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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2023, 07/16/2024, 05/14/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Species 1 (consisting of claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledge. Species 2 (claims 6-8) are withdrawn from consideration. It is noted that Applicant did not provide any arguments regarding the election/restriction requirement; therefore, the Applicant’s election of Species 1 (consisting of claims 1-5) is treated as without traverse.
Accordingly, claims 6-8 are withdrawn from consideration, claims 1-5 are examined as follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “movement amount setting unit” as recited in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“approximate formula derivation unit configured to derive an approximate formula that approximates a change in the gap amount as a quadratic function of welding positions” in claim 2 (lines 3-4). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “configured to derive an approximate formula that approximates a change in the gap amount as a quadratic function of welding positions” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It is noted that the Drawings Fig.1 of the Instant Application shows that the approximate formula derivation unit 51 belongs to the controller 50, and Specification Par.0020 of the Instant Application describes: “The controller 50 can be realized by introducing an appropriate control program into one or more computer apparatuses each of which has a CPU, a memory and the like.”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “approximate formula derivation unit” as a functional software module or a processor executing software instructions, and equivalents, that performs specific mathematical operation.
“fluctuation section identification unit configured to identify an increase section in which the gap amount is in the increasing tendency and a decrease section in which the gap amount is in the decreasing tendency, based on the approximate formula” in claim 2 (lines 5-7) and “fluctuation section identification unit identifies the increase section and the decrease section based on a quadratic coefficient and a position of an extreme value in the approximate formula” in claim 3 (lines 2-4). These limitation use generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “configured to identify an increase section in which the gap amount is in the increasing tendency and a decrease section in which the gap amount is in the decreasing tendency, based on the approximate formula” in claim 2 & “identifies the increase section and the decrease section based on a quadratic coefficient and a position of an extreme value in the approximate formula” in claim 3 (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It is noted that the Drawings Fig.1 of the Instant Application shows that the fluctuation section identification unit 52 belongs to the controller 50, and Specification Par.0020 of the Instant Application describes: “The controller 50 can be realized by introducing an appropriate control program into one or more computer apparatuses each of which has a CPU, a memory and the like.”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “fluctuation section identification unit” as a processor executing software instructions, and equivalent, configured to identify an increase section in which the gap amount is in the increasing tendency and a decrease section in which the gap amount is in the decreasing tendency, based on the approximate formula, and identify the increase section and the decrease section based on a quadratic coefficient and a position of an extreme value in the approximate formula.
“reference value determination unit configured to determine, for each of the welding positions, a reference value for the welding condition according to the gap amount” in claim 2 (lines 8-9). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “configured to determine, for each of the welding positions, a reference value for the welding condition according to the gap amount” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It is noted that the Drawings Fig.1 of the Instant Application shows that the reference value determination unit 53 belongs to the controller 50, and Specification Par.0020 of the Instant Application describes: “The controller 50 can be realized by introducing an appropriate control program into one or more computer apparatuses each of which has a CPU, a memory and the like.”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “reference value determination unit” as a processor executing software instructions, and equivalent, configured to determine, for each of the welding positions, a reference value for the welding condition according to the gap amount.
“welding condition adjustment unit configured to determine the welding condition for each of the welding positions by moving the reference value in the increase section backward and moving the reference value in the decrease section forward” in claim 2 (lines 10-12) and “welding condition adjustment unit adjusts a movement amount of the reference value according to a movement speed of the welding torch” in claim 5 (lines 2-3). These limitations use generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “configured to determine the welding condition for each of the welding positions by moving the reference value in the increase section backward and moving the reference value in the decrease section forward” in claim 2 & “adjusts a movement amount of the reference value according to a movement speed of the welding torch” in claim 5 (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It is noted that the Drawings Fig.1 of the Instant Application shows that the welding condition adjustment unit 54 belongs to the controller 50, and Specification Par.0020 of the Instant Application describes: “The controller 50 can be realized by introducing an appropriate control program into one or more computer apparatuses each of which has a CPU, a memory and the like.”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “welding condition adjustment unit” as a processor executing software instructions, and equivalent, configured to determine the welding condition for each of the welding positions by moving the reference value in the increase section backward and moving the reference value in the decrease section forward, and adjust a movement amount of the reference value according to a movement speed of the welding torch.
“movement amount setting unit setting at least one of an amount of backward movement of the reference value or an amount of forward movement of the reference value” in claim 4 (lines 2-4). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “setting at least one of an amount of backward movement of the reference value or an amount of forward movement of the reference value” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It is noted that the Specification Par.0029 of the Instant Application describes: “The controller 50 may include a movement amount setting unit by which a user sets in advance at least one of an amount of backward movement of reference values or an amount of forward movement of reference values by the welding condition adjustment unit 54.”, and Specification Par.0020 of the Instant Application describes: “The controller 50 can be realized by introducing an appropriate control program into one or more computer apparatuses each of which has a CPU, a memory and the like.”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “movement amount setting unit” as a processor executing software instructions, and equivalent, configured to set at least one of an amount of backward movement of the reference value or an amount of forward movement of the reference value.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0076119 A1) in view of Matsuura (JP 2012254472 A, Translation is attached).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu discloses a robotic welding system (welding robot system as shown in Hsu Fig.19) comprising:
a welding torch (welding torch 24, Hsu Fig.19);
a gap detector (camera/detection device 134 with imaging system/gap detection component 138, Hsu Fig.19) configured to detect in advance a gap amount between welding targets (workpieces 86 and 88, Hsu Fig.19) in front of the welding torch (welding torch 24, Hsu Fig.19) (Hsu Par.0088 discloses: “A camera/detection device 134 that is responsible for monitoring any changes in the fit-up along the weld path is attached to the torch via a mechanical mount 136, allowing the detection device to move along with the torch. The device is positioned in such a way as to allow it to examine the fit-up between workpieces 86 and 88 just ahead of the torch. This information, which may be in the form of a pixelated image, allows the imaging system/gap detection component 138 to note the parameter changes between the weld line and the gap 118.”. It is further noted that 122 denotes the travel speed and shows travel direction. Therefore, the gap detector configured to detect in advance a gap amount between workpieces in front of the welding torch.);
a robot (welding robot 132, Hsu Fig.19) configured to move the welding torch (welding torch 24, Hsu Fig.19) and the gap detector (camera/detection device 134 with imaging system/gap detection component 138, Hsu Fig.19) (Hsu Par.0088 discloses: “a welding robot 132 moves the welding torch 24 along the weld line … A camera/detection device 134 that is responsible for monitoring any changes in the fit-up along the weld path is attached to the torch via a mechanical mount 136, allowing the detection device to move along with the torch.”; therefore, Hsu discloses the welding robot configured to move the welding torch and the gap detector);
a controller (master control circuitry 346, Hsu Fig.23) configured to cause a welding condition to change based on the gap amount detected in advance by the gap detector (camera/detection device 134 with imaging system/gap detection component 138, Hsu Fig.19) (Hsu Par.0088 discloses: “A camera/detection device 134 that is responsible for monitoring any changes in the fit-up along the weld path is attached to the torch via a mechanical mount 136, allowing the detection device to move along with the torch. The device is positioned in such a way as to allow it to examine the fit-up between workpieces 86 and 88 just ahead of the torch. This information, which may be in the form of a pixelated image, allows the imaging system/gap detection component 138 to note the parameter changes between the weld line and the gap 118. This may be done, for example, by detecting spaces or pixels indicative of a developing gap (or conversely, of more closely fitting pieces). This information is then transmitted to a parameter calculation component 140 which determines which, if any, of the initial weld parameters need to be adjusted in order to properly fill in the gap with a sufficient amount of material. Additionally, or in the alternative, changes in the fit-up may be detected through monitoring (e.g., via the control circuitry) the changes in the weld parameters including, but not limited to one or more of the weld current, the weld voltage, or the contact tip to work distance. The determination of appropriate parameter adjustments may be performed by appropriate calculations, look-up tables, or any other desired algorithm. Such tables may, for example, call out various fit-up or gap parameters (e.g., size or distance), and relate these to the wire feed, travel speed of the welding torch and/or the workpiece, power, electrode spin, and so forth appropriate for the particular fit-up. For example, this component may determine that the new spin geometry necessary for the gap should to be larger or smaller, or of a different shape, which require changing the manner in which the electrode is moved. Furthermore it may be determined that the travel speed may remain the same as before and/or that the wire feed speed should increase/decrease. At the same time, it may be determined that the charge to the electrode should be adjusted as well. At this point, these parameters are adjusted according to the determination and the weld torch continues its advance towards the gap. It should be noted that when parameters are to be adjusted to accommodate changes in fit-up, these are generally controlled by the appropriate system component involved. For example, changes in weld power are adjusted by the power source or supply. Changes in wire feed speed are made by the wire feeder. Changes in travel speed, in automated applications, are adjusted by the robot that moves the welding torch. Changes in spin geometry are implemented by the mechanism within the welding torch that moves the welding electrode.”; therefore, Hsu discloses a controller configured to cause a welding condition to change based on the gap amount detected in advance by the gap detector); and
a welding power source (“the power source or supply”, Hsu Par.0088) configured to execute welding based on the welding condition instructed by the controller (master control circuitry 346, Hsu Fig.23) (Hsu Par.0088 discloses: “For example, changes in weld power are adjusted by the power source or supply.”, and Hsu Fig.23 shows that the master control circuitry 346 instructs the welding power supply controller. Therefore, Hsu discloses a welding power source configured to execute welding based on the welding condition instructed by the controller);
Hsu does not explicitly disclose:
wherein before the welding torch reaches a position at which the gap amount starts to exhibit an increasing tendency, the controller causes the welding condition to change according to an increase in the gap amount, and after the welding torch passes a position at which the gap amount starts to exhibit a decreasing tendency, the controller causes the welding condition to change according to a decrease in the gap amount.
Matsuura teaches a robotic welding system (robotic welding system as shown in Matsuura Fig.1):
wherein before the welding torch reaches a position at which the gap amount starts to exhibit an increasing tendency, the controller causes the welding condition to change according to an increase in the gap amount, and after the welding torch passes a position at which the gap amount starts to exhibit a decreasing tendency, the controller causes the welding condition to change according to a decrease in the gap amount (It is noted that the primary reference Hsu already discloses the controller configured to cause welding condition to change based on the gap amount detected in advance by the gap detector; and welding power source configured to execute welding based on the welding condition instructed by the controller; as cited and explained in the rejection above. In this case, the secondary reference Matsuura teaches calculating the gap length at successive welding positions and using the calculated gap lengths to control a subsequent welding robot, see Matsuura Translated Abstract & on page 2 – second paragraph from the bottom, specifically, Matsuura Translated Abstract teaches: “An arc welding robot AR changes the welding conditions according to the gap length GL,and performs the arc welding”, and Matsuura Translated Document on page 2 – second paragraph from the bottom teaches: “Arc arc welding robot control control equipment ARC of arc arc welding robot AR inputting the gap length which was calculated by the gap long calculation circuit 10, corresponding to this gap length, modifies welding condition in optimum welding condition.”. Specifically, Matsuura teaches that when the gap lengths calculated at two successive spot-welding positions are different, the gap length between the two positions is regarded as increasing or decreasing linearly, see Matsuura Translated Document from the last paragraph on page 3 to the first paragraph on page 4 & Matsuura Translated Claim on page 6 – first paragraph on page 6; thus, Matsuura recognizes that the gap between successive positions forms a continuous increasing section or continuous decreasing section extending along the welding path. Matsuura further teaches that the welding robot changes the welding conditions according to the corresponding gap length, including adjusting the welding wire feed speed, welding speed, EN ratio, welding torch advance angle, and weaving width, see Matsuura Translated Document on page 3 paragraphs 5-6. Accordingly, Matsuura teaches changing the welding condition according to the continuously increasing or continuously decreasing gap amount between successive welding positions. It is noted that as explained previously, the primary reference Hsu discloses detecting the gap in advance of the welding torch reaching the corresponding welding location by positioning the gap detector system ahead of the welding torch and determining new welding parameters based on the detected gap before continuous welding. Therefore, in combination, Hsu in view of Matsuura teaches wherein before the welding torch reaches a position at which the gap amount starts to exhibit an increasing tendency, the controller causes the welding condition to change according to an increase in the gap amount, and after the welding torch passes a position at which the gap amount starts to exhibit a decreasing tendency, the controller causes the welding condition to change according to a decrease in the gap amount).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot welding system of Hsu, by adding the teaching of before the welding torch reaches a position at which the gap amount starts to exhibit an increasing tendency, the controller causes the welding condition to change according to an increase in the gap amount, and after the welding torch passes a position at which the gap amount starts to exhibit a decreasing tendency, the controller causes the welding condition to change according to a decrease in the gap amount, as taught by Matsuura, in order to change the welding condition according to the increasing or decreasing gap amount, and allow the welding parameters to better correspond to the actual joint geometry, thereby reducing underfill, overfill, and other weld defects caused by variations in the joint gap, improving weld quality and maintaining appropriate weld deposition where the joint gap changes along the welding path.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 2, Hsu in view of Matsuura teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and in combination, Hsu in view of Matsuura also teaches the controller comprises a fluctuation section identification unit configured to identify an increase section in which the gap amount is in the increasing tendency and a decrease section in which the gap amount is in the decreasing tendency; a reference value determination unit configured to determine, for each of the welding positions, a reference value for the welding condition according to the gap amount; and a welding condition adjustment unit configured to determine the welding condition for each of the welding positions.
However, Hsu in view of Matsuura does not explicitly teach wherein
the controller comprises:
an approximate formula derivation unit configured to derive an approximate formula that approximates a change in the gap amount as a quadratic function of welding positions;
identifying the increase section and the decrease section based on the approximate formula;
determine the welding condition for each of the welding positions by moving the reference value in the increase section backward and moving the reference value in the decrease section forward.
岡本 陽 (JP 4658767 B2, Translation is attached, hereinafter JP’767) discloses a robotic welding system configured to perform multi-layer arc welding of workpieces having non-uniform gap widths. JP’767 discloses a controller comprising an approximate formula derivation unit configured to derive an approximate formula that approximates a change in the gap amount as a quadratic function of welding positions, and a fluctuation section identification unit configured to identify an increase section in which the gap amount is in the increasing tendency and a decrease section in which the gap amount is in the decreasing tendency, based on the approximate formula.
Additionally, Thelen (U.S. Patent No. 7,123,990 B2) discloses a gap welding process for manipulating a movable robotic welder for making a weld between two or more substantially immovable work pieces using a higher level programming language. Thelen further discloses the gap welding process then uses a weld control program in conjunction with the weld program data, weld variance data, and feedback data that is gathered during the welding process to determine and perform the correct manipulation required to produce torch movements to accurately weld the gap.
Furthermore, Sugitani (U.S. Patent No. 4,816,641 A) discloses an automatic arc-welding method for welding two objects together by means of a welding wire along a groove formed between the two objects to be welded. Sugitani discloses continuously calculates and implements welding conditions including welding current, wire-feed rate, and welding speed according to each measured upcoming gap between two objects. Sugitani teaches the control system is position-dependent because the root gap is measured continuously downstream of the nozzle and the corresponding welding conditions are recalculated as the nozzle advances.
However, none of the prior arts teaches that the determination of the welding condition for each of the welding positions by moving the reference value in the increase section backward and moving the reference value in the decrease section forward.
Accordingly, Applicant’s claim 2 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant’s claim 2 recites: “determine the welding condition for each of the welding positions by moving the reference value in the increase section backward and moving the reference value in the decrease section forward”.
Within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art.
Accordingly, claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-5 would be allowable by virtue of their dependency to claim 2.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Hutchison (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0375331 A1) discloses a method of controlling a welding system including providing a welding wire to a welding torch at a first wire feed speed, adjusting a total process power level accommodate weld formation along a weld path with inconsistent fit-raup (e.g., uneven gap width, thin workpiece sections) along the weld path. For example, increasing the total process power level when a gap width decreases may enable increased travel speed, and decreasing the total process power level when the gap width increases may enable decreased travel speed.
Dietz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,084,223 A) discloses a method and apparatus for welding workpieces comprising defining a gap width in weld point.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached 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, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 08/06/2026
Prosecution Insights