 24); Cole ¶ 24 (“automated apparatus 300 includes a processor and a memory (each not shown) that stores manufacturing schematics of assembly 322.” (emphasis omitted)). We determine that this finding is adequately supported. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claim 10, and dependent claims 11–17, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cole, Sarh ’488, Crothers, and alternatively, Bloch or Carson. Claim 18 The Appellant does not present any arguments for the separate patentability of dependent claim 18, except that Sarh ’437 does not cure the deficiency of the rejections of claim 10. See Appeal Br. 10–11. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s rejections of claim 10 include any deficiency. Therefore, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18 as unpatentable over Cole, Sarh ’488, Crothers, and alternatively, Bloch or Carson, and Sarh ’437. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 18. Appeal 2020-004500 Application 15/333,915 12 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis4 Affirmed Reversed 1–8 103 Cole, Sarh ’488 1–8 2 103 Cole, Sarh ’488, Bloch, Carson 2 9 103 Cole, Sarh ’488, Sarh ’437 9 10–17 103 Cole, Sarh ’488, Crothers, Bloch, Carson 10–17 18 103 Cole, Sarh ’488, Crothers, Bloch, Carson, Sarh ’437 18 Overall Outcome 1–18 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED 4 The rejections of claims 2 and 10–18 are stated in the alternative, but are addressed in the table as a whole because the outcome is the same for each alternative.