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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-10, the preamble of “The automatic welding system for a pipe of claim …”, should change to “The automatic welding system for [[a]] the pipe of claim …”, such that would avoid possible antecedent basis issues.
In claim 4, the “8a” and “8b” in the claim should be in “(“ “)” bracket.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Claim limitation “a position adjustment unit” in claims 1 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit" coupled with functional language “position adjustment” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, there is not further description in the specification to further clarify the corresponding structure, The limitation “position adjustment unit" ONLY described in Page 4 cited: “…he pipe is precisely welded using the welding machine which is adjusted in position by a position adjustment unit of the automatic welding head under the control of a control device while wheels provided in the automatic welding head rotate along the pipe….”, it is unclear what is an position adjustment unit.
Claim limitation “a chain adjusting unit” in claim 2 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit" coupled with functional language “pressing …. And maintaining the tension…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “chain adjusting unit" has been described in Page 10-11 cited: “…As illustrated in FIGS. 8 to 10, the chain adjusting unit 12 includes a rotating frame 12b having one end rotatably provided on one side of the automatic welding head 2 and a latch 12a formed on the other end, a chain presser 12c for pressurizing the chain 3 in a state provided in the rotating frame 12b, a handle 12d rotatably provided on the other side of the automatic welding head 2 while being spaced apart from the rotating frame 12b, a nut portion 12e rotatably provided in the handle 12d, and a locking portion 12f that is locked on the latch 12a of the rotating frame 12b in a screwed state to the nut portion 12e…” and “…the chain presser 12c presses the chain 3 to tightly adjust the chain 3 without loosening. In addition, as the chain adjusting unit 12 is installed on both sides of the chain 3 and both ends of the chain presser 12c are rotatably fixed to the rotating frames 12b…” as some kind of mechanical device that use rotational gears or shaft to tighten chain.
Claim limitation “a voltage detection unit” in claims 9 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit" coupled with functional language “voltage detection” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “voltage detection unit" has been described in Page 15 cited: “…a voltage detection unit 21 connected to a current control volume terminal of the welding machine 15 and detecting a voltage value, an angle detection unit 27 detecting an angle value measured by an angle measurement sensor 40 provided in the automatic welding head 2, an A/D converter 22 converting an analog value of the voltage detection unit 21 into a digital value…” as some kind of voltage reading device that generate an analog value.
Claim limitation “a current control volume terminal” in claims 9 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “terminal" coupled with functional language “current control volume” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, A review of the specification shows that, there is not further description in the specification to further clarify the corresponding structure, The limitation “a current control volume terminal " ONLY described in Page 15 and 20; however it does further discloses any corresponding structure, it is unclear what is a position adjustment unit.
Claim limitation “an angle detection unit” in claims 9 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit" coupled with functional language “angle detection” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, A review of the specification shows that, there is not further description in the specification to further clarify the corresponding structure, The limitation “an angle detection unit " ONLY described in Page 15; however it does further discloses any corresponding structure, it is unclear what is an angle detection unit.
Claim limitation “an angle value recognition unit” in claims 10 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit" coupled with functional language “angle value recognition” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, A review of the specification shows that, there is not further description in the specification to further clarify the corresponding structure, The limitation “an angle value recognition unit " ONLY described in Page 17; however it does further discloses any corresponding structure, it is unclear what is an angle value recognition unit.
Claim limitation “a voltage value recognition unit” in claims 10 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit" coupled with functional language “voltage angle value recognition” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, A review of the specification shows that, there is not further description in the specification to further clarify the corresponding structure, The limitation “a voltage value recognition unit " ONLY described in Page 17; however it does further discloses any corresponding structure, it is unclear what is a voltage value recognition unit.
Claim limitation “a matching unit” in claims 10 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit" coupled with functional language “matching” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, A review of the specification shows that, there is not further description in the specification to further clarify the corresponding structure, The limitation “a matching unit" ONLY described in Page 17; however it does further discloses any corresponding structure, it is unclear what is a matching unit.
Claim limitation “an angle judgement unit” in claims 10 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit" coupled with functional language “angle judgement” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, A review of the specification shows that, there is not further description in the specification to further clarify the corresponding structure, The limitation “an angle judgment unit" ONLY described in Page 17; however it does further discloses any corresponding structure, it is unclear what is an angle judgement unit.
