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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions II. and III. of the restriction of 02/19/26, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/07/26. The Examiner maintains their position regarding the subject restriction requirement as the Applicant’s arguments regarding there being no burden on the Examiner are conclusory. Furthermore, inventions II. and III. are classified within distinct areas in addition to invention I. being classified within a distinct area similarly.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQueen et al. (US 2017/0144242) in view of Ono (JPH01257593).
With regard to claim 1, McQueen teaches a machine tool (FIG. 1) comprising: a table (6) configured to support a workpiece (84); a first machining head (42) which is configured to support a wire such that a tip end of the wire is exposed from the first machining head (42) and via which a molten material produced from the tip end (tip end at 54) of the wire is provided to the workpiece supported by the table (“The metal wire supplied by welding unit 70 may comprise steel, aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, or other suitable metal. After the metal bead is deposited utilizing the weld tip 54, the weld tip 54 may be retracted relative to the machining head 42 by actuation of electric motor 66”, para. [0028]-[0029]); a second machining head (50) configured to support a tool which is configured to cut the workpiece supported by the table (“the cutting tool 50 may be brought into engagement with the weld bead after the molten metal has solidified. Cutting tool 50 can be utilized to remove a portion of the weld bead to thereby shape the bead.”, para. [0029]); a power supply (power supply, FIG. 9-11) configured to supply a current to the wire (“As discussed in more detail below in connection with FIGS. 6-8, the molten bead of metal produced by weld tip 54 may have a shape and size that is specifically selected to provide a layer corresponding to a shape of a finished metal part. The metal wire supplied by welding unit 70 may comprise steel, aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, or other suitable metal. After the metal bead is deposited utilizing the weld tip 54, the weld tip 54 may be retracted relative to the machining head 42 by actuation of electric motor 66”, para. [0028]-[0029].
McQueen does not teach a conduction block disposed on the table to detect a position of the tip end of the wire; a drive device configured to relatively move the first machining head with respect to the table to bring the tip end of the wire into contact with the conduction block; and a first electric circuit configured to be changed from an open state to a closed state by bringing the tip end of the wire into contact with the conduction block.; however, Ono from the same field of endeavor directed toward a method for correcting or shifting the center of a robot teaches the aforementioned limitations: “ Such a robot has three conductive flat plates within its operating range and a conductive contact as part of the working tool. The jig 9 is composed of three iron plates as shown in FIG. 3, and is fixed to a fixed part of the robot. The jig and the robot fixing part are positioned by pins 16 and grooves 17, and fixed by bolts 18, so that they can be attached and detached. The jig may be composed of three electrically conductive flat plates, and may be fixed to the work table. If the work to be performed is welding, the work tool is: It becomes a welding torch and the contact is the torch tip ie. It becomes the tip of the wire, so there is no need to add a contact. It has means for applying voltage between the flat plate and the contact. A voltage is applied between the jig '9 and the wire tip 8-a.”; “It becomes a welding torch and the contact is the torch tip ie. It becomes the tip of the wire, so there is no need to add a contact. It has means for applying voltage between the flat plate and the contact. A voltage is applied between the jig '9 and the wire tip 8-a. This voltage application is performed by the voltage application circuit of the calculation unit 11 as a series of operations for detecting the contact position between the jig 9 and the wire tip 8-a, which will be described later. This is done by opening/closing instructions.”; “For example, if the work tool is a welding torch, the contact may be a welding wire, and the jig only needs to be fixed within the operating range, whether it is fixed to the robot fixed part or to peripheral equipment. You can leave it there. (2) It has a step of applying voltage between the jig described in (1) and the contact.
(3) Move the robot in a preset direction. Setting of this movement direction is performed by a teaching device included in the robot control device. (4) According to item (3), there is a step of operating the robot and detecting the jig and the contact.” (emphasis added)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the McQueen reference, to include a conduction block disposed on the table to detect a position of the tip end of the wire; a drive device configured to relatively move the first machining head with respect to the table to bring the tip end of the wire into contact with the conduction block; and a first electric circuit configured to be changed from an open state to a closed state by bringing the tip end of the wire into contact with the conduction block, as suggested and taught by Ono, for the purpose of providing controlled accurate working points (Oto: Means to Solve the Problem).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-11 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights