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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The controller of Haeufgloecker controls the production line which includes the robot. The controller of Haeufgloecker performs the functions to manage the robot welding arm performance as claimed in the Applicant’s invention.
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.
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.
Independent claim 22 and dependent claims 15-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haeufgloecker et al. DE 102012025196 A1 in view of Phillips US 20080237199 A1, Huber et al. DE 102004020438 A1, and Suita et al. US 6072145.
Regarding claim 22, Haeufgloecker discloses a welding robot (Fig. 1, Ref. 30), wherein the method comprises the method for operating a welding device (Para. 1) for resistance welding (TITLE), wherein the method comprises: carrying out a verification measurement by moving electrodes of the welding device toward one another and measuring a force (Para. 41 measuring reference force); ascertaining electrode wear by using the measured distance (Para. 10; Para. 42 discloses how the reference force measured in Para. 41 is used to detect the wear value of the electrodes); and changing or cleaning the electrodes or component parts of the electrodes depending on the ascertained electrode wear (Para. 10); wherein the welding device is a welding gun (Para. 1), wherein the controller is configured to perform a method for operating a welding device for resistance welding (Fig. 2, Ref. 54).
Haeufgloecker does not specifically disclose measuring a distance between the electrodes and wherein the welding gun includes an electromechanical drive and wherein the force and the distance are measured by the electromechanical drive, and wherein the electromechanical drive comprises a servomotor with an internal force transducer and a resolver that measures the distance.
However in the same field of endeavor Phillips teaches measuring a distance between the electrodes (Para. 29), and wherein the welding device includes an electromechanical drive (Para. 22, “robot”) and wherein the force and the distance are measured by the electromechanical drive (Para. 22).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Haeufgloecker with Phillips by measuring the force and distance by using an electromechanical drive for the robot welding apparatus to determine what action to take based on the distance moved in the electrode wear as calculated by the encoder (Phillips Para. 40).
In the same field of endeavor, Huber teaches wherein the electromechanical drive comprises a servomotor (Para. 9) with a resolver that measures the distance (Para. 12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot arm of Haeufgloecker with the specific servomotor and resolve measurement system of Huber to detect the position of the welding gun incrementally (Huber Para. 9).
In the same field of endeavor, Suita teaches wherein the electromechanical drive comprises a servomotor (Fig. 3, Ref. 91) with an internal force transducer (Col. 5, Lines 18-20 teach the pressing force detecting device with a strain gauge as an example).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot arm of Haeufgloecker with the internal force transducer of Suita to control the dynamic behavior of electrodes during the welding process (Suita Col. 2, Lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Haeufgloecker discloses wherein the electrodes each comprise a respective electrode cap (Para. 15) and an electrode shank (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Haeufgloecker discloses wherein the step of ascertaining the electrode wear further includes comparing the measured distance with a base value and/or a reference value (Para. 16).
Regarding claim 17, Haeufgloecker discloses wherein the step of carrying out the verification measurement is performed after a change of a respective electrode cap of the electrodes to determine a base value for a wear of a respective shank of the electrodes (Para. 50 discloses taking measurements after every component change).
Regarding claim 18, Haeufgloecker discloses wherein the carrying out the verification measurement is performed after cleaning of a respective electrode cap of the electrodes to determine a reference value for a wear of the respective electrode cap (Para. 21).
Regarding claim 20, Haeufgloecker discloses wherein the cleaning comprises the steps of: providing a cap miller (Para. 44) and beginning milling of the respective electrode cap by the cap miller with a milling force (Para. 44); and monitoring a removal of material from the respective electrode cap by the milling to adapt the milling force, a milling time, and/or a milling interval (Para. 10 discloses reducing time between cleaning (milling) processes based on the short-circuit measurement carried out by the wear detection device).
Regarding claim 21, Haeufgloecker does not specifically disclose comprising the steps of measuring a respective distance between the electrodes before and after the cleaning; and comparing the respective distances to adapt the milling force, the milling time, and/or the milling interval.
However in the same field of endeavor Phillips teaches comprising the steps of measuring a respective distance between the electrodes before and after the cleaning (Para. 10); and comparing the respective distances to adapt the milling force (Para. 11), the milling time, and/or the milling interval.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haeufgloecker with Phillips for the robot welding apparatus to provide data for monitoring the cap cleaning (or tip dressing) process and improve efficiency of the cleaning process.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haeufgloecker et al. DE 102012025196 A1 in view of Phillips US 20080237199 A1, Huber et al. DE 102004020438 A1, and in further view of Birner-Such et al. US 9120174 B2.
Regarding claim 19, Haeufgloecker does not specifically disclose the step of regulating the force with an accuracy of +/- 30 N.
However in the same field of endeavor Birner-Such teaches the step of regulating the force with an accuracy of +/- 30 N (Col. 7, Lines 54-59 teaches regulating the force to a targeted value and a person of ordinary skill would adjust the force range to meet their use case).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haeufgloecker with Birner-Such to precisely control the for and compensate for movement to obtain and quality weld through the force and timing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Machan US 20120241415 A1 - WELD CAP CHANGING TOOLS
Killian et al. US 5558785 A - Inter-electrode Displacement Monitoring And Control
Taniguchi et al. US 2018/0043461 A1
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA B BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Wednesday 6:00 am-12:00 pm and Tuesday 6:00 am-2:30 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/K.B.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights