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 10/30/2023 and 03/27/2025 are objected because references to prior art TR2019/14199 and TR2021/01385 (see pages 2-3 in the specification) are not provided by Applicant. The Applicant did not attach copies of the prior art references and include them in the information disclosure statement (IDS).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 2-4, 7, 9, and 10) in the reply filed on 06/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every features of the invention specified in the claims. The limitations:
“the controller unit” recited in line 9, claim 2,
“the load cell”, “the robot upper and lower electrodes” recited in line 11, claim 2,
“robot” recited in line 13, claim 2,
“control system” recited in line 14, claim 2
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.
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 2 recites the limitations:
at least one Current Reading Module, which is the module that will instantly read the welding current and time with high resolution and speed, calculate the RMS value and send it to the controller unit via serial communication;
at least one Force Calibration Module, which is the module that will measure the force between the load cell and the robot upper and lower electrodes and transfer the measurement value to the controller unit analogously;
at least one serial and digital communication system with Robot, which provides communication between Robot and control system and gives information such as formula number, ready / error information to the robot in case of proper welding or unproper welding;
at least one data transfer system to Cloud or local server where instant data obtained by the controller control unit is transferred for archiving, analysis and reporting, and
at least one Barcode / QR-Code Reading Module, which is the module that will read the individual code on the part to be welded in production process and transfer it to the controller 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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “at least one Current Reading Module”, Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0064 recites “Current Reading Module (2): It consists of microcontroller based electronic board and toroidal coil for current reading”.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “at least one Force Calibration Module”, Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0022 recites “Force Calibration Module (loadcell)”.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “at least one serial and digital communication system”, no corresponding structure is disclosed in the specification.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “at least one data transfer system”, Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0069 recites: “Data transfer to cloud or local server (5): Instant data obtained by the controller checker control unit (1) are transferred to a defined area on the cloud or local server for archiving, analysis and reporting”.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “at least one Barcode / QR-Code Reading Module”, Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0068 recites: “5—Barcode/QR-code reading module (6): It consists of a barcode/2d-code reading device.”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 Objections
Claims 2, 3 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, the terms “ the welding” (line 2), “the resistance welding robot cells” (line 2), “the correct welding parameters” (line 3), “the robot” (line 3), “the operator” (line 3), “the welding current and time” (line 8), , “the robot upper and lower electrodes” (line 11), “the individual code”, “the part” (line 21) lack antecedent basis but do not render the claim indefinite. These above terms should be “ a welding”, “resistance welding robot cells” (line 2), “correct welding parameters” (line 3), “a robot” (line 3), “an operator” (line 3), “welding current and time” (line 8), “robot upper and lower electrodes” (line 11), “an individual code”, “a part”, respectively.
In claim 2, the term “RMS value” (line 8) should be “Root Mean Square (RMS) value”.
In claim 3, line 7, “the control algorithm of the system” should be “a control algorithm of the controller system”.
In claim 3, line 7, “at least one PLC module” should be “at least one Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) module”.
In claim 10, last line, the term “the set value” lacks antecedent basis but does not render the claim indefinite. It should be “a set value”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “at least one serial and digital communication system with Robot, which provides communication between Robot and control system and gives information such as formula number, ready/error information to the robot in case of proper welding or unproper welding” in lines 13-16. No corresponding structure of the claimed “at least one serial and digital communication system” is disclosed to perform the claimed function. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. For examination purposes, the claimed “at least one serial and digital communication system” can comprise any structure(s).
Claims 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 2.
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 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 2:
the term “welding robot controller system/device” recited in the preamble, line 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the term “system/device” requires a system, a device or alternatively either a system or device. In claim 3, line 3, the term “controller system” is recited; then, in the same claim 3, the term “device” is mentioned. Therefore, the term “welding robot controller system/device” in claim 2 is unclear because of multiple of different recitations “controller system” and “device in dependent claim 3 which correspond to the same term “welding robot controller system/device”. The claim therefore does not provide reasonable certainty as to the mete and bounds of the claimed subject. Applicant should clarify the term by reciting the structure intended to be claimed.
Claim 2 recites the term(s) “it” in line 4, but the claim includes multiple possible antecedents, including “welding robot controller system/device”, “nonconformity detection” or something else. It is therefore unclear which element it refers to, and the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 2 recites the term “the load cell” in line 11 lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if the term “the load cell” corresponds to the “at least one Force Calibration Module” previously recited in line 10. According to specification, the pub. para.0022 discloses: “Force Calibration Module (loadcell)”. Therefore, the term “the load cell” is construed as the “at least one Force Calibration Module”.
Claim 2 also recites the term(s) “it” in line 9, but the claim includes multiple possible antecedents, including “the welding current”, “time”, “RMS value” or else. It is therefore unclear which element it refers to, and the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
In Claim 2, the term “the RMS value” line 8 lacks antecedent basis and does not clearly identify the quality for which the RMS is determined. The claim does not identify whether the RMS value is an RMS value of, for example, welding current, time, speed or other parameter. Accordingly, it is unclear what meant be “the RMS value” and therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear.
In Claim 2, the term “the controller unit” (line 9) lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear whether the term “the controller unit” corresponds to the “at least one Checker Control Unit” previously recited in line 5 or something else. For examination purposes, the term “the controller unit” is construed as the “at least one Checker Control Unit”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “at least one serial and digital communication system with Robot, which provides communication between Robot and control system and gives information such as formula number, ready/error information to the robot in case of proper welding or unproper welding” in lines 13-16 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure “at least one serial and digital communication system with Robot” for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. For examination purposes, the claimed “at least one serial and digital communication system” can comprise any structure(s).
In Claim 2, the term “Robot” in lines 13-14 is unclear if it corresponds to “the robot” previously recited in line 3. If so, the term “Robot” in lines 13-14 should be “the robot”.
In Claim 2, the term “control system” in line 14 is unclear if it refers the “welding robot controller system/ device” (line 1) or Checker Control Unit (line 5). For examination purposes, the term “control system” is construed as the “welding robot controller system/ device” (line 1).
In claim 2, the phrase "such as" (line 14) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) “formula number, ready / error information” following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the limitation(s) “formula number, ready / error” are not part of the claimed invention.
In Claim 2, the term “the controller control unit” (line 18) lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear whether the term “the controller control unit” corresponds to the “at least one Checker Control Unit” previously recited in line 5 or something else. For examination purposes, the term “the controller control unit” is construed as the “at least one Checker Control Unit”.
In claim 2, the terms correct” (line 3), “nonconformity” (line 4), “high” (line 8), “proper” (line 15), “unproper” (line 15) in the limitations “correct welding parameter” (line 3), “nonconformity detection” (line 4), “high resolution and speed” (line 8), and “proper or unproper welding” (line 15) are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms correct” (line 3), “nonconformity” (line 4), “high” (line 8), “proper” (line 15), “unproper” (line 15) are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 3 recites the term(s) “it” in line 4, but the claim includes multiple possible antecedents, including “The welding robot controller system/device”, “The Checker Control Unit I”, “all data in the controller system” or else. It is therefore unclear which element it refers to, and the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 4 recites the term(s) “it” in line 4, but the claim includes multiple possible antecedents, including “The welding robot controller system/device”, “the Current Reading Module”, “the RMS value” or else. It is therefore unclear which element it refers to, and the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 7 recites the term(s) “it” in line 4, but the claim includes multiple possible antecedents, including “The welding robot controller system/device”, the Barcode / QR-Code Reading Module, “the individual code”, or else.
Claim 9 recites the term(s) “it” in line 4, but the claim includes multiple possible antecedents, including “The welding robot controller system/device”, “the welding”, “the correct welding parameters” or else.
Claim 9 recites the term “the robot welding pliers” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if it corresponds to “the resistance welding robot cells” previously recited in claim 2. If so, the term “the robot welding pliers” should amend as “the resistance welding robot cells”.
Claim 10 recites the term(s) “it” in line 4, but the claim includes multiple possible antecedents, including “The welding robot controller system/device”, “the welding”, “the correct welding parameters” or else.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US20220001483A1) in view of Komatsu (US 20220118558 A1) and Albrech (US 20130075380 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses
A welding robot controller system/device (10, see fig.1B), which will instantly check that the welding at each welding point in the resistance welding robot cells is performed according to the correct welding parameters and will instantly inform the robot and the operator in case of a nonconformity detection (this preamble statement recites purpose or intended use, see MPEP 2111, II), characterized in that it includes:
at least one Checker Control Unit (32, see fig.1B), which is the unit with hardware and software (See para.0092: “a self-developed Lab View program/controller 32”. Therefore, controller 32 comprises software and hardware, wherein the software needs hardware to run) where all data in the controller system is evaluated and controlled (See para.0064: “the system 10 by and through the controller 32 continues to evaluate the selected requirements to determine whether or not to continue supplying electrical current”),
at least one Current Reading Module (combo 26 and 30, see para.0070, 0061 and fig.1B), which is the module that will instantly read the welding current and time with high resolution and speed (“The AC electrical current is measured via a Rogowski coil 26, which is processed by a data acquisition and self-developed control system to determine the start-and-off time of the ultrasonic power generator 34”, see para.0070), calculate the RMS value (“ root mean square values of 8.8 kA, 9.9 kA, 10.5 kA and 11 kA”, see para.0070) and send it to the controller unit (32) via serial communication (see fig.1B),
at least one Force Calibration Module (28, see fig.1B), which is the module that will measure the force between the load cell (28, see fig. 1B and 112b rejections above) and the robot upper (16, see fig.1B) and lower electrodes (18, see fig.1B) and transfer the measurement value to the controller unit (32, see para.0061) analogously,
Liu does not expressly disclose at least one serial and digital communication system with Robot, which provides communication between Robot and control system and gives information such as formula number, ready / error information to the robot in case of proper welding or unproper welding,
at least one data transfer system to Cloud or local server where instant data obtained by the controller control unit is transferred for archiving, analysis and reporting, and
at least one Barcode / QR-Code Reading Module, which is the module that will read the individual code on the part to be welded in production process and transfer it to the controller unit.
Komatsu discloses a repair welding system, comprising:
at least one serial and digital communication system with Robot (30, see fig.2), which provides communication between Robot (MC23, see fig.2) and control system (3, see fig.2) and gives information such as formula number, ready / error information to the robot in case of proper welding or unproper welding (See para.0067),
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Liu to have “at least one serial and digital communication system with Robot, which provides communication between Robot and control system and gives information such as formula number, ready / error information to the robot in case of proper welding or unproper welding” as taught by Liu in order to ensure precise control, immediate feedback, and reliable process execution, which are vital for maintaining weld quality and keeping production lines running smoothly.
Liu in view of Komatsu discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except at least one data transfer system to Cloud or local server where instant data obtained by the controller control unit is transferred for archiving, analysis and reporting, and
at least one Barcode / QR-Code Reading Module, which is the module that will read the individual code on the part to be welded in production process and transfer it to the controller unit.
Albrech discloses Methods and apparatus to provide visual information associated with welding operations, comprising:
at least one data transfer system (98, see fig.4) to Cloud (18, see fig.4) or local server where instant data obtained by the controller control unit (88, see fig.8) is transferred for archiving, analysis and reporting (intended use, see para.0017 and fig.4), and
at least one Barcode / QR-Code Reading Module (102, see fig.4), which is the module that will read the individual code on the part to be welded in production process and transfer it to the controller unit (See para.0027: “In the illustrated embodiment the part reader 102 is adapted to detect barcodes, radio frequency identification tags, or any other identifying information of the part and to communicate such information for monitoring, storing, and even for receipt of appropriate weld process and weld settings information”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Liu in view of Komatsu to have “at least one data transfer system to Cloud or local server where instant data obtained by the controller control unit is transferred for archiving, analysis and reporting, and at least one Barcode / QR-Code Reading Module, which is the module that will read the individual code on the part to be welded in production process and transfer it to the controller unit”. The data Transfer System allows historical analysis to identify trends, improve processes, and meet compliance requirements. In addition, the Barcode/QR-Code Reading Module ensures every weld can be traced back to the exact part, material, and operator.
Regarding claim 4, Liu further discloses wherein the Current Reading Module (26 and 30, see fig.1B) is configured to instantly read the welding current and time with high resolution and speed, (see para.0091), calculate the RMS value (see para.0092, 0070) and send it to the controller unit (32, see fig.1B) via serial communication (See and wherein the Current Reading Module comprises of at least one MicroController Based Current Reading Board (30, see fig.1B) and at least one toroidal current coil (26, see fig.1B) for current reading (see para.0092, 0070).
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Komatsu and Albrech further discloses the Barcode / QR-Code Reading Module (102 of Albrech, see fig.4) is configured to read the individual code on the part to be welded in production process (see para.0027:“the part reader 102 is adapted to detect barcodes, radio frequency identification tags, or any other identifying information of the part and to communicate such information for monitoring, storing, and even for receipt of appropriate weld process and weld settings information”) and transfer it to the controller unit (88, see fig.4) , and wherein the Barcode / QR-Code Reading Module (102) comprises of at least one barcode/2d-code reading device (See para.0027: “the part reader 102 is adapted to detect barcode”), which reads the individual barcode/2d-code that is pre-written on the part loaded into the spot robot cell (see fig.4) and that defines the part (See para.0027), and PLC module (combo 90,88 and 86, see fig.4).
Regarding claim 9, Liu further discloses the welding robot controller system/device according to claim 2, which will instantly check that the welding at each welding point in the resistance welding robot cells is performed according to the correct welding parameters (intended use, see para.0064) and will instantly inform the robot and the operator in case of a nonconformity detection (intended use), characterized in that it includes at least one force measuring probe (28, see fig.1B) that helps the robot welding pliers to perform force calibration control at certain periods (see para.0061).
Regarding claim 10, Liu further discloses the welding robot controller system/device according to claim 2, which will instantly check that the welding at each welding point in the resistance welding robot cells is performed according to the correct welding parameters (intended use, see para.0064) and will instantly inform the robot and the operator in case of a nonconformity detection (intended use), characterized in that it includes at least one current reading probe (26, see fig.1B), which allows directly and instantly reading the welding current and time individually for each spot (0070), independently of the robot (claim 12), and instantly comparing with the set value (See para.0072: “Overall, electrical current below 8.8 kA is insufficient to initiate welds”).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Komatsu and Albrech as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Pfaller (US 20200363793 A1)
Regarding claim 3, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth. Liu further discloses the Checker Control Unit is the unit with hardware and software (see para.0092) where all data in the controller system is evaluated and controlled, characterized in that it includes
at least one PLC module (32, see fig.1B and para. 0092), in which the control algorithm of the system is programmed (see para. 0092), as well as digital input/output and analog signal reading can be performed (See para.0061).
Liu does not expressly disclose at least one touch screen that allows the device to enter parameter entries, formula record, instant status monitoring and alarm displaying.
Pfaller discloses method and apparatus for quick selection of custom parameters and factory reset parameters, comprising:
at least one touch screen (242 and 244, see fig.2 and para.0031) that allows the device to enter parameter entries, formula record, instant status monitoring and alarm displaying (See para.0031).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Liu in view of Komatsu and Albrech to add “at least one touch screen that allows the device to enter parameter entries, formula record, instant status monitoring and alarm displaying” as taught by Pfaller. Adding the touch screen to the welding machine enhances precision, speed, safety, and traceability in production.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20140005804A1 discloses a set of costs representing operations of a machine along a set of trajectories connecting a set of exit and entry points on contours of a pattern is determined.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights