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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 1, Sub/Species A, claims 1-8 and 10; with Claims 9 and 11-17 withdrawn in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 was acknowledged and has been entered. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Accordingly, claims 9 and 11-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. An action on the merits for Claims 1-8 and 10 are as follow.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The claim to priority filled on 03/23/2023 acknowledged in the instant application.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Under [016] contains the information "6-axis robot 30" in line 2 and “the robotic arm 30” in last line. Numerical 30 been rejected because it been used to identify different items in the specification.
Under [016] contains the information "a laser head assembly 40" in line 5 and “the hollow hand 40” in line 10. Numerical 40 been rejected because it been used to identify different items in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the tip of the wrist” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the hand” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the robot” in various places. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the hollow had arm” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the laser beam” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the robot” twice in line 2 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “the robot” and the multi-axis robot mention in line 2 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the robotic arm” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a combination of these” in line 6 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what this “these” stands for? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the mount” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the end effectors” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the hand” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
The rest of the claims are also been rejected because each claim depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Maier et al. (EP 1254747 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Maier et al. disclose a multi-axis robot (a multi-axis robot, [0001], Figs1-4) comprising:
a wrist having a tip (first head axis 4 having a tip, [0005], Figs1-4),
a hollow hand (drive unit 5.1 including second head axis - axis 5, [0005, 0010], Figs1-4) coupled to the tip of the wrist (Figs1-4) such that the hand can swing about a next to last axis (a rotation axis A5 of the head axis 5, [0010], Fig 4) of the robot, the hollow hand receiving an insert (channel 5.6, [0010], Fig 4) rotatable about a last axis of the robot (a rotation axis A4 of the head axis 4, [0010], Fig 4), and
a laser head assembly (A laser housing 3.2, [0008], Fig 4) mounted to an end of the hollow hand arm which is opposite to a workpiece such that the laser head assembly is rotationally decoupled from the insert (3.2 is rotationally decoupled from 5.6, Fig 4), wherein the laser head assembly outputs the laser beam which is guided through the hollow hand so that it is incident on the workpiece (laser beam 6 then passes through a focusing optic 5.7 and exits the robot via a laser nozzle 5.9, [0009], Fig 4).
Claim 2, wherein the multi-axis robot is a 6-axis robot (axis 1 to axis 6, [0010], Figs 1-4) and wherein the next to last axis is the 5th axis of the robot (a rotation axis A5 of the head axis 5, [0010], Fig 4) and the last axis is the 6th axis of the robot (a rotation axis A4 of the head axis 4, [0010], Fig 4).
Claim 3, wherein the laser head assembly is mounted by means of a mount (drive unit 4.1, [0010], Fig 4) to the hollow hand (3.2 is mounted by means of a mount 4.1 to 5.1, Fig 4), wherein the mount is implemented as a part of the hollow hand and/or as an external element attached to the hollow hand (see Fig 4) and wherein the laser head assembly is uncoupled from the rotational movement about the last axis of the robotic arm (3.2 is uncoupled from the rotational movement about the last axis of the multi-axis robot, Figd 1-4).
Claim 4, further comprising an end-of-arm tooling (EOAT) including at least one end effector (a connection 5.4, [0010], Fig 4) detachably mountable to the robot and wherein the at least one end effector is rotatable about the last axis of the robot (5.4 is rotatable about A4 of the robot, Fig 3).
Claim 5, wherein the at least one end effector is configured with at least one component selected from the group consisting of a sensor assembly, a cold wire delivery assembly, a gas-supplying assembly, a tungsten inert gas (TIG) assembly, metal inert gas (MIG) assembly, metal arc active gas (MAG) assembly, stud welding assembly and a combination of these (connection 5.4 for the process gas, [0010]).
Claim 6, wherein the hollow hand arm having a hollow housing (connection 5.4 for the process gas, [0010]) which receives a hollow flanged shaft (output flange 4.2, [0010], Fig 4) rotatable about the last axis of the robot (4.2 rotatable about A4, Fig 4) and wherein the hollow flanged shaft extends beyond an end of the mount (4.2 extends beyond an end of 4.1, Fig 4) which is opposite to an end of the mount supporting the laser head assembly (details see Fig 4).
Claim 7, further comprising a support plate (a support tube 4.3, [0010], Fig 4) coupled to a surface of a flange of the hollow flanged shaft (4.3 coupled to a surface of 4.2, Fig 4) which looks away from the laser head assembly and wherein the support plate is adapted to support one of or a combination of the end effectors detachably mounted to the support plate (4.3 is adapted to support 5.4 detachably mounted to 4.3, Fig 4).
Claim 10, wherein the mount includes a frame detachably coupled to the hand (4.1 includes a gear box 4.9 detachably coupled to 5.1, [0010], Fig 4).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier et al. (EP 1254747 A1) in view of Akaba et al. (US 2002/0134768 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Maier et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claim 8.
Akaba et al. further teach a multi-axis robot (a multi-axis NC robot 23, [0082], Fig 4), and Claim 8, wherein the TIG assembly (a TIG (tungsten) electrode 42 is held by a TIG head 41, and fed with an electric power and an inert gas from a TIG welding machine 43 via a guide tube 44 to perform TIG welding [0108], Fig 6) operates simultaneously with or independently from the laser head assembly (the TIG electrode 42 is disposed coaxially with laser light in the laser beam machining head 22, the same actions and effects as described above can be obtained, [0082], Fig 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maier et al. with Akaba et al.’s further teaching of Claim 8; because Akaba et al. teach, in Para [0118], of providing an excellent high-speed welding possible, and permits welding in a pure Ar gas atmosphere.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights