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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
Fig. 6 shows cross hatching but is not a section view
Fig. 8 shows STG1A, MC1A, and WL1A in dotted lines which indicate a hidden feature
Fig. 8 shows STG1A, MC1A, and WL1A in dotted lines which indicate a hidden feature
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1 and 9 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claim 1 recites at least one step or instruction for acquiring production data, storing the data, teaching by acquiring a first welding line, creating an output for a first welding teaching program, a first inspection teaching program, acquiring second production data, acquiring a second welding line, creating a further output, and a second inspection teaching program, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). These are directed towards a mental process concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, and judgment, (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))]] Accordingly, each of Claims 2-8 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites an acquisition unit that acquires first production data of a workpiece produced by welding; a storage unit that stores the acquired first production data; and a teaching program creation unit that acquires a first welding line of the workpiece from the first production data, and that creates and outputs a first welding teaching program for executing the welding by a welding robot and a first inspection teaching program for executing inspection of a weld bead of the produced workpiece, wherein the acquisition unit acquires second production data in which at least a part of the first production data is changed, and the teaching program creation unit acquires a second welding line different from the first welding line from the second production data and creates and outputs a second welding teaching program and a second inspection teaching program of a workpiece produced using the second production data based on the acquired second welding line, which are considered by the examiner to be an observation, evaluation, and judgment, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
Claim 1 involves an observation, evaluation, and judgment, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
Further, dependent Claims 2-8 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 and by extension, their respective dependent Claims 2-8 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements for acquiring production data, storing the data, teaching by acquiring a first welding line, creating an output for a first welding teaching program, a first inspection teaching program, acquiring second production data, acquiring a second welding line, creating a further output, and a second inspection teaching program, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: an acquisition unit, storage unit, and teaching program creation unit are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and their respective dependent claims by extension which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., typically, processor, computer device, server, etc. as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the way the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and their respective dependent claims by extension is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and their respective dependent claims are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: an acquisition unit, storage unit, and teaching program creation unit.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms an acquisition unit, storage unit, and teaching program creation unit are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the acquisition unit, storage unit, and teaching program creation unit. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus Claims 1-8 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, Claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 2-8 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For the reasons above with regards to claim 1, claim 9 also claims an abstract idea of a method of using the device of claim 1 and the abstract ideas of for acquiring production data, storing the data, teaching by acquiring a first welding line, creating an output for a first welding teaching program, a first inspection teaching program, acquiring second production data, acquiring a second welding line, creating a further output, and a second inspection teaching program are not embodied in the robot.
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:
“an acquisition unit” in claims 1 is being interpreted as item YYYFROMSPECFICATION which are per par. 152 is a the communication unit 50 or the input and output unit 53 (an example of an acquisition unit and is subject to 112 rejections below
“a storage unit” in claims 1 is being interpreted as item YYYFROMSPECFICATION which are per par. 77 is a determination threshold storage unit 34 or inspection result storage unit 33 which is subject to 112 rejections below
“a teaching program creation unit” in claims 1 is being interpreted as item 51 which are per par. 152 is a processor
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.
Claim 1-8 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.
Regarding in claim 1, the recitations of a “an acquisition unit” and “a storage unit” lacks written description as Applicant has not provided a description in the original disclosure which particularly points out what a desired localized thermal mass are considered to be because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions associated with “an acquisition unit” and “a storage unit” and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find evidence applicant had possession of the invention. These units are interpreted as a processor.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
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.
Claim limitations “an acquisition unit” and “a storage unit” in claim 1 have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because (C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions associated with the “acquisition unit” and “storage unit”. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US11345031B2 Miyata.
Regarding claim 1,
Miyata teaches,
An offline teaching device (welding robot 1) comprising:
an acquisition unit (camera 12) that acquires first production data of a workpiece produced by welding (column 5 lines 13 to 20 teach production data being a CAD model based upon the camera capture of member W);
a storage unit (control device 15) that stores the acquired first production data (column 5 lines 21 to 43 teaches a storage of 3D CAD data);
and a teaching program creation unit (teach pendent 17) that acquires a first welding line of the workpiece from the first production data (column 5 lines 21 to 43),
and that creates and outputs a first welding teaching program for executing the welding by a welding robot and a first inspection teaching program for executing inspection of a weld bead of the produced workpiece (column 12 lines 16 to 39),
wherein the acquisition unit acquires second production data in which at least a part of the first production data is changed (column 5 lines 44 to 67 and column 6 lines 1 to 9 teach using camera 12 to capture a first weld path and compares it to a 3d CAD model),
and the teaching program creation unit acquires a second welding line (column 5 lines 53 to 60 teach multiple weld members W) different from the first welding line from the second production data and creates and outputs a second welding teaching program and a second inspection teaching program of a workpiece produced using the second production data based on the acquired second welding line (column 5 lines 44 to 67 and column 6 lines 1 to 9 teach the flow chart of fig. 2 and the workpiece of fig. 3 using camera 12 to capture a first weld path E and compares it to a 3d CAD model).
Regarding claim 3,
Miyata teaches,
The offline teaching device according to claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein the second production data includes three-dimensional shape data of the workpiece (column 5 lines 44 to 67 and column 6 lines 1 to 9 teach using camera 12 to capture a weld path, column 5 lines 53 to 60 teach multiple weld members W and therefore multiple weld paths including a second weld path), and the teaching program creation unit acquires the second welding line based on the acquired three-dimensional shape data (column 5 lines 64 to 67 and column 6 lines to 19 teach acquiring multiple weld paths and column 6 lines 29 to 47 teach incorporating them in to wall surface determination model M1 which is a virtual model, aka, cad model).
Regarding claim 4,
Miyata teaches,
The offline teaching device according to claim 3 (as discussed above),
wherein the teaching program creation unit acquires information on at least two or more surfaces from the three-dimensional shape data (wall surface determination models M1 and M2 column 6 lines 20 to 67 and column 7 and column 8 lines 1 to 65 teach the acquisition to compile data for M1 and M2),
detects a plurality of intersection points at which the acquired two or more surfaces intersect (column 7 lines 53 to 67 and column 8 lines 1 to 7 teach M2 as determining where to members to be welded intersect to detect the presence or absence of a scallop),
and acquires the second welding line based on the plurality of intersection points (column 7 lines 53 to 67 and column 8 lines 1 to 7 teach M2 as determining where to members to be welded intersect to detect the presence or absence of a scallop).
Regarding claim 5,
Miyata teaches,
The offline teaching device according to claim 3 (as discussed above),
wherein the teaching program creation unit acquires information on at least two or more surfaces from the three-dimensional shape data (wall surface determination models M1 and M2 column 6 lines 20 to 67 and column 7 and column 8 lines 1 to 65 teach the acquisition to compile data for M1 and M2 at multiple surfaces),
detects a plurality of contact points where the acquired two or more surfaces are in contact (column 7 lines 53 to 67 and column 8 lines 1 to 7 teach M2 as determining where to members to be welded intersect to detect the presence or absence of a scallop which are where the members to be welded are in contact),
and acquires the second welding line based on the plurality of contact points contact (column 7 lines 53 to 67 and column 8 lines 1 to 7 teach M2 as determining where to members to be welded intersect to detect the presence or absence of a scallop which are where the members to be welded are in contact).
Regarding claim 6,
Miyata teaches,
The offline teaching device according to claim 3 (as discussed above),
wherein the teaching program creation unit acquires information on at least one or more surfaces from the three-dimensional shape data (column 8 lines 66 to 67 and column 9 lines 1 to 67 and column 9 lines 1 to 14 teach determining points along a weld path),
detects a second feature point of the acquired one or more surfaces (column 8 lines 66 to 67 and column 9 lines 1 to 67 and column 9 lines 1 to 14 teach determining points along a weld path including X1 and X2),
calculates a displacement amount between a position of a first feature point of the workpiece that corresponds to the second feature point and is included in the first production data and a position of the detected second feature point (column 8 lines 66 to 67 and column 9 lines 1 to 67 and column 9 lines 1 to 14 teach determining points along a weld path as X1 and X2 versus a first and second determination value T1 and T2 respectively),
and acquires the second welding line based on the calculated displacement amount and a position of the first welding line (column 8 lines 66 to 67 and column 9 lines 1 to 67 and column 9 lines 1 to 14).
Regarding claim 8,
Miyata teaches,
The offline teaching device according to claim 3 (as discussed above),
wherein when it is determined that the three-dimensional shape data is scan data scanned by a sensor (column 5 lines 13 to 67 teach that the control unit 15 receives information about the workpiece W by use of camera 12),
the teaching program creation unit creates and outputs a notification requesting a designation operation of the second welding line (column 5 lines 44 to 63 teaches acquiring a weld line of multiple members W to be welded and determining how it compares to a 3D CAD data),
and acquires the second welding line based on the designation operation of the second welding line for the scan data by a user operation (column 5 lines 44 to 63 teach “Finally, the control unit 16 outputs weld information file in which an ultimate operation of the welding robot 1 is recorded (step S4). The welding robot 1 operates in accordance with the weld information file” where the weld information file is anticipated to be user created).
Regarding claim 9,
Miyata teaches, except where struck through,
An offline teaching method performed by an offline teaching device (welding robot 1) including one or more computers communicably connected to a robot control device capable of controlling a welding robot performing welding (control device 15), the offline teaching method comprising:
acquiring (column 5 lines 13 to 20 teach production data being a CAD model based upon the camera capture of member W) and storing first production data of a workpiece produced by the welding (column 5 lines 21 to 43);
acquiring a first welding line of the workpiece from the first production data (column 12 lines 16 to 39);
creating and outputting a first welding teaching program for executing the welding by the welding robot and a first inspection teaching program for executing inspection of a weld bead of the produced workpiece (column 5 lines 44 to 67 and column 6 lines 1 to 9 teach the flow chart of fig. 2 and the workpiece of fig. 3 using camera 12 to capture a first weld path E and compares it to a 3d CAD model);
acquiring second production data (column 5 lines 53 to 60 teach multiple weld members W) in which at least a part of the first production data is changed (column 5 lines 44 to 67 and column 6 lines 1 to 9 teach using camera 12 to capture a first weld path and compares it to a 3d CAD model);
and creating and outputting a second welding teaching program and a second inspection teaching program corresponding to a workpiece produced using the second production data based on the first welding line included in the acquired first production data and the second welding line included in the acquired second production data (column 5 lines 44 to 67 and column 6 lines 1 to 9 teach using camera 12 to capture a first and multiple weld paths and compares it to a 3d CAD model as step S2, it is therefore anticipated that the art of Miyata is outputting a second welding teaching program as a portion of step S2 where one of the multiple weld paths captured and calculated is considered a second welding teaching program);
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(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US11345031B2 Miyata in view of US8779324B2 Hida.
Regarding claim 2,
Miyata teaches,
The offline teaching device according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Miyata does not teach:
wherein the first production data includes first position information of a stage to which the workpiece is fixed,
and the teaching program creation unit calculates a displacement amount of the stage based on second position information of the stage included in the acquired second production data and the first position information of the stage,
and acquires the second welding line based on the calculated displacement amount and a position of the first welding line.
Hida teaches a robot system 1 which is a vertically articulated six-axis industrial robot (column 3 lines 11 to 16) with a stage as positioner 4 and slider 3 selecting a welding line on a workpiece respondent to a three-dimensional CAD data display and also teaches wherein the first production data (program 300 creates first face group claim 1) includes first position information of a stage to which the workpiece is fixed (step 1 column 3 lines 54 to 58),
and the teaching program creation unit calculates a displacement amount of the stage based on second position information of the stage (location of the second face group claim 1) included in the acquired second production data and the first position information of the stage (S300 is taught to position the slider 3 and positioner 4 based upon the CAD models in S100 and S200 column 6 lines 35 to 57 also present in step 3 uses the information from step 2 to calculate distances corresponding to faces in a reference face group column 2 lines 64 to 67 and column 3 lines 1 to 4),
and acquires the second welding line (second face group as discussed above) based on the calculated displacement amount and a position of the first welding line (Step 7, edge line displacing step column 4 lines 19 to 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hida with the positioner 4, slider 3, and control device 5 of Miyata for the purpose of to hold a workpiece such that the orientation is changeable (Hida column 3 lines 11 to 16).
Regarding claim 7,
Miyata teaches,
The offline teaching device according to claim 3 (as discussed above),
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Miyata does not teach: wherein the teaching program creation unit acquires information on at least one or more surfaces from the three-dimensional shape data,
detects a second edge of the acquired one or more surfaces,
calculates a displacement amount between a position of a first edge of the workpiece that corresponds to the second edge and is included in the first production data and a position of the detected second edge,
and acquires the second welding line based on the calculated displacement amount and a position of the first welding line.
Hida teaches wherein the teaching program creation unit acquires information on at least one or more surfaces from the three-dimensional shape data (steps 3 edge-line extracting step and 4 weldable-edge line extracting step column 3 lines 64 to 67 and column 4 lines 1 to 9),
detects a second edge of the acquired one or more surfaces (column 3 lines 64 to 67 and column 4 lines 1 to 9),
calculates a displacement amount between a position of a first edge of the workpiece that corresponds to the second edge and is included in the first production data and a position of the detected second edge (column 3 lines 64 to 67 and column 4 lines 1 to 9 calculates distances),
and acquires the second welding line based on the calculated displacement amount and a position of the first welding line (column 3 lines 64 to 67 and column 4 lines 1 to 9 calculates distances).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device 5 and corresponding algorithm of Hida with the steps 3 and 4 of Miyata for the purpose of to detect and place weldable edge lines.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to 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, Edward 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights