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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Domestic Benefit
Claim to domestic benefit is acknowledged as requirements of 37 CFR 1.78 and 35 U.S.C. 119(e) are met.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
The examiner received amendments to the claims and remarks dated 16 October 2025 with request for continued evaluation (RCE) in response to the final rejection office action dated 16 April 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding objections”, “outstanding rejections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding outstanding claim objections, the examiner notes that previously-identified objections have been addressed. Therefore, all outstanding claim objections are withdrawn. However, new minor informalities and claim notes are noted below.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 103) rejections, the examiner has performed an additional search and opted to put forth art which better reads upon the claimed invention. Therefore, all outstanding prior art rejections are withdrawn in favor of the new grounds of rejection noted below.
For clarity of record, as applicant has amended the claims, all arguments for applicability of prior art are moot. However, regarding claims 10 and 19, examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments provided by the applicant. The claim language of the associated claims states “to output the at least one of the visual notification or the audible notification until a conclusion of the robotic welding procedure”. The language does not specify that the audible notification is a continuous sound or a single “beep” (for example) that is repeated at a certain frequency until the operation is complete. The “separate” notifications reasonably comprise a single notification that occurs for the duration of a process. Therefore, the art continues to read upon the claim language.
Status of Claims
The claim set dated 16 October 2025 is the most recent revision of the claim set. Claims 6 and 14-15 are cancelled. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims. Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 16-20 are pending. Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 16-20 are rejected as noted further below.
Claim Note and Interpretation
The examiner notes that phrase “and involving one or more welding arcs” was not removed from claim 11 despite being removed for analogous claims 1 and 20. While not necessarily incorrect, the examiner wishes to bring this to the attention of the applicant in the event that this was inadvertent.
The examiner also wishes to continue to put on record that the term “proximate” as used in claims 1-3, 11-13, and 20 was previously identified in the non-final rejection dated 20 May 2024 as a term that rendered the claims indefinite. However, the arguments provided on pages 7-8 of the remarks dated 01 October 2024 persuaded the examiner that the term did not render the claim indefinite. The examiner reviewed the interpretation in light of the specification and will continue to interpret the claim broadly but also interpret the claim term as clear and definite. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for “proximate” continues to be withheld at this time.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 contains "; and" in the incorrect location; this should instead be located between the final and penultimate limitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asada et al. (US 2022/0055138 A1; filed 14 October 2020, hereinafter Asada) in view of Austdac (NPL – “Pre-Start Alarm and Communications System Type PSACS1”, dated 24 March 2017, provided with this office action as a PDF).
Regarding independent claims 1 (system) and 11 (method): Asada discloses A robotic welding system, comprising: a robotic manipulator configured to manipulate a welding torch; and a robotic controller, comprising: a processor; and a machine readable storage medium comprising machine readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to, (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0019, 0021, 0036, 0039, 0041, 0068] and Figure [1A-1B, 3], Asada discloses a robotic welding system including a welding torch, a support, one or more actuators, an input device, and a processor. Further, Asada discloses a controller comprising a processor and memory comprising code to execute steps of the disclosure) / A method to control a robotic welding system, the method comprising: (per claim 11) (Paragraph [0019, 0022], Asada discloses a method of operating a robotic welding system)
in response to initiation of a robotic welding procedure, the robotic welding procedure including performing one or more welding arcs using the robotic manipulator: (per claim 1) / identifying, via a robotic controller, an initiation of a robotic welding procedure, the robotic welding procedure comprising performing one or more welding arcs using manipulator and involving one or more welding arcs; in response to the initiation of the robotic welding procedure: (per claim 11) (Paragraph [0019, 0024, 0053-0054], Asada discloses transition of the robotic welding system/method to an autonomous mode (an initiation of a robotic welding procedure), as “In the autonomous mode, a trajectory tracking controller 116 may operate welding torch 3 according to the determined target trajectory.”)
prior to starting the robotic welding procedure, output at least one of a visual notification or an audible notification proximate to the robotic manipulator; […] (per claim 1) / outputting, proximate to the robotic manipulator, at least one of a visual notification via a visual output or an audible notification via an audio output; and […] (per claim 11) (Paragraph [0030, 0054], Asada discloses that the robotic welding system outputs an audible and/or visual notification through lights, speakers, etc. when transitioning to the autonomous mode (therefore, a notification is provided before welding in the autonomous mode))
[…] control the robotic manipulator to perform the robotic welding procedure using the welding torch. (per claim 1) / […] controlling the robotic manipulator to perform the robotic welding procedure using a welding torch. (per claim 11) (Paragraph [0019, 0024, 0053-0054], Asada discloses an autonomous mode where “In the autonomous mode, a trajectory tracking controller 116 may operate welding torch 3 according to the determined target trajectory.”)
Asada then differs from claims 1 and 11 of the instant application in the inclusion of a confirmation/acknowledgement prior to performing the welding procedure. However, this is an obvious variant of Asada.
Austdac, in a similar field of endeavor of pre-start alarm systems, teaches prior to starting the [robotic welding] procedure, output at least one of a visual notification or an audible notification proximate to the [robotic] manipulator; (per claim 1) / outputting, proximate to the [robotic] manipulator, at least one of a visual notification via a visual output or an audible notification via an audio output; and (per claim 11) (Page [4] Section [1], Austdac teaches “the pre-start alarm subsystem provides an audible warning that the conveyor is about to start moving.”)
after outputting the at least one of the visual notification or the audible notification, determine whether at least one [weld]-ready condition is satisfied based on at least one of: identifying an input via the at least one of a discrete input device, a human-machine interface, or a voice recognition system, or identifying an input via one or more sensors; and (per claim 1) / after outputting the at least one of the visual notification or the audible notification, determining, via the [robotic] controller, whether one or more [weld]-ready conditions are satisfied based on at least one of: identifying an input via the at least one of a discrete input device, a human-machine interface, or a voice recognition system, or identifying an input via one or more sensors; (per claim 11) (Page [4] Section [1] and Page [13] Section [5], Austdac teaches “The pre-start alarm will continue to sound as long as the request is asserted. The request should remain until a confirmation is received from the controller.” And “The tail end unit monitors the pre-start alarm and sends back a message to confirm that the alarm was heard along the entire length of the conveyor.”, which is considered at least a discrete input, but may also reasonably constitute a sensor input)
after determining that the at least one [weld]-ready condition is satisfied, control the [robotic] manipulator to perform the [robotic welding] procedure [using the welding torch]. (per claim 1) / in response to determining that the one or more [weld]-ready conditions are satisfied, controlling the [robotic] manipulator to perform the [robotic welding] procedure using a [welding torch]. (per claim 11) (Page [10] Section [3] and Page [13] Section [5], Austdac teaches “The pre-start alarm is monitored to ensure that the pre-start alarm tones reach the entire length of the conveyor installation. For a pre-start alarm to be confirmed or successful it must make its way from the controller through all the intercoms or BMAs, that sound the pre-start alarm and onto the tail end unit. The tail end unit detects the pre-start alarm tones and returns a confirmation set of tones to the controller so that a confirmation or successful signal can be passed onto the host PLC or conveyor controller.” And “The pre-start alarm will continue to sound as long as the request is asserted. The request should remain until a confirmation is received from the controller.”)
Asada and Austdac are in a similar field of endeavor of pre-start alarm system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Asada with an alarm acknowledgement/confirmation as taught by Austdac in the interest of confirming that the pre-start alarm was effective (Austdac, Page [4] Section [1] states “…to confirm that the alarm was heard along the entire length of the conveyor.”).
The examiner submits that the claimed invention recites merely an application of a generic pre-start alarm system (known to be applied to machinery systems such as conveyor belts) to a generic robotic welding system. As outlined in the disclosure of Asada, pre-start alarms are known to be used with robotic welding systems. Further, pre-start alarms are known to contain some form of acknowledgement/confirmation/feedback as shown by the teachings of Austdac. Thus, merely applying well-known pre-start alarms with acknowledgement functions to a welding robot constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 2 and 12: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Asada in view of Austdac. Asada further discloses wherein the machine readable instructions cause the processor to output a visual notification by illuminating a light proximate to the robotic manipulator or a welding table. (per claim 2) / wherein the outputting of the visual notification comprises illuminating a light proximate to the robotic manipulator or a welding table. (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0030], Asada discloses the illumination of lights on the robotic welding system)
Regarding claims 3 and 13: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Asada in view of Austdac. Asada further discloses wherein the machine readable instructions cause the processor to output an audible notification by outputting a sound or audible message proximate to the robotic manipulator or a welding table. (per claim 1) / wherein the outputting of the audible notification comprises outputting a sound or audible message proximate to the robotic manipulator or a welding table. (per claim 11) (Paragraph [0030], Asada discloses an audible alert/tone from a speaker on the robotic welding system)
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Asada in view of Austdac. Asada further discloses further comprising [the] at least one of [the] discrete input device, [the] human-machine interface, or [the] voice recognition system. (Paragraph [0032-0033, 0036], Asada discloses a remote input device)
Austdac, in a similar field of endeavor of pre-start alarm systems, teaches further comprising the at least one of the discrete input device, the human-machine interface, or the voice recognition system. (Page [4] Section [1], Austdac teaches tail end unit monitors (sensors) that confirm that the alarm was heard along the entire length of the machine)
Asada and Austdac are in a similar field of endeavor of pre-start alarm system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Asada with an alarm acknowledgement/confirmation as taught by Austdac in the interest of confirming that the pre-start alarm was effective (Austdac, Page [4] Section [1] states “…to confirm that the alarm was heard along the entire length of the conveyor.”).
Regarding claim 5: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Asada in view of Austdac. Asada further discloses further comprising [the] one or more sensors. (Paragraph [0031, 0033], Asada discloses the use of sensors within the robotic system)
Austdac, in a similar field of endeavor of pre-start alarm systems, teaches further comprising the one or more sensors. (Page [4] Section [1], Austdac teaches tail end unit monitors (sensors) that confirm that the alarm was heard along the entire length of the machine)
Asada and Austdac are in a similar field of endeavor of pre-start alarm system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Asada with an alarm acknowledgement/confirmation as taught by Austdac in the interest of confirming that the pre-start alarm was effective (Austdac, Page [4] Section [1] states “…to confirm that the alarm was heard along the entire length of the conveyor.”).
Regarding claims 7 and 17: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Asada in view of Austdac. Asada further discloses wherein the machine readable instructions cause the processor to determine that the at least one weld-ready condition is satisfied in response to the at least one of the visual notification or the audible notification being output for at least a threshold time period. (per claim 7) / wherein the determining of whether the one or more weld-ready conditions are satisfied is in response to the at least one of the visual notification or the audible notification being output for at least a threshold time period. (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0030], Asada discloses that indicating lights, patterns, blinking, tones, etc. may be used to alert an operator that the system enters autonomous mode. The examiner notes that “at least a threshold time period” reasonably includes any amount of time above zero. Therefore, any output is reasonably “for at least a threshold time period”)
Further, Austdac, in a similar field of endeavor of pre-start alarm systems, teaches wherein the machine readable instructions cause the processor to determine that the at least one [weld]-ready condition is satisfied in response to the at least one of the visual notification or the audible notification being output for at least a threshold time period. (per claim 7) / wherein the determining of whether the one or more [weld]-ready conditions are satisfied is in response to the at least one of the visual notification or the audible notification being output for at least a threshold time period. (per claim 17) (Page [13] Section [5], Austdac teaches “The pre-start alarm will continue to sound as long as the request is asserted. The request should remain until a confirmation is received from the controller. The shortest time between the request and the receipt of the confirmation is 10 seconds. The request can be negated any time after the receipt of the confirmation. If a longer pre-start alarm is required, then the request should remain asserted for the required time.” And “It is important that the end user or overall system designer conduct a risk analysis on the time it takes staff to move away from the plant that is about to be started. The analysis should determine the longest exit time and ensure that the pre-start alarm sounds for that time period before any command to start is issued to the plant.”)
