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 Amendment
The amendment filed 1/14/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Claims 2-5 recite “six or more axes”, “a sixth axis”. However, the specification as originally filed does not recite how many axes the robot is capable of moving in. It does not recite a 6th axis. A 6th shaft is recited, but this does not necessarily mean the robot would move in 6 axes.
Claims 2-5 recite “in a circular orbit without interruption back to the start-end position”. However, the terms “orbit” and “without interruption” are not found in the specification as originally filed.
Claims 2-5 recite “tilt angle”. However, the term “tilt” is not recited in the specification as originally filed. A “torch inclination angle (alpha)” is recited, however, it is not clear if this is to be considered the tilt angle.
Claims 2-5 recites “forward/reverse angle”. However, this angle is not recited in the specification as originally filed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 101 and 112 rejections of the claims are withdrawn.
On pages 6-7, applicants argues “Regarding the recitation of "a wrist rotation center," Applicant believes that no antecedent basis issue exists and this term is fully described in the last paragraph on page
4 extending on to page 5 of the original specification.”
While the specification may recite “a wrist rotation center”, limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims. Simply because the specification states the robot has a “wrist rotation center” does not mean the claimed structure (noting no apparatus claim exists) would inherently contain a “wrist rotation center”. While this argument is addressed, it is considered moot as Claim 1 has been cancelled.
On page 7-8 of the reply, applicant argues Kim does not disclose the 6th axis is configured to rotate in an angle range of at least +/- 180 degrees. However, Fig 4 shows the axis where the robot moves through 180 degrees of rotation in a positive and negative direction. Kim also describes 6 axes of rotation. The axis which applicant has claimed this rotation is arbitrary as the number of the axis is
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Claims 2 and 4 has the remarkable effect of allowing the welding torch to move around once along the circumferential weld line without forcing the robot body to assume an unnatural posture”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the totality of the arguments for claims 2-5, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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 2-6 and 8-10 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.
Claims 2-5 recite “six or more axes”, “a sixth axis”. However, the specification as originally filed does not recite how many axes the robot is capable of moving in. It does not recite a 6th axis. A 6th shaft is recited, but this does not necessarily mean the robot would move in 6 axes.
Claims 2-5 recite “in a circular orbit without interruption back to the start-end position”. However, the terms “orbit” and “without interruption” are not found in the specification as originally filed.
Claims 2-5 recite “tilt angle”. However, the term “tilt” is not recited in the specification as originally filed. A “torch inclination angle (alpha)” is recited, however, it is not clear if this is to be considered the tilt angle.
Claims 2-5 recites “forward/reverse angle”. However, this angle is not recited in the specification as originally filed.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 10-2014-0062743) in view of Atohira et al (US 2016/0096269).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses, a SCARA robotic system supporting welding and a welding method thereof, in particular it relates to a circumferential welding method and in particular the following technical features are disclosed (see description paragraphs [0002] to [0063] and figures 2 to 4): the robotic system is a robotic system for welding to the hull a support 3 or a support pad 2, Fig 2 shows a vertical articulated robot with a robot body having 6 axes with the last axis configured to rotate in an angle of +/- 180 degrees. (See Fig 4.) Fig 4 also shows the welding torch being located outside the welding line and being inclined in a left/right direction. Fig 4 shows welding in from a start-end position, but fails to disclose the start-end position is set to a position nearest the robot. However, the start-end position is arbitrary and it would have been obvious to start and/or end welding in whichever position the user or designer desires.
Fig 4 shows the welding taking place around the post, which may be circular (See Page 2, line 1) and the welding is performed without interruption given the rotation of the welding torch.
The welding in Kim must be done by adjusting the tilt angle and forward/reverse angle by rotating two of the axes. However, Kim fails to specifically state, regarding claim 2, during the circumferential welding, a posture of the welding torch is determined by a torch tilt angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fourth axis of the six or more axes, a torch forward/reverse angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fifth axis of the six or more axes, and a torch rotation angle adjusted by a rotation angle of the sixth axis.
Atohira discloses (See Figs 8 and 9) performing welding by adjusting the tilt angle (posture [0009] of the welding torch by rotating one of the axes (one of 6 axes, See Paragraph [0026]) The torch tilt angle and forward/reverse angle is determined and set. (See Paragraph [0024]) It would have been obvious to adapt Kim in view of Atohira to provide a posture of the welding torch is determined by a torch tilt angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fourth axis of the six or more axes, a torch forward/reverse angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fifth axis of the six or more axes, and a torch rotation angle adjusted by a rotation angle of the sixth axis as this is a typical manner for posturing a welding torch.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses, a SCARA robotic system supporting welding and a welding method thereof, in particular it relates to a circumferential welding method and in particular the following technical features are disclosed (see description paragraphs [0002] to [0063] and figures 2 to 4): the robotic system is a robotic system for welding to the hull a support 3 or a support pad 2, Fig 2 shows a vertical articulated robot with a robot body having 6 axes with the last axis configured to rotate in an angle of +/- 180 degrees. (See Fig 4.) Fig 4 also shows the welding torch being located outside the welding line and being inclined in a left/right direction. Fig 4 shows welding in from a start-end position, but fails to disclose the start-end position is set to a position nearest the robot. However, the start-end position is arbitrary and it would have been obvious to start and/or end welding in whichever position the user or designer desires.
