DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 11/06/2025
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant in page 5 of remarks filed on 10/20/2025 recites, “Applicant respectfully contends that the system described in Komatsu appears to control only one robot system or robot cell to perform laser irradiation, while the system described in Watanabe appears to control multiple robot cells to perform laser irradiation simultaneously. Hence, Applicant respectfully contends that the system of Komatsu and the system of Watanabe are not mutually compatible, and there is a contradiction and obstacle to applying the features described in Watanabe to the system of Komatsu.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that “the system of Komatsu and the system of Watanabe are not mutually compatible, and there is a contradiction and obstacle to applying the features described in Watanabe to the system of Komatsu”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Komatsu as cited in the rejection under 35 USC § 103 teaches, in ¶0042 and ¶0062 teaches the concept of operating the laser oscillation device based only on the command received from the robot system which has the occupancy right, out of a plurality of robot system. The difference between the teaching of Komatsu and claimed invention is in the limitation regarding robot cells capability of simultaneously performing laser irradiation operations. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the capability of simultaneously performing laser irradiation operations using laser output from the laser oscillator by the plurality of robot, is not affected by the validity of the signal sent from the robot cells. Watanabe teaches the concept regarding performing multiple laser irradiation simultaneously, as cited below in the rejection under 35 USC § 103. One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the laser robot system of Komatsu in view of Watanabe to make it capable of performing laser irradiation operations from a plurality of robot cells simultaneously. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow carrying out laser machining at an optimum efficiency by using both laser robots as taught by Watanabe in Column 7 Line 33-46.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “and in a case where the signal to be communicated from the one of the robot controllers to the laser oscillator is a laser oscillation output command signal, there being no master-slave relationship between the robot controllers and the laser oscillator.”. However, according to specification ¶0022, “in the time slot where the robot controller 112 is granted with the master privilege, only a signal of a laser output command sent from the robot controller 112 to the laser oscillator 20 is regarded as valid, allowing only the robot cell 11 to utilize output of the laser oscillator 20 to perform laser irradiation, while a laser output command sent from the robot controller 122 that is not granted with the master privilege to the laser oscillator 20 is regarded as invalid, disallowing the robot cell 12 to perform laser irradiation.”. Based on the specification, it appears that the master-slave relationship is maintained even when the command is a laser output command. Specification does not provide any description regarding “there being no master-slave relationship between the robot controllers and the laser oscillator” when the signal is a laser oscillation output command signal. Therefore the claimed subject matter is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3 and 5 depends on claim 1 and are therefore rejected due to their dependency.
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.
Claim 1-3 and 5 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 1 recites, “and in a case where the signal to be communicated from the one of the robot controllers to the laser oscillator is a laser oscillation output command signal, there being no master-slave relationship between the robot controllers and the laser oscillator.”. It is unclear from the limitation as to what is the nature of the relationship being claimed as “master-slave relationship between the robot controllers and the laser oscillator”. As recited in the limitation, the signal being communicated from the robot controllers to the laser oscillator is a laser oscillation output command signal. Since the robot controller is sending the laser oscillation output command signal to the oscillator, there is an inherent master-slave relationship present between the robot controller and laser oscillator (i.e. the robot controller is the master and the laser oscillator is the slave). However, the second portion of the limitation appears to contradict that by reciting there is no master-slave relationship between the robot controllers and the laser oscillator. Therefore the limitation is unclear. For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation is being interpreted to recite, “and in a case where the signal to be communicated from the one of the robot controllers to the laser oscillator is a laser oscillation output command signal, there
Claims 2-3 and 5 depends on claim 1 and are therefore rejected due to their dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu (WO2017051504A1 -Copy with English translation provided in the IDS filed on 09/16/2022 is being used for citation) in view of Watanabe (EP0607456A1) and further in view of Nishiwaki (US20230211435A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Komatsu teaches, A laser robot system comprising:
a plurality of robot cells each including a laser irradiation device; and (¶0017 teaches plurality of robot systems 60A, 60B, 60C)
a laser oscillator provided separately from the robot cells, (¶0016 teaches laser oscillation device 30)
the plurality of robot cells being provided with robot controllers, each of the robot controllers being individually associated with a corresponding one of the robot cells and being configured to monitor and control operation of the corresponding one of the robot cells, (¶0017 teaches The robot system 60a includes a robot 70a and a robot control device 20a. The robot system 60b includes a robot 70b and a robot control device 20b. The robot system 60c includes a robot 70c and a robot control device 20c.)
one of the robot controllers serving as a master unit, the laser oscillator serving as a slave unit, the one of the robot controllers communicating a signal sent from the corresponding one of the robot cells to the laser oscillator. (¶0042 teaches, the robot control device 20a can use the laser oscillation device 30 after receiving the notification of exclusive right grant (that is, after acquiring the exclusive right). The calculation unit 21a communicates the oscillation information from the second communication unit 25a to the fourth laser communication unit 35 of the laser oscillation device 30 (STEP 200). Here, the oscillation information is information relating to a command of an output value of laser light emitted from the laser oscillation device 30, ON / OFF of laser light irradiation, and the like. Therefore robot control device 20a serves as master communicates oscillation information to laser oscillation device 30)
only the ….signal sent from the one of the robot controllers serving as the master unit being regarded as valid, and the safety signal sent from a robot controller of the robot controllers other than the one of the robot controllers serving as the master unit being invalid, (Komatsu in ¶0062 teaches, the laser oscillation device 30 is connected to one of the robot systems 60a, 60b, 60c that has obtained the right to use the laser oscillation device 30 through the first communication units 24a, 24b, 24c. ¶0073 even if communication to drive the laser oscillation device 30 is performed from a robot system other than the robot system to which the occupancy right has been granted, the communication is not transmitted to the laser oscillation device 30. Therefore, the laser control is reliably performed based on a command from the robot system having the occupancy right.)
and in a case where the signal to be communicated from the one of the robot controllers to the laser oscillator is a laser oscillation output command signal, there being no master-slave relationship between the robot controllers and the laser oscillator. (The calculation unit 21a communicates the oscillation information from the second communication unit 25a to the fourth laser communication unit 35 of the laser oscillation device 30 (STEP 200). Here, the oscillation information is information relating to a command of an output value of laser light emitted from the laser oscillation device 30, ON / OFF of laser light irradiation, and the like.)
Komatsu doesn’t explicitly teach, the plurality of robot cells simultaneously performing laser irradiation operations using laser output from the laser oscillator, (Watanabe in Column 2 Line 50-56 teaches simultaneously providing laser beams at the two laser beam outlets. Column 7 Line 7-19 teaches simultaneously operating two laser robots, also teaches, “The YAG laser beam emitted by the single laser unit 18 is split into two YAG laser beams by the laser beam splitting controller 20, and the two YAG laser beams are transmitted through the two optical fiber cables 36a and 36b to the two laser robots 14 and 16”)
Watanabe is an art in the area of interest as it teaches a laser robot system (see Abstract). A combination of Watanabe with Komatsu would teach using plurality of robot cells simultaneously performing laser irradiation operations using laser output from the laser oscillator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Watanabe with Komatsu. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow carrying out laser machining at an optimum efficiency by using both laser robots as taught by Watanabe in Column 7 Line 33-46.
Komatsu and Watanabe doesn't teach, in a case where a signal to be communicated from the robot controllers to the laser oscillator is a safety signal, (Nishiwaki in ¶0029 and Fig. 1 teaches a laser machining system a controller 3 that controls the laser beam machine 2. ¶0045 teaches the controller includes a machinery safety unit 33. ¶0082 teaches, The control signal that the machinery safety unit 33 outputs may be a signal that stops beam oscillation of the laser oscillator 21. Therefore it teaches communicating a safety signal from the controller to a laser oscillator. )
…safety signal sent from the one of the robot controllers… the safety signal sent from a robot controller of the robot controllers other than the one of the robot controllers serving as the master unit… (Nishiwaki in ¶0082 teaches, The control signal that the machinery safety unit 33 outputs may be a signal that stops beam oscillation of the laser oscillator 21. Therefore it teaches communicating a safety signal from the controller to a laser oscillator. )
Nishiwaki is an art in the area of interest as it teaches a laser machining system (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Nishiwaki with Komatsu and Watanabe. Komatsu in ¶0042 already teaches controller communicating oscillation information to the oscillation device. Nishiwaki teaches communicating a safety signal to the oscillation device. One of ordinary skill in the art could combine the teaching of Nishiwaki with Komatsu and Watanabe to enable Komatsu' s robot controller to communicate a safety signal to the oscillation device. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow detecting machining defects stop the machine as soon as possible to avoid damage to machining heads as taught by Nishiwaki in ¶0077.
Regarding claim 2,
Komatsu and Watanabe teaches, The laser robot system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of robot cells share the laser oscillator. (Komatsu in ¶0026 teaches, the laser oscillation device 30 includes a laser oscillation unit 36 and a laser beam switching unit 37. The laser oscillation unit 36 outputs laser light. The laser beam switching unit 37 outputs the laser beam output from the laser oscillation unit 36 to the laser processing heads 11a, 11b, and 11c.)
Regarding claim 3,
Komatsu and Watanabe teaches, The laser robot system according to claim 1, wherein the robot controllers are each allowed to be selected by switching whether a control privilege to serve as the master unit is granted. (Komatsu in ¶0045 teaches, As described above, in order for the robot control device 20a to perform a welding operation using the laser oscillation device 30, a first step is performed in which the robot control device 20a transmits occupancy information to the laser oscillation device 30 using the first communication unit 24a and obtains the occupancy right of the laser oscillation device 30. Then, once the robot control device 20a has obtained the occupancy right, a second step is performed in which the robot control device 20a transmits oscillation information to the laser oscillation device 30 using the second communication unit 25a.)
Regarding claim 5,
Komatsu, Watanabe and Nishiwaki teaches, The laser robot system according to claim 1, wherein, when one of the robot controllers has detected an abnormality in its corresponding one of the robot cells, the one of the robot controllers causes laser irradiation in the corresponding one of the robot cells to stop, and causes output of the laser oscillator to stop as the one of the robot controllers communicates the safety signal sent from the corresponding one of the robot cells to the laser oscillator. (Nishiwaki in ¶0079 teaches, The machinery safety unit 33 outputs a control signal based on a decision made by the machining decision unit 32. In cases where the decision made by the machining decision unit 32 is a decision indicating a defect, the machinery safety unit 33 outputs the corresponding control signal to the control unit 35. ¶0082 teaches, The control signal that the machinery safety unit 33 outputs may be a signal that cuts off energy to a motor moving a shaft of the driving unit 24 for stopping the shaft or a signal that stops beam oscillation of the laser oscillator 21.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mizuno (US20190061054A1) in ¶0282 teaches A laser welding apparatus 100B including a robot apparatus 110, a plurality of laser heads 102 1 to 102 N, and a single laser oscillator 103 serving as a light source. The robot apparatus 110 includes a plurality of robots 101 1 to 101 N, and N is a positive integer of two or more.
Furuya (US20180147665A1) in ¶0031-¶0032 teaches, Laser beam (fiber laser beam) produced by the laser oscillator 10 is provided via optical fibers 11 to the processing tools 12 of respective robots 1 (R1, R2) to enable, for example, laser welding on the automobile body 100.
Arai (US20040129685A1) in ¶0013 teaches, a laser drilling apparatus having a laser head for drilling a workpiece, simultaneously at two positions, with the use of two laser beams, that is, a first laser beam and a second laser beam.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116