Asada and Austdac are in a similar field of endeavor of pre-start alarm system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Asada with an alarm acknowledgement/confirmation that continues for a predetermined time as taught by Austdac in the interest of confirming that the pre-start alarm was effective (Austdac, Page [4] Section [1] states “…to confirm that the alarm was heard along the entire length of the conveyor.”).
Regarding claim 8: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Asada in view of Austdac. Asada further discloses wherein the machine readable instructions cause the processor to identify the initiation of the robotic welding procedure based on at least one of a user input or a part clamp. (Paragraph [0033], Asada discloses that the user may perform commands for operation of the welding torch)
Regarding claim 16: Parent claim 11 is unpatentable over Asada in view of Austdac. The combination as noted above discloses weld criteria and ready conditions. Asada does not explicitly disclose further weld-read conditions after the notification.
Austdac, in a similar field of endeavor of pre-start alarm systems, teaches wherein the determining of whether the one or more [weld]-ready conditions are satisfied occurs after a start of the at least one of the visual notification or the audible notification. (Page [4] Section [1] and Page [13] Section [5], Austdac teaches “The pre-start alarm will continue to sound as long as the request is asserted. The request should remain until a confirmation is received from the controller.” And “The tail end unit monitors the pre-start alarm and sends back a message to confirm that the alarm was heard along the entire length of the conveyor.”, which is considered at least a discrete input, but may also reasonably constitute a sensor input)
Asada and Austdac are in a similar field of endeavor of pre-start alarm system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Asada with an alarm acknowledgement/confirmation as taught by Austdac in the interest of confirming that the pre-start alarm was effective (Austdac, Page [4] Section [1] states “…to confirm that the alarm was heard along the entire length of the conveyor.”).
Claims 9-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asada in view of Austdac in further view of Hiratsuka et al. (US 2019/0374417 A1; hereinafter Hiratsuka).
Regarding claims 9 and 18: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Asada in view of Austdac. Asada does not explicitly disclose performing a notification prior to each arc of a multiple arc procedure, however this is considered obvious as mere duplication of the alert provided prior to the first welding operation.
Further, Hiratsuka, in a similar field of endeavor of robot control, teaches wherein the machine readable instructions cause the processor to output the at least one of the visual notification or the audible notification prior to each arc initiation in a [multiple-arc robotic welding] procedure. (per claim 9) / further comprising outputting the at least one of the visual notification or the audible notification prior to each arc initiation in a [multiple-arc robotic welding] procedure. (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0192, 0252] and Claim [9], As the robot of Hiratsuka performs a notification with every movement of a single work procedure, it is thus considered analogous to starting and stopping multiple operations performed by the robot of Hiratsuka (alerting prior to each “action”, be it a welding system or medical system). Hiratsuka teaches that the notification is made prior to each movement of the robot)
Asada and Hiratsuka are in a similar field of endeavor of robot control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Asada by including a safety interlock that requires the notification of impending operation prior to operation, as taught by Hiratsuka in order to increase the level of safety for operators. Asada discloses the desire to notify operators of changing robot conditions through visual and audible means (Asada, Paragraph [0030]), and therefore provides structural elements (light and sound emitting devices) with the same rationale (to alert users of changing robot conditions) as that found in Hiratsuka. Hiratsuka utilizes visual and audible means to alert users of changing robot conditions in order to improve a level of safety (Hiratsuka, Paragraph [0252]). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it obvious to modify the welding robot system of Asada with a safety system akin to that found in Hiratsuka (with a reasonable expectation of success) in order to improve worker safety (Hiratsuka, Paragraph [0252]).
Regarding claims 10 and 19: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Asada in view of Austdac. Asada does not explicitly disclose performing a notification until the autonomous mode is complete (the duration of the procedure).
However, Hiratsuka, in a similar field of robot control, teaches wherein the machine readable instructions cause the processor to output the at least one of the visual notification or the audible notification until a conclusion of the robotic welding procedure. (per claim 10) / further comprising outputting the at least one of the visual notification or the audible notification until a conclusion of the robotic welding procedure. (per claim 19) (Paragraph [0192, 0252] and Claim [9], Hiratsuka teaches that the voice notifications are made prior to robot movement and may be made when the operation is finished (“’Arrived at surgery position. Brakes have been applied and the movements have completely stopped’ throughout the medical room…to notify that the movement of the robot arm has been ended”). Thus, a notification is made until a conclusion of a robot procedure)
Asada and Hiratsuka are in a similar field of endeavor of robot control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Asada by including a safety interlock that requires the notification of impending operation prior to operation, as taught by Hiratsuka in order to increase the level of safety for operators. Asada discloses the desire to notify operators of changing robot conditions through visual and audible means (Asada, Paragraph [0030]), and therefore provides structural elements (light and sound emitting devices) with an analogous rationale (to alert users of changing robot conditions) as that found in Hiratsuka. Hiratsuka utilizes visual and audible means to alert users of changing robot conditions in order to improve a level of safety (Hiratsuka, Paragraph [0252]). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it obvious to modify the welding robot system of Asada with a safety system akin to that found in Hiratsuka (with a reasonable expectation of success) in order to improve worker safety (Hiratsuka, Paragraph [0252]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asada in view of Austdac in further view of Speilman (US 2009/0277893 A1; hereinafter Speilman).
Regarding independent claim 20 (system): Asada discloses A welding system, comprising: [power conversion circuitry configured to convert input power to welding-type output power;] a robotic manipulator configured to manipulate a welding torch; and a robotic controller, comprising: a processor; and a machine readable storage medium comprising machine readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to, (Paragraph [0019, 0021, 0036, 0039, 0041, 0068] and Figure [1A-1B, 3], Asada discloses a robotic welding system including a welding torch, a support, one or more actuators, an input device, and a processor. Further, Asada discloses a controller comprising a processor and memory comprising code to execute steps of the disclosure)
in response to initiation of a robotic welding procedure, the robotic welding procedure including performing one or more welding arcs using the robotic manipulator: (Paragraph [0019, 0024, 0053-0054], Asada discloses transition of the robotic welding system/method to an autonomous mode (an initiation of a robotic welding procedure), as “In the autonomous mode, a trajectory tracking controller 116 may operate welding torch 3 according to the determined target trajectory.”)
prior to starting the robotic welding procedure, output at least one of a visual notification or an audible notification proximate to the robotic manipulator; […] (Paragraph [0030, 0054], Asada discloses that the robotic welding system outputs an audible and/or visual notification through lights, speakers, etc. when transitioning to the autonomous mode (therefore, a notification is provided before welding in the autonomous mode))
[…] control the robotic manipulator to perform the robotic welding procedure using the welding torch. (Paragraph [0019, 0024, 0053-0054], Asada discloses an autonomous mode where “In the autonomous mode, a trajectory tracking controller 116 may operate welding torch 3 according to the determined target trajectory.”)
Asada then differs from claim 20 of the instant application in the inclusion of a confirmation/acknowledgement prior to performing the welding procedure and circuitry to convert input power to output power. However, this is an obvious variant of Asada.
Austdac, in a similar field of endeavor of pre-start alarm systems, teaches prior to starting the [robotic welding] procedure, output at least one of a visual notification or an audible notification proximate to the [robotic] manipulator; (Page [4] Section [1], Austdac teaches “the pre-start alarm subsystem provides an audible warning that the conveyor is about to start moving.”)
after outputting the at least one of the visual notification or the audible notification, determine whether at least one [weld]-ready condition is satisfied based on at least one of: identifying an input via the at least one of a discrete input device, a human-machine interface, or a voice recognition system, or identifying an input via one or more sensors; and (Page [4] Section [1] and Page [13] Section [5], Austdac teaches “The pre-start alarm will continue to sound as long as the request is asserted. The request should remain until a confirmation is received from the controller.” And “The tail end unit monitors the pre-start alarm and sends back a message to confirm that the alarm was heard along the entire length of the conveyor.”, which is considered at least a discrete input, but may also reasonably constitute a sensor input)
after determining that the at least one [weld]-ready condition is satisfied, control the [robotic] manipulator to perform the [robotic welding] procedure [using the welding torch]. (Page [10] Section [3] and Page [13] Section [5], Austdac teaches “The pre-start alarm is monitored to ensure that the pre-start alarm tones reach the entire length of the conveyor installation. For a pre-start alarm to be confirmed or successful it must make its way from the controller through all the intercoms or BMAs, that sound the pre-start alarm and onto the tail end unit. The tail end unit detects the pre-start alarm tones and returns a confirmation set of tones to the controller so that a confirmation or successful signal can be passed onto the host PLC or conveyor controller.” And “The pre-start alarm will continue to sound as long as the request is asserted. The request should remain until a confirmation is received from the controller.”)
Asada and Austdac are in a similar field of endeavor of pre-start alarm system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Asada with an alarm acknowledgement/confirmation as taught by Austdac in the interest of confirming that the pre-start alarm was effective (Austdac, Page [4] Section [1] states “…to confirm that the alarm was heard along the entire length of the conveyor.”).
The examiner submits that the claimed invention recites merely an application of a generic pre-start alarm system (known to be applied to machinery systems such as conveyor belts) to a generic robotic welding system. As outlined in the disclosure of Asada, pre-start alarms are known to be used with robotic welding systems. Further, pre-start alarms are known to contain some form of acknowledgement/confirmation/feedback as shown by the teachings of Austdac. Thus, merely applying well-known pre-start alarms with acknowledgement functions to a welding robot constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding power conversion circuitry configured to convert input power to welding-type output power, the examiner submits that this is implicit in the disclosure of Asada, as the welding torch would typically require some form of input/conversion of power to operate.
Speilman, in a similar field of endeavor of welding systems, teaches a power supply for a welding system having power conversion circuitry configured to convert input power to welding-type output power; (Paragraph [0025] and Claim [1], Speilman discloses conversion of an incoming power to a welding-type output power)
Asada and Speilman are in a similar field of endeavor of welding systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the robot welding system of Asada with explicit disclosure of how the welding torch received power, as taught by Speilman (Paragraph [0025]). The disclosure of Asada does not explicitly describe how power is delivered and simply discloses that the torch is operated. Power supplies are known in the art to receive as input one form of energy and convert/regulate power to a useable output power for a certain purpose. As such, it was known in the art at the time of effective filing to use a power supply which received a certain input power and transform it into a certain output power (Speilman, Paragraph [0025]) in order to power a welding torch. Thus, this constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2016/012.5594 A1
SYSTEMAND METHOD OF CONTROLLING
WELDING SYSTEM CAMERA EXPOSURE AND MARKER ILLUMINATION
Becker et al.
Filed: 30 Oct 2015
Pub: 05 May 2016
Discusses a welding system that displays warnings for users prior to performing a welding operation.
2
US 2019/0362646 A1
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO PROVIDE
VISUAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH
WELDING OPERATIONS
Hsu et al.
Filed: 13 Aug 2019
Pub: 28 Nov 2019
Discusses a welding system that may be a robot that contains pre-weld conditions and displays alerts if discrepancies are detected, preventing operation until the discrepancies are resolved.
3
KR 20160043414 A
Apparatus and Method of Welding
Park
Filed: 13 Oct 2014
Pub: 21 Apr 2016
Discusses a welding system that generates alarms when conditions are not met in pre-welding steps, requiring user input to proceed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658