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 .
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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites, “a path of a laser illumination point can be carried out easily” and refers to purported merits. 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.
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:
“a moving device” in claim 1, and is being interpreted as “a robot” or “a three-dimensional moving device” in paragraph [0019] of the immediate specification or equivalents thereof.
“a scanner control device” in claim 1, and is being interpreted as “a trajectory control unit” “a control point moving unit” and “a control point storage unit” as in paragraph [0051] of the immediate specification or equivalents thereof.
“a trajectory control unit” in claim 1, and is being interpreted as “the trajectory control unit controls the scanner based on the control point correction program so as to repeatedly scan the control point correction trajectory at a predetermined cycle. [0011]” and has no apparent structures (additionally see [0050], [0052], [0054], [0066], [0074], [0076], [0077], [0085]) and therefore renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
“a control point moving unit” in claims 1 and 2, and is being interpreted as “the control point moving unit 62 moves the control point based on the control point correction trajectory, in accordance with the operation of the robot teaching operation panel 8. [0053]” and has no apparent structures (additionally see [0051], [0075], [0085]) and therefore renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
“a control point storage unit” in claims 1 and 2, and is being interpreted as “The control point storage unit 63 stores the position of the control point moved by the control point moving unit 62 and the direction defined by the moved control point in the coordinate system. [0053]” and has no apparent structures (see [0051], [0054], [0075], [0085]) and therefore renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
“a program generation device” in claim 1, and is being interpreted as, “a program generation device configured to generate a scanner program for controlling the scanner by the scanner control device. [0010]” and has no apparent structures (see [0016]) and therefore renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
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 § 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 1-5 are 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.
Regarding claim 1:
The claim recites, “a trajectory control unit” in line 4 as a “sub component” of the “a scanner control device”, and is being interpreted as “the trajectory control unit controls the scanner based on the control point correction program so as to repeatedly scan the control point correction trajectory at a predetermined cycle. [0011]” and has no apparent structures (additionally see [0050], [0052], [0054], [0066], [0074], [0076], [0077], [0085]) and therefore does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor has possession of the claimed invention.
The claim recites, “a control point moving unit” in line 4 as a “sub component” of the “a scanner control device”, and is being interpreted as “the control point moving unit 62 moves the control point based on the control point correction trajectory, in accordance with the operation of the robot teaching operation panel 8. [0053]” and has no apparent structures (additionally see [0051], [0075], [0085]) and therefore does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor has possession of the claimed invention.
The claim recites, “a control point storage unit” in line 4 as a “sub component” of the “a scanner control device”, and is being interpreted as “The control point storage unit 63 stores the position of the control point moved by the control point moving unit 62 and the direction defined by the moved control point in the coordinate system. [0053]” and has no apparent structures (see [0051], [0054], [0075], [0085]) and therefore does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor has possession of the claimed invention.
The claim recites, “a program generation device” in line 5, and is being interpreted as, “a program generation device configured to generate a scanner program for controlling the scanner by the scanner control device. [0010]” and has no apparent structures (see [0016]) and therefore does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor has possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected based on their dependencies.
“a control point moving unit” in claim 2, and is being interpreted as “the control point moving unit 62 moves the control point based on the control point correction trajectory, in accordance with the operation of the robot teaching operation panel 8. [0053]” and has no apparent structures (additionally see [0051], [0075], [0085]) and therefore does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor has possession of the claimed invention.
“a control point storage unit” in claim 2, and is being interpreted as “The control point storage unit 63 stores the position of the control point moved by the control point moving unit 62 and the direction defined by the moved control point in the coordinate system. [0053]” and has no apparent structures (see [0051], [0054], [0075], [0085]) and therefore does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor has possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1:
The claim recites, “a trajectory control unit” in line 4 as a “sub component” of the “a scanner control device”, and is being interpreted as “the trajectory control unit controls the scanner based on the control point correction program so as to repeatedly scan the control point correction trajectory at a predetermined cycle. [0011]” and has no apparent structures (additionally see [0050], [0052], [0054], [0066], [0074], [0076], [0077], [0085]) and therefore renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The claim recites, “a control point moving unit” in line 4 as a “sub component” of the “a scanner control device”, and is being interpreted as “the control point moving unit 62 moves the control point based on the control point correction trajectory, in accordance with the operation of the robot teaching operation panel 8. [0053]” and has no apparent structures (additionally see [0051], [0075], [0085]) and therefore renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The claim recites, “a control point storage unit” in line 4 as a “sub component” of the “a scanner control device”, and is being interpreted as “The control point storage unit 63 stores the position of the control point moved by the control point moving unit 62 and the direction defined by the moved control point in the coordinate system. [0053]” and has no apparent structures (see [0051], [0054], [0075], [0085]) and therefore renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The claim recites, “a program generation device” in line 5, and is being interpreted as, “a program generation device configured to generate a scanner program for controlling the scanner by the scanner control device. [0010]” and has no apparent structures (see [0016]) and therefore renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2-5 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Regarding claim 2,
The claim recites, “a control point moving unit” in line 4 as a “sub component” of the “a scanner control device”, and is being interpreted as “the control point moving unit 62 moves the control point based on the control point correction trajectory, in accordance with the operation of the robot teaching operation panel 8. [0053]” and has no apparent structures (additionally see [0051], [0075], [0085]) and therefore renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The claim recites the limitation "the control point" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim recites the limitation "the moved control point" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim recites the limitation "the moved control point" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim recites, “a control point storage unit” in line 4 as a “sub component” of the “a scanner control device”, and is being interpreted as “The control point storage unit 63 stores the position of the control point moved by the control point moving unit 62 and the direction defined by the moved control point in the coordinate system. [0053]” and has no apparent structures (see [0051], [0054], [0075], [0085]) and therefore renders the claim unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4,
The claim recites the limitation "the control point" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6,
The claim recites the limitation "a preset control point" in lines 10-11 and “a preset control point” in line 4 and renders the claim unclear as it is not known if there is intended to be more than one preset control point and if the claim is referring to a separate instant of the same “a preset control point” or a different “a preset control point.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6 (as well as they are understood by the Examiner) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aoki (US PGPUB 2018/0043471 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
600
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Aoki discloses a laser processing system (10), comprising:
a scanner (12, laser irradiation device) capable of scanning a work piece (20) with a laser beam ([0021] indicates “Robot system 10 is configured to carry out predetermined laser processing (or machining) such as cutting, welding or marking, by irradiating a laser beam onto a predetermined position of an object to be processed (or a workpiece) 20 held by or located on a working table 18.”);
a moving device (14) configured to move the scanner relative to the work piece ([0021]);
a scanner control device (34) configured to control the scanner ([0026]); and
a program generation device ([0026], “Robot controller 16 controls the motion of robot 14 by generating a command for controlling robot 14 based on a predetermined operation program.”) configured to generate a scanner program ([0026, “predetermined operation program”) for controlling the scanner.
wherein the program generative device converts the scanner program into a control point correction program (S3) for repeatedly scanning a control point correction trajectory (E[i], E[j]) for correcting a preset control point (42) at a predetermined cycle (S2); and
wherein the scanner control device comprises a trajectory control unit (16, 36) configured to control the scanner based on the control point correction program ([0030]) so as to illuminate the workpiece with the control point correction trajectory is a state in which the moving device is stopped (“As shown in FIG. 6, the actual position of laser irradiation device 12 is deviated from the command position by the distance corresponding to deviation E[i]. In this case, by correcting the laser irradiation position toward target position 48 by the distance corresponding to E[i], the laser beam can be precisely irradiated onto target (desired) laser irradiation position 48.” [0039]).
Regarding claim 2, Aoki discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the scanner control device further comprises:
a control point moving unit (Fig. 8 shows the scanner illuminating in a location that is not directly under the irradiation device) configured to move the control point based on the control point correction trajectory (Fig. 8); and
a control point storage unit (50) configured to store a position of the moved control point (Fig. 7) and a direction defined by the moved control point in a coordinate system (Fig. 7), and
wherein the trajectory control unit controls the scanner to illuminate the workpiece with the control point correction trajectory based on the position of the moved control point and the direction defined by the moved control point in the coordinate system (Fig. 8, [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Aoki discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the control point correction trajectory illuminated on the workpiece has the same length and shape as a control point correction trajectory in the scanner program for controlling the scanner (In this case, by correcting the laser irradiation position toward target position 48 by the distance corresponding to E[i], the laser beam can be precisely irradiated onto target (desired) laser irradiation position 48. [0039]”) and can be compared with a correction pattern (“By virtue of such correction as explained above, as, indicated by a solid line 52 in FIG. 5, in coordinate system Ot defined with respect to the laser irradiation device, the laser processing line becomes symmetrical to the solid line (or the serpentine trajectory) in FIG. 4 with respect to a straight line AB. As a result, the error due to the structure or control of the robot can be eliminated, and thus the actual laser irradiation position (or the laser processing line) becomes a trajectory along straight line AB in coordinate system Ow, whereby the precise laser processing can be carried out. [0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Aoki discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the control point correction trajectory includes at least one of a path indicating a position of the control point (E[i], E[j] indicates a vector that is the difference between the actual line (46) and the desired line (42)).
Regarding claim 5, Aoki discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the program generation device executes, when converting the scanner program into the control point correction program, at least one of: changing an output condition of the laser beam ([0039], “adjusting the focal position”) or changing a scanning speed of the laser beam ([0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Aoki discloses a method for controlling a laser processing system, the method comprising:
converting a scanner program (34, 36, 16; [0027]) for controlling a scanner (12) into a control point correction program (Fig. 3) for correcting a preset control point (42, 44);
moving (14) the scanner capable of scanning a workpiece (20) with a laser beam (26, Fig. 2), relative to the workpiece;
stopping (Fig. 3) a moving device (14) configured to move the scanner relative to the workpiece; and
controlling the scanner based on the control point correction program to illuminate the workpiece with a control point correction trajectory (E[i], E[j]) for correcting a preset control point (42, 44) in a state in which the moving device is stopped (Fig. 3, measuring is between two separate robot motion steps),
wherein controlling the scanner includes controlling the scanner to repeatedly scan the control point correction trajectory at a predetermined cycle (Fig. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image3.png
538
808
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2019/0248005 A1 discloses a robot system for performing learning control based on machining results and control method therefore.
PNG
media_image4.png
558
498
media_image4.png
Greyscale
EP 3503029 A1 discloses a calibrating method and calibration apparatus.
PNG
media_image5.png
448
740
media_image5.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2019/0126404 A1 discloses a laser machining system.
PNG
media_image6.png
518
754
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2019/0009360 A1 discloses a laser machining robot system.
PNG
media_image7.png
384
532
media_image7.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2018/0333808 A1 discloses a laser machining device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745