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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Feb 23th 2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1- 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haefner et al (US4675502 previously cited) herein set forth as Haefner, in view of Fukunaga et al (US2011/0278272A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Fukunaga, and further in view of Acheson (US4873419 newly cited) herein set forth as Acheson.
Regarding claim 1, Haefner discloses a robot system (refer to fig.1-4) comprising:
a robot (robot #10, fig.1-4) including a wrist mechanism (wrist #35, fig.4 and refer to annotated “wrist mechanism” in zoom in fig.1) and, the wrist mechanism (wrist #35, fig.4 and refer to annotated “wrist mechanism” in zoom in fig.1) including, at a wrist distal end (refer to annotated “distal end” in zoom in fig.1), a flange (refer to the annotated “flange” in zoom in fig.1) that is rotatable about a rotation axis (rotation twist axis #37, fig.4);
a welding torch (weld torch #14, fig.1) fixed to the flange (refer to the annotated “flange” in fig.1) by a torch bracket (refer to the annotated “torch bracket” in zoom in fig.1); and
a welding sensor (optical unit #16, fig. 1-4) that is fixed with respect to the welding torch (weld torch #14, fig.1) and that detects, in advance, a weld line (joint #18, fig.2) to be welded by the welding torch (weld torch #14, fig.1),
wherein the welding sensor (optical unit #16, fig. 1-4) is disposed at a position between the flange (refer to the annotated “flange” in zoom in fig.1) and a fixed position (refer to annotated “fixed position” in zoom in fig.1) at which the welding torch (weld torch #14, fig.1) is fixed to the torch bracket (refer to the annotated “torch bracket” in zoom in fig.1), the welding sensor (optical unit #16, fig. 1-4) is configured to scan a laser beam (laser #22, fig.1-4) in a direction intersecting the weld line (joint #18, fig.2) along a plane (refer to the plane that is parallel to the rotation axis (rotation twist axis #37, fig.4), and
wherein the welding torch (rotation twist axis #37, fig.4) includes a tubular torch body (refer to the tubular body of #14, fig.1) that is arranged so as to protrude toward a distal end side (refer to the annotated “distal end side” in zoom in fig.1) relative to the fixed position (refer to annotated “fixed position” in fig.1), and the tubular torch body (refer to the tubular body of #14, fig.1) makes a wire (refer to the annotated “wire” in zoom in fig.1) protrude from a torch body distal end (refer to the annotated “distal end of the tubular body” in zoom in fig.1) of the tubular torch body (refer to the tubular body of #14, fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
274
363
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
611
389
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
620
776
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Haefner does not explicitly disclose the tubular torch body curved at least twice; a wire protrude from a distal end of the tubular torch body in a direction parallel to the rotation axis.
In the similar field of robot system for welding, Fukunaga discloses a robot system (robot #3, fig.1) that makes a wire (wire #2a, fig.1) protrude from a distal end of the tubular torch body (torch #2, fig.1) in a direction parallel (refer to fig.6) to the rotation axis (refer to fig. 6)by the tubular torch body (torch #2, fig.1) curved at least twice (refer to #10a and #10b that is curved at least three time in fig.1).
PNG
media_image5.png
394
499
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
287
432
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haefner’s robot system with causing a wire to protrude from a distal end of the tubular torch body in a direction parallel to the rotation axis by the tubular torch body curved at least twice, as taught by Fukunaga, in order to provide a better tracking of the movement and more accurate welding position and displacement, such that would reduce in welding defects (refer to the abstract).
Fukunaga does not disclose the tubular torch body curved at least twice.
In the similar field of automatic welding robot, Acheson discloses a tubular torch body (#100, fig.6a) curved at least twice (refer to “first curve” and “second curve” annotated in fig.6a).
PNG
media_image7.png
761
417
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haefner’s tubular torch body to be flexible and bendable, as taught by Acheson, in order to provide the flexibility of adjustment of the torch body and the ability to modify the weld torch body to fit in tighter space and location.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Haefner, Fukunaga and Acheson discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Haefner further discloses wherein the torch body (refer to the tubular body of #14, fig.1) protrudes the wire (refer to the annotated “wire” in zoom in fig.1), along the rotation axis, from the distal end (refer to the annotated “distal end side” in zoom in fig.1) of the torch body (refer to the tubular body of #14, fig.1) onto the rotation axis (rotation twist axis #37, fig.4).