Claim limitation “a voltage value providing unit” in claims 10 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit" coupled with functional language “voltage value provide” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, A review of the specification shows that, there is not further description in the specification to further clarify the corresponding structure, The limitation “a voltage value providing unit" ONLY described in Page 17; however it does further discloses any corresponding structure, it is unclear what is a voltage value providing unit.
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 1-10 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “a current control volume terminal” invoked 112f and there is insufficient disclosure in the specification to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that what is a “position adjustment unit”.
In claim 9, the limitation “a position adjustment unit” and “an angle detection unit” invoked 112f and there is insufficient disclosure in the specification to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that what is a “position adjustment unit”.
In claim 10, the limitation “an angle value recognition unit”, “a voltage value recognition unit”, “a matching unit”, “an angle judgement unit” and “a voltage value providing unit” invoked 112f and there is insufficient disclosure in the specification to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that what are them.
Claims 2-8 are rejected based on the inherited deficiencies of the corresponding independent claim.
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 1-10 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.
In claim 1:
The limitation “a pipe” is cited twice in the claim, it is unclear that how many pipe is being cited. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, Examiner assumed that there is only one pipe is cited.
The limitation “…the pipe is precisely welded using the welding machine which is adjusted in position by a position adjustment unit of the automatic welding head under the control of a control device while wheels provided in the automatic welding head rotate along the pipe…” is indefinite, because “a position adjustment unit” has invoked 112f and there is not further disclosure of any corresponding structure or explaining on what actually is a “position adjustment unit”. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, Examiner assumed that such limitation is implying a mechanical structure that using mechanical principle like gear, pully or shaft to provide adjustment to position.
In claim 2:
“a driving motor” is already cited in claim 1, which claim 2 dependent on, it is unclear how many “driving motor” is being recited. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, Examiner assumed that there is one “driving motor”.
It is unclear “driving gear” in the claim is the same “gear” in claim 1, which claim 2 dependent on. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, Examiner assumed that they are two different gears.
“a guide roller” is already cited in claim 1, which claim 2 dependent on, it is unclear how many “guide roller” is being recited. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, Examiner assumed that there is one “guide roller”.
In claim 3, “one end” is recited twice in the claim, it is unclear how many “one end”, and therefore such antecedent basis issue would also affect how to interpreted the other limitation “the other end”. Clarification is required. For examination purpose, Examiner assumed that there is only one set of “one end” and “the other end”.
In claim 9, the limitation “…an angle detection unit detecting an angle value measured by an angle measurement sensor provided in the automatic welding head…” is indefinite, because “an angle detection unit” has invoked 112f and there is not further disclosure in the specification of any corresponding structure or explaining on what actually is it. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, Examiner assumed that such limitation is implying some kind of device, circuitry or even a program that detect an angle.
In claim 10:
The limitation “…includes an angle value recognition unit recognizing angle values measured by the angle measurement sensor for each position of the automatic welding head rotated along the pipe…” is indefinite, because “an angle value recognition unit” has invoked 112f and there is not further disclosure in the specification of any corresponding structure or explaining on what actually is it. Clarification is required.
The limitation “…a voltage value recognition unit recognizing a voltage value applied to the welding machine for each angle of the automatic welding head…” is indefinite, because “a voltage value recognition unit” has invoked 112f and there is not further disclosure in the specification of any corresponding structure or explaining on what actually is it. Clarification is required.
The limitation “…a matching unit matching the recognized angle value and voltage value and storing the matched angle value and voltage value as a reference angle value and a reference voltage value…” is indefinite, because “a matching unit” has invoked 112f and there is not further disclosure in the specification of any corresponding structure or explaining on what actually is it. Clarification is required.
The limitation “…an angle judgment unit comparing the angle value measured by the angle measurement sensor as the automatic welding head rotates along the pipe for welding the pipe with the reference angel value and judging whether the angle value coincides with the reference angle value…” is indefinite, because “an angle judgement unit” has invoked 112f and there is not further disclosure in the specification of any corresponding structure or explaining on what actually is it. Clarification is required.
The limitation “…a voltage value providing unit providing the reference voltage value matching the reference angle value judged to coincide with the angle value to the welding machine…” is indefinite, because “a voltage value providing unit” has invoked 112f and there is not further disclosure in the specification of any corresponding structure or explaining on what actually is it. Clarification is required.
In claim 10, in light of Notification of 112f above, the limitations: “an angle value recognition unit”, “a voltage value recognition unit”, “a matching unit”, “an angle judgement unit” and “a voltage value providing unit” as described in the present disclosure that such limitation can a processor, computer and computer programing …, but the present disclosure does not describe an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, such that the claim is indefinite. Correction is required. See Section 2181.II.B: “…For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999))…”
Claims 4-8 are rejected based on the inherited deficiencies of the corresponding independent 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 (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 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20130102796A herein set forth as KR2796A.
Regarding claim 1, KR2796A discloses an automatic welding system (refer to fig.1) for a pipe (#10, fig.1) wherein an automatic welding head (#20, fig.2) is rotatably installed on the pipe (#10, fig.1) and welding is performed with a welding machine (#100, fig.1 and refer to fig.2), and a chain (#30, fig.1) is wound around and thereby installed on the pipe (#10, fig.1), the automatic welding head (#20, fig.2) is rotatably installed along the chain (#30, fig.1), the chain (#30, fig.1) is movably passed through openings (refer to “openings” annotated in fig.1) formed on both sides of the automatic welding head (#20, fig.2), the chain (#30, fig.1) is guided by a guide roller (#52, fig.4) while being wound around a gear (#50, fig.4) driven to rotate by a driving motor (#41, fig.4) provided in the automatic welding head (#20, fig.2), and the pipe (#10, fig.1) is precisely welded using the welding machine (#100, fig.1 and refer to fig.2) which is adjusted in position by a position adjustment unit (#70, fig.4) of the automatic welding head (#20, fig.2) under the control of a control device (refer to abstract cited: “…An automatic welding device comprises a robot main body …”) while wheels (#22, fig.1-2 and 4) provided in the automatic welding head (#20, fig.2) rotate along the pipe (#10, fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
533
325
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
505
379
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In claim 2, KR2796A discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, KR2796A further discloses wherein the automatic welding head (#20, fig.2) includes a driving motor (#41, fig.4) driven to move the chain (#30, fig.1), a driving gear (#42, fig.4) rotated by the driving motor (#41, fig.4) and on which one side of the chain (#30, fig.1) is wound, a guide roller (#52, fig.4) spaced apart from the driving gear (#50, fig.4) and guiding the other side of the chain (#30, fig.1), and a chain adjusting unit (#73, #71a, #71, #72,#71b, fig.5) pressing the chain (#30, fig.1) while being installed between the driving gear (#50, fig.4 and fig.5) and the guide roller (#52, fig.4) and maintaining the tension state (refer as “tension” in Page 4 8th paragraph cited: “…a chain tightening part 60 for providing a predetermined tension to the chain 30 surrounding the pipe 10 …”) to make the chain (#30, fig.1) be in close contact with the pipe (#10, fig.1).
PNG
media_image4.png
338
394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, KR2796A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 2, KR2796A further discloses wherein the chain adjusting unit (#73, #71a, #71, #72,#71b, fig.6) includes a rotating frame (#71, #71a and #71b, fig.6) having one end (refer to #71b end in fig.6) rotatably provided on one side (refer to #71b side in fig.6) of the automatic welding head (#20, fig.2) and a latch (refer to #71b end latched onto #21 in fig.6) formed on the other end (refer to #71a end in fig.6), a chain presser (refer to #72, #61, #82 and #81, fig.6) for pressurizing the chain (#30, fig.1) in a state provided in the rotating frame (#71, #71a and #71b, fig.6), a handle (#73, fig.6) rotatably provided on the other side (refer to #71a end in fig.6) of the automatic welding head (#20, fig.2) while being spaced apart (refer to the distance spaced between #73, each #72 and #21 in fig.6) from the rotating frame (refer to #72, #61, #82 and #81, fig.6), a nut portion (refer to the end of #71a attached into #73 in fig.6) rotatably provided in the handle (#73, fig.6), and a locking portion (the portion that #71b latched on #21 in fig.6) that is locked on the latch (refer to #71b end latched onto #21 in fig.6) of the rotating frame (#71, #71a and #71b, fig.6) in a screwed state (refer to #73 is turning in fig.6) to the nut portion (refer to the end of #71a attached into #73 in fig.6), and the locking portion (the portion that #71b latched on #21 in fig.6) has a ring (refer to the shape of #21 in fig.6) locked on the latch (refer to #71b end latched onto #21 in fig.6) at one end (refer to #71b end in fig.6) and a screw shaft (#71, fig.6) screwed to the nut portion (refer to the end of #71a attached into #73 in fig.6) at the other end (refer to #71a end in fig.6).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20130102796A herein set forth as KR2796A, in view of CN201728492U herein set forth as CN28492U.
Regarding claim 4, KR2796A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, KR2796A does not disclose wherein the position adjusting unit includes a slide rail which is provided to be slidable on the automatic welding head and has an end to which the welding machine is fixed, a guide rail 8a moving movement of the slide rail, a guide block fixed to one side of the slide rail and having a screw hole, a screw shaft coupled to the screw hole of the guide block, and a movement motor 8d rotating the screw shaft while being provided in the automatic welding head.
In the similar field of pipe welding and welding head movement, CN28492U discloses wherein the position adjusting unit (refer “B” in fig.6) includes a slide rail (#21, #19, #20, fig.3 and 1) which is provided to be slidable (refer to #19 and #20 are slidable in fig.1) on the automatic welding head (#14, fig.3) and has an end (refer to the end of 18 where #15 is attached to the welding machine “c” in fig. 1) to which the welding machine (refer to “c” in fig.1) is fixed, a guide rail (#21, fig.1 and 3) moving movement of the slide rail (#21, #19, #20, fig.3 and 1), a guide block (refer to “guide block” annotated in fig.3) fixed to one side of the slide rail (#21, #19, #20, fig.3 and 1) and having a screw hole (refer to the hole of the “rotating shaft” annotated in fig.3), a screw shaft (refer to “rotating shaft” annotated in fig.3) coupled to the screw hole of the guide block (refer to “guide block” annotated in fig.3), and a movement motor (#22, fig.3) rotating the screw shaft (refer to “rotating shaft” annotated in fig.3) while being provided in the automatic welding head (#14, fig.3).
PNG
media_image5.png
684
484
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
242
779
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 KR2796A’s invention with wherein the position adjusting unit includes a slide rail which is provided to be slidable on the automatic welding head and has an end to which the welding machine is fixed, a guide rail 8a moving movement of the slide rail, a guide block fixed to one side of the slide rail and having a screw hole, a screw shaft coupled to the screw hole of the guide block, and a movement motor 8d rotating the screw shaft while being provided in the automatic welding head, as taught by CN28492U, in order to provide more movement flexibility to the welding head, allowing the automatic welding machine to have wider movement range and greater coverage without moving the whole machine.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20130102796A herein set forth as KR2796A, in view of Kazlauskas (US4373125) herein set forth as Kazlauskas.
Regarding claim 5, KR2796A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, KR2796A does not disclose a chain guide unit wound around and installed on the pipe, and wound with the chain and guided, wherein the chain guide unit is formed in the form of a belt so as to be wound around the pipe, and has wire grooves for winding wires on both sides, and a chain groove on which the chain is to be wound between the wire grooves.
In the similar field of automatic pipe welding, Kazlauskas discloses a chain guide unit (#61, ##78, #80, #82, #84, #86, #88 in fig.2 and #98 in fig.7) wound around and installed on the pipe (#32, fig.2), and wound with the chain (#124, fig.2 and 7) and guided, wherein the chain guide unit (#61,fig.2) is formed in the form of a belt (refer to the shape of #61 in fig.2 and 3) so as to be wound around the pipe (#32, fig.2), and has wire grooves (#78, #80, #84, #84 fig.2) for winding wires (#86 and #88, fig.3) on both sides, and a chain groove (refer #98 show a groove is accommodating the #124 in fig.7) on which the chain (#124, fig.2) is to be wound between the wire grooves (#78, #84, fig.2).
PNG
media_image7.png
748
464
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
508
678
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
380
450
media_image9.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 KR2796A’s invention with a chain guide unit wound around and installed on the pipe, and wound with the chain and guided, wherein the chain guide unit is formed in the form of a belt so as to be wound around the pipe, and has wire grooves for winding wires on both sides, and a chain groove on which the chain is to be wound between the wire grooves, as taught by Kazlauskas, in order to provide a more secure attachment to the pipe, such that would reduce loosening of the weld head and produce a lower defect weld.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of KR2796A and Kazlauskas discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 6, KR2796A does not disclose wherein the wire groove is formed concavely in a semicircular cross section.
In the similar field of automatic pipe welding, Kazlauskas further discloses wherein the wire groove (#78, #80, #84, #84 fig.2) is formed concavely in a semicircular cross section (refer to the shape of the #78, #80, #84, #84 in fig.2).
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 KR2796A’s invention with wherein the wire groove is formed concavely in a semicircular cross section, as taught by Kazlauskas, in order to provide a more secure attachment to the pipe, such that would reduce loosening of the weld head and produce a lower defect weld.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of KR2796A and Kazlauskas discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 6, KR2796A does not disclose wherein the chain groove is formed in a 'U' shape in cross section and a bottom surface is formed flat, and since the chain guide unit is made of soft synthetic resin or rubber, the chain is firmly supported without slipping.
In the similar field of automatic pipe welding, Kazlauskas further discloses wherein the chain groove (refer #98 show a groove is accommodating the #124 in fig.7) is formed in a 'U' shape (refer to the shape of the chain and #98 in fig.7, such that the shape of the groove would be shaped as the chain and would be considered as U shape) in cross section and a bottom surface is formed flat (refer to fig.3 to show the bottom surface contacting the pipe is flat).
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 KR2796A’s invention with wherein the chain groove is formed in a 'U' shape in cross section and a bottom surface is formed flat,, as taught by Kazlauskas, in order to provide a more secure attachment to the pipe, such that would reduce loosening of the weld head and produce a lower defect weld.
Kazlauskas does not discloses the chain guide unit is made of soft synthetic resin or rubber; the chain is firmly supported without slipping.
However, 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 Kazlauskas’s chain guide to made of soft synthetic resin or rubber, for the purpose of would not damage or scratch the pipe, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20130102796A herein set forth as KR2796A, in view of Vermaat (US2007/0256288A1) herein set forth as Vermaat.
Regarding claim 8, KR2796A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, KR2796A does not disclose comprising an auxiliary wheel supported on the pipe together with the wheel and an elastic portion for elastically supporting the auxiliary wheel, wherein there are a plurality of wheels which are spaced at regular intervals, and there are a plurality of auxiliary wheels, which are positioned outside the wheels, and the elastic portion may be configured by a compression spring having one end fixed to the auxiliary wheel and the other end fixed to the automatic welding head.
In the similar field of pipe welding and welding head movement, Vermaat discloses comprising an auxiliary wheel (#7, fig.1) supported on the pipe (#2, fig.1) together with the wheel (#6, fig.1) and an elastic portion (#27, fig.1) for elastically supporting the auxiliary wheel (#7, fig.1), wherein there are a plurality of wheels (#6, fig.1) which are spaced at regular intervals (refer to multiple #6 spaced in fig.1), and there are a plurality of auxiliary wheels (#7, fig.1), which are positioned outside the wheels (#7, fig.1), and the elastic portion (#27, fig.1) may be configured by a compression spring (#27, fig.1, referred as suspension) having one end fixed to the auxiliary wheel (#7, fig.1) and the other end fixed to the automatic welding head (#100, fig.1).
PNG
media_image10.png
498
573
media_image10.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 KR2796A’s invention with an auxiliary wheel supported on the pipe together with the wheel and an elastic portion for elastically supporting the auxiliary wheel, wherein there are a plurality of wheels which are spaced at regular intervals, and there are a plurality of auxiliary wheels, which are positioned outside the wheels, and the elastic portion may be configured by a compression spring having one end fixed to the auxiliary wheel and the other end fixed to the automatic welding head, as taught by Vermaat, in order to provide a better support and suspension pressure to keep the pipe stable and secure for the welding.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20130102796A herein set forth as KR2796A, in view of Massey, JR (US2022/0143730A1) herein set forth as Massey, and further in view of Richard et al (US2010/0276402A1) herein set forth as Richard.
Regarding claim 9, KR2796A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, KR2796A does not disclose wherein the control device is configured to include a voltage detection unit connected to a current control volume terminal of the welding machine and detecting a voltage value, an angle detection unit detecting an angle value measured by an angle measurement sensor provided in the automatic welding head, an A/D converter converting an analog value of the voltage detection unit into a digital value, a memory storage unit receiving the digital value converted by the A/D converter and storing the received digital value, a D/A converter connected to an output terminal of the memory storage unit, and converting the digital value into the analog value, and sending the analog value to the welding machine again, and a controller receiving the digital value stored in the memory storage unit and controlling the welding machine.
In the similar field of welding apparatus, Massey discloses wherein the control device (refer as “control circuitry” in Paragraph 0035) is configured to include a voltage detection unit (refer as “voltage sensor” in paragraph 0052 cited: “…The one or more sensors 156 may comprise cameras, microphones, voltage sensor, current sensors, etc…”) connected to a current control volume terminal (refer as “welding torch” in Paragraph 0052 cited: “…The sensor(s) 156 (e.g., camera) may be positioned at a fixed location relative to the welding torch 118 or a mobile sensor 156 may be used to measure and collect welding data…”) of the welding machine and detecting a voltage value, an A/D converter converting an analog value of the voltage detection unit (refer as “voltage sensor” in paragraph 0052 cited: “…The one or more sensors 156 may comprise cameras, microphones, voltage sensor, current sensors, etc…”) into a digital value, a memory storage unit (refer as “memory device cited in Paragraph 0036 cited below) receiving the digital value converted by the A/D converter and storing the received digital value, a D/A converter connected to an output terminal of the memory storage unit (refer as “memory device cited in Paragraph 0036 cited below), and converting the digital value into the analog value, and sending the analog value to the welding machine again, and a controller receiving the digital value stored in the memory storage unit and controlling the welding machine (refer to Paragraph 0036 cited: “…control circuitry 122 includes one or more memory device(s) 122b. The memory device(s) 122b may include volatile and/or nonvolatile memory and/or storage devices, such as random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), flash memory, hard drives, solid state storage, and/or any other suitable optical, magnetic, and/or solid-state storage mediums. The memory device 122b stores data (e.g., data corresponding to a welding application), instructions (e.g., software or firmware to perform welding processes), and/or any other appropriate data. Examples of stored data for a welding application include an attitude (e.g., orientation) of a welding torch, a distance between the contact tip and a work piece, a voltage, a current, welding device settings, and so forth. The memory device 122b may store machine executable instructions (e.g., firmware or software) for execution by the processor(s) 122a. Additionally or alternatively, one or more control schemes for various welding processes, along with associated settings and parameters, may be stored in the memory device 122b, along with machine executable instructions configured to provide a specific output (e.g., initiate wire feed, enable gas flow, capture welding current data, detect short circuit parameters, determine amount of spatter) during operation. For example, the memory device 122b may store executable instructions configured to monitor one or more weld attributes (e.g., such as a weld pool measurements captured via one or more sensors 156) and to adjust one or more control schemes dynamically (e.g., real-time or near real-time) during a welding process…”).
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 KR2796A’s invention with wherein the control device is configured to include a voltage detection unit connected to a current control volume terminal of the welding machine and detecting a voltage value, an A/D converter converting an analog value of the voltage detection unit into a digital value, a memory storage unit receiving the digital value converted by the A/D converter and storing the received digital value, a D/A converter connected to an output terminal of the memory storage unit, and converting the digital value into the analog value, and sending the analog value to the welding machine again, and a controller receiving the digital value stored in the memory storage unit and controlling the welding machine, as taught by Massey, in order to provide the precision control of the welding process, such that would product a better control welding joint, reduce defect product and increase welding speed.
Massey does not disclose an angle detection unit detecting an angle value measured by an angle measurement sensor provided in the automatic welding head.
In the similar field of welding apparatus, Richard discloses an angle detection unit (mean of programing in Paragraph 0027 cited below) detecting an angle value measured by an angle measurement sensor (refer to “angle sensor” in Paragraph 0027 cited: “…the device contains means of programming set values and means of recognizing the orbital position of the welding device, such as an angle sensor loaded on the device and means of control of the means of adjustment of the laser beam in height, of the means of displacement of the MIG torch for displacing the point of impact of the electric arc and means of angular displacement of the MIG torch …”) provided in the automatic welding head (refer as “welding head” cited in Paragraph 0026 cited: “…in each of the orbital positions of the welding device around the conduits (the angular position can, notably, be given by a sensor loaded on the welding head) …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified KR2796A’s invention with an angle detection unit detecting an angle value measured by an angle measurement sensor provided in the automatic welding head, as taught by Richard, in order to provide a better and more precision control of the welding head, such that would be able to provide a better weld penetration and welding joint, and that would reduce defect and produce better end product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwasaki et al (US2020/0116240A1) discloses a chain guide that teaches the limitation of dependent claim only.
JP5527422 discloses an angle sensor for pipe welding that teaches the limitation of dependent claim only.
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 June 12th 2026
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights