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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 4 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (JP-2011183454-A) in view of Sato (US-20090008427-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamazaki teaches (Figures 1-7) a welding gun (spot welding gun 1b) (Fig 6, [0001]-[0002], [0047]). The welding gun comprises a fixed electrode (second electrode tip 10) fixed to an arm (rotation arm 8) ([0031]-[0033], [0044]-[0045]). The moveable electrode (first electrode chip 3a) is held by a holding member (rotation restricting member 19) separate from the arm, and the pressure driver (air cylinder 2a) including rod portion (piston rod 2b) is fixed to the holding member ([0040]-[0045]). The pressure driver applies pressure to a welding target that is sandwiched between the moveable electrode and the fixed electrode by advancing the or retracting the rod portion ([0015]). The holding member is attached to a guide machine (guide portion 20), which guides the holding member along an axis that is parallel to that of the rod portion using a guide rod (guide rod 20a) ([0041]-[0045]). However, Sato does not teach that the guide mechanism is a ball spline.
With regards to Claim 1, Sato teaches (Fig 1 & 2) the driving unit of welding equipment. Sato teaches that the driving unit of welding equipment with a pressure application shaft is formed of a ball spline shaft and a ball spline bearing housed in the rotary shaft ([0005]). Sato also teaches that the pressure application shaft has a ball nut (10), which has a screw to mesh indirectly with the screw shaft (7) via balls, where the front part of the pressure application shaft can be connected to an electrode for applying a pressure to a workpiece to weld the workpiece in the case of a C-type welding gun or an arm of an X-type welding gun ([0011]). Additionally, Sato teaches that the ball spline grooves are formed on the outer peripheral surface of the pressure application shaft at multiple spots, serving as a turning sport mechanism ([0012]). Sato further teaches that the ball spline bearing (11), ball receive passages (11a), balls (11b), and ball spline grooves (9a) are used to implement the turning stop operation of the pressure application shaft ([0013], [0017]-[0018]). Sato teaches that the ball spline mechanism enables the welding equipment to be short in length without enlarging the hole diameter of the rotary shaft (5) of the motor, also providing for a small, lightweight, and compact; and the turning stop mechanism can effectively operate as a deriving unit for applying a pressure eccentrically relative to the pressure application shaft ([0018]-[0019])
Regarding Claim 2, Yamazaki further teaches a welding gun according to claim 1, where an electrode holding member is bent such that an axis of the moveable electrode is disposed to be inclined to the axis of the fixed electrode (Modified Fig 6 below). The indicated inclined axes indicated below are two of a plurality of axes of the moveable electrode.
PNG
media_image1.png
585
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Yamazaki teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to disclose that the guide mechanism is a ball spline. However, Sato discloses the driving unit of welding equipment being a ball spline mechanism.
In this case, Yamazaki teaches the welding gun with a fixed electrode mounted to an arm and a movable electrode held by a holding member that is linearly advance and retracted using the pressure driver and guide rods, and Sato teaches the use of a ball spline as the driving mechanism for advancing and retracting the electrode towards the welding spot.
An artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the welding gun of Yamazaki to incorporate the analogous art of using a ball spline to drive the electrode as taught by Sato, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single welding gun.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki and incorporate the teachings of Sato to provide a welding gun that uses a ball spline mechanism to guide the welding electrode of a welding gun to provide a compact and lightweight welding gun.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki and Sato, and in further view of Lu (CN-10577923-A).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Yamazaki and Sato teach all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the pressure driver, guide mechanism, and arm are fixed to a support member disposed on each of both sides of the rod portion across the axis of the rod portion, where the support member is fixed to an attachment member that attaches the welding gun to a robot arm.
Lu teaches (Fig 1-5) a welding gun holder body (1) that attaches to a robot arm (Abstract, [0009], [0032]). Lu also teaches that the pressure driver (welding gun driver 3) can be mounted to the first and second side plates (11 and 12), where the welding gun driver and transformer (2) are installed between the two side plates ([0031]-[0035]). Lu further teaches that the side plates include multiple sets of mounting holes (10) for connecting the fixed arm locking device (4) ([0038]). Additionally, Lu teaches that the guide mechanism (slide rail 5), and arm (moveable arm connection device 6) are fixed to a support member (side plates 11 and 12) disposed on each of both sides of the rod portion across the axis of the rod portion ([0040]-[0045]). Lu further teaches that a support member is fixed to an attachment that attaches the welding gun to a robot arm (Abstract, [0009], [0049]-[0050]). Additionally, Lu teaches the advantage of the mounting plates in that the distance between welding clamp fixed arm and movable arm can be adjusted, where the common components between the x-type and c-type welding guns can be shared as a result of the modular and reusable design of the welding gun holder ([0035], [0051]).
In this case, Yamazaki teaches the welding gun with a fixed electrode mounted to an arm and a movable electrode held by a holding member that is linearly advance and retracted using the pressure driver and guide rods, Sato teaches the use of a ball spline as the driving mechanism for advancing and retracting the electrode towards the welding spot, and Lu teaches the welding clamp body with supporting side plates that allow the parts to be mounted to a robot arm.
An artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the welding gun of Yamazaki and the ball spline mechanism of Sato, to incorporate the analogous art of using supporting side plates that allow mounting on a robotic arm as taught by Lu, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single welding gun.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamakazi and Sato to incorporate the teachings of Lu to provide a welding gun with a ball spline driving mechanism, where the supporting plates enclose the pressure driver, the guide mechanism, and the arm, on opposing sides of the rod portion; where the support member provides a manner of connecting the welding gun to a robotic arm. This modification would provide the benefit of being able to connect a multitude of common structures to the welding gun and arm in a variety of ways that increases the available working conditions and positions of the welding gun as well as allowing the welding gun to be compact and lightweight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takano (GB 2225972 A) teaches a resistance welding apparatus that includes two electrodes affixed to a pair of gun arms in a confronting relation.
Marek (US 2003/0222055A1) teaches a welding gun (abstract) which includes ([0025] and Fig 1) a linear guide that has a stiff and non-bending design. This design may use a roller bearing as a linear guide, that includes a guide rail (27), and guide rail or guide grooves for bearing balls (30) and a guide carriage (28), where the guide carriage has a bead chain, which allows linear movement on the guide rail with little friction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned Landrum can be reached at 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, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights