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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/18/26 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Reference characters "20" and "26" have both been used to designate the “housing” or “support unit”; note that page 9, line 30, of the specification states, “opening 24 in the housing 20”. Thus, the component that these both refer cannot be simultaneously both the housing and support unit.
It is not possible to see sensor "25" as shown in figure 3 as it would be on the opposite end of friction welding machine (11).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
page 9, lines 25-26 of the specification, recites, “The sensor unit 25 and the support unit 26 for automatic support on the coil external diameter are additionally located on this housing.” Since the housing/support unit is inserted into the coil it is unclear how they can support the external diameter of the coil. Additionally, this sentence is grammatically awkward.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “support unit configured to” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 23, 28-30, and 33-36 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.
Claim 23 recites “a welding robot” and “a multi-link robot arm”. It is unclear if these are the same robot or not. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 23, 28, 29, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerback (US 5,705,782 A1) in view of Toguyeni et al. (US 2017/0080518 A1), Fukuhara et al. (US 202/0339205 A1), and Inoue et al. (US 2020/0009676 A1) and alternatively Puisais et al. (US 4,648,544).
Regarding claim 23, Gerback teaches:
A device [device in figure 1] comprising:
a support unit [bearing assemblies (58)] configured to automatically support a welding device [welding coil tool (10)] inside a coil eye of a coil for welding a strip end section to a strip winding, wherein the welding device is configured to be inserted into an end of the coil eye [see figure 1].
Gerback does not teach:
the welding device is a friction welding device [note that the friction welding device is not positively claimed];
wherein the friction welding device is part of a welding robot [note that the welding robot is not positively claimed]; and
a housing having a first opening, wherein the support unit is configured to be brought into contact with the coil through the first opening, and the housing is conically tapered along longitudinal axis of the coil in a direction that the friction welding device is inserted into the coil eye of the coil;
an optical sensor configured to detect a space available within the coil eye for insertion of the friction welding device; and
a multi-link robot arm configured to hold the friction welding device.
Concerning the friction welding device and housing:
Toguyeni teaches FSW device (60) comprising roller support (66) wherein the roller support protrudes through an opening in a top housing and the particular advantages of FSW over traditional fusion-welding methods arise from avoiding problems associated with cooling from the liquid phase, notably redistribution of solutes, porosity, and solidification cracking; 0021 and figures 4 and 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Toguyeni FSW device into Gerback in order to perform a solid state weld as opposed to a fusion weld. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the top housing any shape including conically tapered, minus any unexpected results. Additionally, one would have been motivated to use a frustrum shaped housing because it is less bulky than a shape with the same size of base and/or for aesthetics.
Note that the claimed taper is dependent upon functional language. For arguments sake, the claimed longitudinal axis is taken to mean axis (17) show in figure 4. The friction welding device can be inserted anywhere from 0-90° of this axis since one could insert it diagonally or in a step wise manner, i.e. repeated vertical and horizontal movements. Even so, a conically tapered housing concentric about an axis perpendicular to axis (17) has sides that taper as you move parallel along axis (17) from right to left since these housing sides taper in two dimensions.
Alternative rejection concerning the housing:
While Toguyeni does not explicitly teach FSW tool (64) and roller support (66) protrude through openings in the overall housing; i.e. the box around “60”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so in order to have room for and protect the components; ex. actuators, electronics, etc., of the FSW machine and roller support.
Puisais teaches a welding clamp that is inserted into a cylindrical tube where the insertion end comprises support member/housing (28) that is concentric about the axis of the clamp and has a tapered end; figures 5 and 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the insertion end of the overall housing concentrically tapered as taught by Puisais in order to facilitate insertion and/or decrease accidental damage to the coil or welder.
Concerning welding robot:
However, Gerback notes that robot arms have been used to weld coils; 1:10-14.
Inoue teaches welding with six-axis articulated robot (120); 0026 and figure 1.
Fukuhara teaches a robot arm comprising links (41-46) with a mechanical interface at the distal end of link (46) to which end effector (47) attaches to, wherein the end effector may be for friction stir welding; 0039-0042 and figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Fukuhara robot into Gerback in order to move the welder about, to automate the process, and/or reduce risk to workers.
Concerning the optical sensor:
Inoue teaches a welding robot comprising camera (9) which acquires an image of the workpiece to control the robot; 0038.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Inoue camera concept into Gerback in order use the acquired image to calculate movement of the incorporated robot. Note that detect does not mean the sensed data is being used to control the robot; i.e. the control of the robot is performed by a controller that takes the data gathered by the sensor unit and processes it.
Concerning any claimed results, materials, and/or functions:
Since the prior art apparatus, i.e. the apparatus based on the combined prior art references above, is structurally identical to the claimed apparatus, it is the examiner’s position that the prior art apparatus is capable of achieving any claimed function with any claimed material to achieve any claimed result; such as detect a space available. This reasoning applies to any claim below where functional language, material worked upon, and/or a result is claimed.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Gerback does not teach:
wherein the friction welding device is a friction stir welding device/friction spot welding device.
Fukuhara teaches a friction stir welder can be attached to the robot arm; 0040.
Also as noted above, Toguyeni teaches FSW machine (60); abstract and 0088. Note that whether the FSW machine is used to spot weld or seam weld is dependent on how it is used; i.e. functional language. Thus, the incorporation of the Toguyeni FSW device meets these limitations.
Regarding claims 34 and 35, Gerback does not teach:
wherein the housing further comprises a second opening and friction spot/stir welding is configured to be performed through the second opening.
While Toguyeni does not explicitly teach FSW tool (64) protrudes through an opening in the housing; i.e. the box around “60”, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it does. Even so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so in order to have room for and protect the components; ex. actuators, electronics, etc., of the FSW machine.
As for performing friction stir/spot welding, whether the FSW machine is used to spot weld or seam weld is dependent on how it is used; i.e. functional language.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerback (US 5,705,782 A1) in view of Toguyeni et al. (US 2017/0080518 A1), Fukuhara et al. (US 202/0339205 A1), and Inoue et al. (US 2020/0009676 A1) and alternatively Puisais et al. (US 4,648,544) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2009/0152328 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Gerback does not teach:
a shelf formed by a first roller and a second roller is configured to hold the coil.
Okamoto teaches placing cylindrical objects on rollers (20) while FSW; figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Okamoto roller concept into the prior art apparatus in order to be able to hold and/or rotate the coil.
Claims 33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerback (US 5,705,782 A1) in view of Toguyeni et al. (US 2017/0080518 A1), Fukuhara et al. (US 202/0339205 A1), and Inoue et al. (US 2020/0009676 A1) and alternatively Puisais et al. (US 4,648,544) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Kuka “KUKA linear units”.
Regarding claim 33, Gerback does not teach:
wherein the welding robot further comprises a stationary linear guide configured to displace the multi-link robot arm parallel to a longitudinal axis of the coil.
Kuka teaches a multi-axis robot placed upon a linear unit in order to extend the work envelope of the robot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Kuka linear unit into the prior art device in order to extend the working envelope.
Regarding claim 36, this claim is drawn to material worked upon and thus not further limiting structurally.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerback (US 5,705,782 A1) in view of Toguyeni et al. (US 2017/0080518 A1), Fukuhara et al. (US 202/0339205 A1), and Inoue et al. (US 2020/0009676 A1) and alternatively Puisais et al. (US 4,648,544) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Koga (US 2007/000972 A1). The following applies should the applicant prove that Toguyeni does not teach the second opening.
Regarding claims 34 and 35, Gerback does not teach:
wherein the housing further comprises a second opening and friction spot/stir welding is configured to be performed through the second opening.
Koga teaches a FSW device wherein the components comprising the FSW welder (52, 51, 31) are contained within body (34) while tool (24) protrudes through an opening in the body; see figures 14, 23, and 32. Koga also teaches car body pressing means (68) placed opposite tool (24) protruding from the body; figure 29.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to also have the FSW tool protrude through another opening in the housing. One would have been motivated to enclose the FSW components and roller support inside the housing in order to protect them.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues,
“The Specification discloses two support units, 23 and 26. Both support units are marked in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Fig. 5 depicts "20" and "26" in different locations within the sectional illustration. Support unit 26 is also visible in the schematic side view of Fig. 3. Regarding the relationship between 20 and 26, support unit 26 is located on housing 20.”
Note the there is no “26” in figure 3 and stating that it is shown in figure 3 further clouds the issue. While "20" and "26" are depicted in different locations this does not help to distinguish housing (20) from support unit (26). Perhaps the applicant intends for the housing to comprise the tapered section, opening, and support unit; i.e. cylindrical portion of the housing, but this still does not explain how support unit (26) automatically supports the coil external diameter.
The applicant argues,
“The Examiner further alleged: "While part of the sentence may be understood, this does not make the rest of it so. This sentence appears to be crucial since it is unclear as to what "support unit 26" is and how either are "for automatic support on the coil external diameter."
This allegation appears related to the Examiner's confusion regarding the two support units, 23 and 26. The final paragraph of page 9 of the Specification, incorrectly recites "friction welding device 21" and "friction welding device 19." As revised, the friction welding device is consistently numbered as 19.”
While the above correction helps it does not does not explain how support unit (26) automatically supports the coil external diameter.
In response to the examiner using improper official notice, it is noted the examiner did not and further would like to remind the applicant of their duty of candor. Even so, the examiner has incorporated Fukuhara and Inoue as noted above to teach this issue.
The applicant argues,
“Because the Examiner failed to address detection of a space available within the coil eye by the optical sensor, Inoue's camera cannot remedy the admitted deficiencies of the references of record. Hence, the Examiner did not present a prima facie case of obviousness.”
The “detection of a space available within the coil eye by the optical sensor” is functional language at best. There is no recitation of any structure that would make the claimed optical sensor any different than any other optical sensor. Thus, a camera is an optical sensor and since the claimed generic optical sensor is capable of this function then so to is the Inoue camera.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735