Fig 4 shows the welding taking place around the post, which may be circular (See Page 2, line 1) and the welding is performed without interruption given the rotation of the welding torch.
The welding in Kim must be done by adjusting the tilt angle and forward/reverse angle by rotating two of the axes. However, Kim fails to specifically state, regarding claim 2, during the circumferential welding, a posture of the welding torch is determined by a torch tilt angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fourth axis of the six or more axes, a torch forward/reverse angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fifth axis of the six or more axes, and a torch rotation angle adjusted by a rotation angle of the sixth axis.
Atohira discloses (See Figs 8 and 9) performing welding by adjusting the tilt angle (posture [0009] of the welding torch by rotating one of the axes (one of 6 axes, See Paragraph [0026]) The torch tilt angle and forward/reverse angle is determined and set. (See Paragraph [0024]) It would have been obvious to adapt Kim in view of Atohira to provide a posture of the welding torch is determined by a torch tilt angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fourth axis of the six or more axes, a torch forward/reverse angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fifth axis of the six or more axes, and a torch rotation angle adjusted by a rotation angle of the sixth axis as this is a typical manner for posturing a welding torch.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, the teachings of Nishimura have been discussed above. Nishimura fails to disclose the circumferential welding is performed by using offline teaching data for teaching the circumferential welding. Atohira discloses A robot teaching device for teaching a robot offline, capable of setting target, advance and rotation angles of a tool, so that a flat and stable posture of the tool can be obtained. (See Abstract, Paragraph [0026]) It would have been obvious to adapt Nishimura in view of Atohira to provide using offline teaching data for teaching the welding for obtaining a flat and stable posture of the tool during welding.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al (JP 2003-094168) in view of Kim et al (KR 10-2014-0062743) and Atohira et al (US 2016/0096269).
Regarding claim 3, Nishimura discloses, a welding supported SCARA robotic system and a welding method thereof, in particular to a circumferential welding method, and specifically discloses the following technical features (see description pages 2-7 and figures 4 and 9): To a wrist la of a welding robot (equivalent to a vertical multi-articulated robot), one end of a wrist-torch link is mounted, installing a welding torch at its other end, in a welding robot feeding a welding torch with a consumable electrode wire inserted through a wire feeding/power supply conduit 5, the welding robot rotates from the upper portion 33b supporting the welding torch of the belt rotating mechanism as it is through the bearings 12, 13 provided in the wrist/torch coupling mechanism 32, with a rotation transfer unit that transfers the rotation of the 6th axis of the robot 1 to the welding torch 33 of the belt rotating mechanism; in the case where welding is performed on the inner side of the weldment shown in Fig. 9, the welding robot of Example 1 is shown in Fig. 4, the center axis of the welding torch 33 with the rotating mechanism coincides with the rotating shaft 34, Fig. 9 is a diagram illustrating welding of an inner side of a circular weldment 36 (i.e., moving the welding torch to perform circumferential welding, moving the welding torch to depict a circular track to perform circumferential welding with a vertical multijoint type robot in a state in which the welding torch is positioned inside a welding line and an attitude in which the welding torch is inclined in a left-right direction with respect to the welding line) It would have been obvious to n sets the part of the welding line furthest from the setting position of the robot body of the vertical multi-articulated robot as the starting end position of the circumferential weld since selecting the starting point is subjective and would be based on the intended application of the device and whatever is best as determined by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Setting the portion farthest from the installation position of the robot body as the start and end position of the circumferential welding is merely a design matter that could have been appropriately set by a person skilled in the art in consideration of various conditions. It is also not apparent how the starting location of the weld would affect the method in a manipulative sense.
Kim discloses, a SCARA robotic system supporting welding and a welding method thereof, in particular it relates to a circumferential welding method and in particular the following technical features are disclosed (see description paragraphs [0002] to [0063] and figures 2 to 4): the robotic system is a robotic system for welding to the hull a support 3 or a support pad 2, Fig 2 shows a vertical articulated robot with a robot body having 6 axes with the last axis configured to rotate in an angle of +/- 180 degrees. (See Fig 4.) Fig 4 also shows the welding torch being located outside the welding line and being inclined in a left/right direction. Fig 4 shows welding in from a start-end position, but fails to disclose the start-end position is set to a position nearest the robot. However, the start-end position is arbitrary and it would have been obvious to start and/or end welding in whichever position the user or designer desires.
Nishimura fails to specifically state, regarding claim 3, during the circumferential welding, a posture of the welding torch is determined by a torch tilt angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fourth axis of the six or more axes, a torch forward/reverse angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fifth axis of the six or more axes, and a torch rotation angle adjusted by a rotation angle of the sixth axis.
Atohira discloses (See Figs 8 and 9) performing welding by adjusting the tilt angle (posture [0009] of the welding torch by rotating one of the axes (one of 6 axes, See Paragraph [0026]) The torch tilt angle and forward/reverse angle is determined and set. (See Paragraph [0024]) It would have been obvious to adapt Nishimura in view of Atohira to provide a posture of the welding torch is determined by a torch tilt angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fourth axis of the six or more axes, a torch forward/reverse angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fifth axis of the six or more axes, and a torch rotation angle adjusted by a rotation angle of the sixth axis as this is a typical manner for posturing a welding torch.
Regarding claim 5, Nishimura discloses, a welding supported SCARA robotic system and a welding method thereof, in particular to a circumferential welding method, and specifically discloses the following technical features (see description pages 2-7 and figures 4 and 9): To a wrist la of a welding robot (equivalent to a vertical multi-articulated robot), one end of a wrist-torch link is mounted, installing a welding torch at its other end, in a welding robot feeding a welding torch with a consumable electrode wire inserted through a wire feeding/power supply conduit 5, the welding robot rotates from the upper portion 33b supporting the welding torch of the belt rotating mechanism as it is through the bearings 12, 13 provided in the wrist/torch coupling mechanism 32, with a rotation transfer unit that transfers the rotation of the 6th axis of the robot 1 to the welding torch 33 of the belt rotating mechanism; in the case where welding is performed on the inner side of the weldment shown in Fig. 9, the welding robot of Example 1 is shown in Fig. 4, the center axis of the welding torch 33 with the rotating mechanism coincides with the rotating shaft 34, Fig. 9 is a diagram illustrating welding of an inner side of a circular weldment 36 (i.e., moving the welding torch to perform circumferential welding, moving the welding torch to depict a circular track to perform circumferential welding with a vertical multijoint type robot in a state in which the welding torch is positioned inside a welding line and an attitude in which the welding torch is inclined in a left-right direction with respect to the welding line) It would have been obvious to n sets the part of the welding line furthest from the setting position of the robot body of the vertical multi-articulated robot as the starting end position of the circumferential weld since selecting the starting point is subjective and would be based on the intended application of the device and whatever is best as determined by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Setting the portion farthest from the installation position of the robot body as the start and end position of the circumferential welding is merely a design matter that could have been appropriately set by a person skilled in the art in consideration of various conditions. It is also not apparent how the starting location of the weld would affect the method in a manipulative sense.
Kim discloses, a SCARA robotic system supporting welding and a welding method thereof, in particular it relates to a circumferential welding method and in particular the following technical features are disclosed (see description paragraphs [0002] to [0063] and figures 2 to 4): the robotic system is a robotic system for welding to the hull a support 3 or a support pad 2, Fig 2 shows a vertical articulated robot with a robot body having 6 axes with the last axis configured to rotate in an angle of +/- 180 degrees. (See Fig 4.) Fig 4 also shows the welding torch being located outside the welding line and being inclined in a left/right direction. Fig 4 shows welding in from a start-end position, but fails to disclose the start-end position is set to a position nearest the robot. However, the start-end position is arbitrary and it would have been obvious to start and/or end welding in whichever position the user or designer desires.
Nishimura fails to specifically state, regarding claim 5, during the circumferential welding, a posture of the welding torch is determined by a torch tilt angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fourth axis of the six or more axes, a torch forward/reverse angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fifth axis of the six or more axes, and a torch rotation angle adjusted by a rotation angle of the sixth axis.
Atohira discloses (See Figs 8 and 9) performing welding by adjusting the tilt angle (posture [0009] of the welding torch by rotating one of the axes (one of 6 axes, See Paragraph [0026]) The torch tilt angle and forward/reverse angle is determined and set. (See Paragraph [0024]) It would have been obvious to adapt Nishimura in view of Atohira to provide a posture of the welding torch is determined by a torch tilt angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fourth axis of the six or more axes, a torch forward/reverse angle adjusted by a rotation angle of a fifth axis of the six or more axes, and a torch rotation angle adjusted by a rotation angle of the sixth axis as this is a typical manner for posturing a welding torch.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, the teachings of Nishimura have been discussed above. Nishimura fails to disclose the circumferential welding is performed by using offline teaching data for teaching the circumferential welding. Atohira discloses A robot teaching device for teaching a robot offline, capable of setting target, advance and rotation angles of a tool, so that a flat and stable posture of the tool can be obtained. (See Abstract, Paragraph [0026]) It would have been obvious to adapt Nishimura in view of Atohira to provide using offline teaching data for teaching the welding for obtaining a flat and stable posture of the tool during welding.
Conclusion
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 BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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 at 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/3/2026