Haefner does not disclose the torch body comprises a first curved portion curved in one direction and a second curved portion positioned nearer the torch-body distal end than the first curved portion and curved in a direction opposite to the first curved.
In the similar field of automatic welding robot, Acheson discloses the torch body (#100, fig.6a) comprises a first curved portion (refer to “first curve” annotated in fig. 6A) curved in one direction and a second curved portion (refer to “second curve” annotated in fig. 6A) positioned nearer the torch-body distal end (refer to the distal end of #12 in fig.6a) than the first curved portion (refer to “first curve” annotated in fig. 6A) and curved in a direction opposite to the first curved (refer to “first curve” annotated in fig. 6A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Haefner’s torch body with Acheson’s curved torch body, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of wire protrusion from the weld torch. In order to provide the different torch body for different tight or hard to reach welding location that specifically required a certain curves or bended torch body.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Haefner, Fukunaga and Acheson discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Haefner further discloses wherein the welding sensor (optical unit #16, fig. 1-4) is fixed to the torch bracket (refer to the annotated “torch bracket” in zoom in fig.1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haefner et al (US4675502) herein set forth as Haefner, in view of Fukunaga et al (US2011/0278272A1) herein set forth as Fukunaga, further in view of Acheson (US4873419 newly cited) herein set forth as Acheson, and further in view of Nio et al (US4728974) herein set forth as Nio.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Haefner, Fukunaga and Acheson discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Haefner further discloses wherein the welding sensor (optical unit #16, fig. 1-4) is fixed to the flange (refer to the annotated “flange” in zoom in fig.1).
Haefner does not explicitly disclose the use of a sensor bracket separately from the torch bracket.
In the similar field of robot system for welding, Nio further discloses the use of a sensor bracket (attachment seat #22, fig.1A) separately from the torch bracket (welding torch support #5, fig.1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haefner’s robot system with the use of a sensor bracket separately from the torch bracket for the welding sensor, as taught by Nio, in order to provide the flexibility of replacing one of them without disturbing the setup and calibration of the other, such that would greatly reduce recalibration and work time to replace one but not effecting the other.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haefner et al (US4675502) herein set forth as Haefner, in view of Fukunaga et al (US2011/0278272A1) herein set forth as Fukunaga, further in view of Acheson (US4873419 newly cited) herein set forth as Acheson, and further in view of JPH0811300B2 herein set forth as JPH11300B2.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of Haefner, Fukunaga and Acheson discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Haefner does not discloses a recessed portion that is provided between the flange and the fixed position and that is recessed radially inward about the rotation axis, wherein the welding sensor is positioned so as to be partially accommodated in the recessed portion.
In the similar field of robot system for welding, JPH11300B2 discloses a recessed portion (refer to the recess portion where optical sensor #3 located in fig.1) that is provided between the flange (holder tube #2a, fig.1) and the fixed position (refer to where welding torch #1 attached to mounting base #2 in fig.1) and that is recessed radially inward about the rotation axis (refer as the welding torch#1 and holder tube #2a central axis in fig.1), wherein the welding sensor (optical sensor #3, fig.1) is positioned so as to be partially accommodated in the recessed portion (refer to the recess portion where optical sensor #3 located in fig.1).
PNG
media_image8.png
502
494
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haefner’s robot system with a recessed portion that is provided between the flange and the fixed position and that is recessed radially inward about the rotation axis, wherein the welding sensor is positioned so as to be partially accommodated in the recessed portion, as taught by JPH11300B2, it order to provide a more compacted welding torch with sensor, a certain protection within the recess and more accurate position reading to the welding contact point.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Claim Objection: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on May 12th 2026 that overcame the Claim Objection in the previous office action.
With respect to the Rejection 112b: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on May 12th 2026 that overcame the Rejection 112b in the previous office action.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed May 12th 2026 have been fully considered but moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection with the newly cited secondary prior art Acheson (US4873419).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Keller et al (US4145595) discloses a welding torch that is flexible and bendable that may read on the newly amended limitation.
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 YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 July 3rd 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights