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 .
Response to Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on July 7, 2026. Claims 1-9 are each amended. Amendments add sufficient structure to the claimed invention, and as such the 112(f) claim interpretations previously set forth are withdrawn. Amendments to claims 1 and 8 obviate the 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous correspondence, and as such those rejections have been withdrawn. Examiner addresses Applicant’s arguments below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the sensor recited in claim 1 cannot be interpreted as the laser scanner of Nagatsuka because the sensor is configured to “scan the appearance shape of a workpiece” and is “used for post-weld quality inspection of the workpiece”, while the laser scanner is used for welding and not inspection (see Remarks, Page 6). In response to these arguments, Examiner ascertains that weld lines have a shape and appear on the workpiece and therefore are a designated appearance shape of the workpiece. A sensor is merely defined as “a device that responds to a physical stimulus (such as heat, light, sound, pressure, magnetism, or a particular motion) and transmits a resulting impulse (as for measurement or operating a control)” (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensor, Definition 1). Thus, the laser scanner which responds to the particular motion of the robot/work tool and transmits a resulting control of the irradiating direction of the laser beam in response to this particular motion may be considered as a sensor which scans the weld lines, i.e., appearance shape of a workpiece. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “post-weld quality inspection” or, more broadly, “inspection”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, argument has been considered but is NOT PERSUASIVE.
Applicant further argues that Nagatsuka does not generate three-dimensional regions to be scanned by a sensor for appearance inspection (see Remarks, Page 7). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “appearance inspection”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner interprets a “three-dimensional region to be scanned by a sensor” as a scannable area A1, A2, A3, or A4 as designated in the rejection. Each scannable area, as identified by [0030], includes the depth of the model and the welding and as such is a three-dimensional region. This three-dimensional region is to be scanned by the sensor, i.e., laser scanner, and as such read on the claimed limitation. Therefore, the argument has been considered but is NOT PERSUASIVE.
Regarding the Double Patenting rejection, Applicant argues that claim 3 of co-pending application 18/736,045 recites “the generation unit moves the three-dimensional region selected by the operator operation” which is different from the scanning section of the present application (see Remarks, Page 8). However, this three-dimensional region was not relied upon in Examiner’s rejection of obviousness regarding claim 3 of 18/736,045. Examiner relied upon the aspect of claim 3 which recites “a welding line selected by the operator operation”. The claims of 18/736,045 do not recite “a scanning section”, and as such Examiner ascertains that by its broadest reasonable interpretation, the selected welding line may be consider a scanning section, as such a welding line is a section of the workpiece which is scanned. Therefore, argument has been considered but is NOT PERSUASIVE.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 still recites “…the operator operation acquired from the input device…” in line 11. Examiner ascertains that in light of similar amendments made to claim 1, Applicant meant to delete the portion of the limitation regarding “the input device” as no such input device is recited in the amended preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagatsuka et al. (US 2006/0212170 A1; hereinafter “Nagatsuka”).
Regarding claim 1, Nagatsuka discloses an offline teaching device (“The laser welding teaching device may further comprise a simulating part for executing an offline simulation based on the motion program for the robot and the laser scanner prior to the actual welding operation” [0011]. Thus, there is a teaching device which performs offline simulation of a motion program for a robot and laser scanner prior to a welding operation.) comprising:
a memory; and a processor (“As shown, the teaching device 10 may be a processing device such as a notebook computer provided with software having a feature as described below” [0028]. A notebook computer has corresponding memory and processor which performs the designated functions of the disclosure via software.), the processor being configured to:
receive an operator operation (For the method of Fig. 3, the operator inputs operator operations received by the teaching device 10 (see [0030-0032]).);
acquire three-dimensional shape data of a workpiece produced by welding (“First, the teaching device 10 reads CAD data and IGES data of the workpiece W from a database (not shown) (step S101)… In the modeling, a three-dimensional model is generally formed, in view of the depth of the workpiece or the welding depth” [0030]. Thus, the teaching device receives, i.e., acquires, three-dimensional shape data of the workpiece produced by welding via CAD data.), an operation trajectory of the welding (In S104, the system determines a welding order either automatically via distance calculations or manually via operator input. This order is best understood as the operation trajectory of the welding which is received by the teaching device (see [0031]).), and a scanning range of a sensor configured to scan an appearance shape of the workpiece (“Next, the operator determines a scannable area by means of the laser scanner 20 (i.e., an area capable of being welded in the actual welding) (step S103). This area means a scannable area by scanner 20 when a TCP of the robot 12 is within the area. For example, the size of the scannable area is approximately 200 mm.times.200 mm” [0030]. Thus, the operator determines the scannable range of the scanner, i.e., scanning range of a sensor. Paragraph [0038] describes a function of the scanner which scans welding lines, i.e., an appearance shape of the workpiece.);
generate three-dimensional regions based on the acquired scanning range and a scanning section designated by the operator operation, the three-dimensional regions being regions to be scanned by the sensor (Paragraph [0032] describes classifying the welding lines into welding groups. These welding groups are considered as the three-dimensional regions. As shown in Fig. 4c, the outline of scannable areas A1-A4 exemplify the acquired scanning range, and the distinction of the four areas are scanning sections, i.e., groups, which are manually designated by the operator input operation (see [0032]). Scannable areas A1-A4 are three-dimensional regions which encompass the depth of the model and the welding at each designated regions (see [0030]).); and
dispose at least one of the three-dimensional regions on the three-dimensional shape data of the workpiece based on the operator operation (Fig. 4c shows the three-dimensional regions disposed on the three-dimensional shape data of the workpiece. As described in [0032], the operator inputs via mouse or the like each scannable area to be included in the selection of the three-dimensional regions to be scanned.), and
create and output, to a welding robot that performs the welding, a teaching program for scanning the three-dimensional region based on the disposed three-dimensional region and the operation trajectory of the welding (Paragraphs [0035-0041] describe the creation of a motion program, i.e., teaching program, used to scan the three-dimensional regions A1-A4. The motion program for the scanner is based on each of the three-dimensional regions A1-A4 as well as the order, i.e., operation trajectory, of the welding. See Fig. 8 for the illustrative example of such a process. “After the motion program for the robot and the scanner is prepared, the teaching device 10 executes an off-line simulation based on the motion program (S4). In the simulation, the operation of the robot is checked. Next, the motion program is downloaded (S5). In other words, the motion program for the robot and the scanner is outputted to the robot control device 14 from the teaching device 10” [0042-0043]. Thus, after simulation satisfies a final check requirement, the motion program is output from the teaching device to the welding robot that performs the welding.).
Regarding claim 2, Nagatsuka discloses the offline teaching device according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to create the teaching program based on the disposed three-dimensional region, the operation trajectory of the welding, and operation information of the welding robot that performs the welding, which is associated with the three-dimensional shape data (As shown in Fig. 8, the motion program, i.e., teaching program, is determined based on the three-dimensional regions A1-A4, the order of the welding (operation trajectory of the welding), and additionally the tool center point and welding speed (operation information of the welding robot) to determine center positions C1-C4 of trajectory T for each scannable area which are associated the three-dimensional shape data corresponding to a minimum distance between welding lines for the specified group to be scanned.).
Regarding claim 3, Nagatsuka discloses the offline teaching device according to claim 2,
wherein the processor is configured to generate, based on the operation information, various operations of the welding robot for the workpiece and a scanning operation for each of the three-dimensional regions executed by the welding robot, and create the teaching program by associating the various operations with the scanning operation corresponding to each of the generated three-dimensional regions (“Next, the motion program for defining the position and the orientation of the robot is prepared (step S304). Due to this program, as shown in FIG. 8, the TCP of the robot 12 may be moved along a trajectory T and, in particular, the TCP may sequentially pass through the center positions C1 to C4 determined in step S303 at a constant speed and thus may sequentially pass through the weldable areas A1 to A4. Succeedingly, based on the motion program for the robot, a motion program for defining the position and the orientation of the scanner such that a scanning line of the scanner 20 may pass through all welding lines at the above welding speed according to the welding order determined in the modeling process (S1) (step S305). For example, the position and the orientation of the laser scanner 20 are defined such that the scanner 20 may scan all of the welding lines A1 to A3 during the robot 12 is positioned corresponding to the weldable area A1 (or the TCP is within the area A1)” [0038]. Thus, the teaching device, i.e., control unit, generates a motion program for the robot, i.e., operations of the welding robot, based on the TCP and welding speed over a trajectory T through center positions C1-C4, i.e., operation information, and then determines a motion program for defining the position and orientation of the scanner, i.e., a scanning operation, to pass through all welding lines in the welding order for each corresponding weldable area, i.e., each three-dimensional region executed by welding robot. The result of this effort is a total motion program for both robot and scanner to generate the simulation and send the program to the robot such that the robot and scanner move simultaneously in a combined motion (see [0042-0045]), i.e., the motion program (teaching program) associates the robot operations with the scanner operations corresponding to each three-dimensional region.).
Regarding claim 4, Nagatsuka discloses the offline teaching device according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to receive a designation of a shape of a scanning portion scanned in each of the three-dimensional regions by the operator operation (“Then, an operator specifies a plurality of sites or welding lines to be welded (ten welding lines in this case) (step S102). At this point, the teaching device 10 may indicate the workpiece W and the welding lines on a display 10a of the device 10 or another suitable display” [0030]. Thus, the operator designates the weld lines, i.e., shapes of a scanning portion scanned in each of the three-dimensional regions.), and
create and output the teaching program for causing the welding robot to scan the three-dimensional regions based on the designated shape of the scanning portion in each of the three-dimensional regions, the disposed three-dimensional regions and the operation trajectory (The motion program, i.e., teaching program, causes the robot to scan the scannable areas based on the weld lines (i.e., designated shapes of the scanning portion in each of the three-dimensional regions), the designated groupings (i.e., disposed three-dimensional regions), and the ordering of the weld lines to be scanned (i.e., the operation trajectory).).
Regarding claim 5, Nagatsuka discloses the offline teaching device according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to duplicate and dispose the three-dimensional region based on the operator operation (As shown in the example of [0032] and Fig. 4c, the scannable areas, i.e., three-dimensional regions based on the operator operation, are duplicated and disposed four times.), and
the processor is configured to generate the teaching program for scanning the three-dimensional region based on at least one three-dimensional region among all the three-dimensional regions including the duplicated three-dimensional region and the operation trajectory of the welding (The motion program, i.e., teaching program, is generated based on each of the scannable areas A1-A4 (i.e., three-dimensional regions among all the three-dimensional regions including the duplicated three-dimensional region), as well as the ordering of the weld lines (i.e., the operation trajectory of the welding).).
Regarding claim 8, Nagatsuka discloses an offline teaching method performed by an offline teaching device (“The laser welding teaching method may further comprise a step of executing an offline simulation based on the motion program for the robot and the laser scanner, prior to the actual welding operation” [0013]. Thus, there is a teaching method inclusive of offline simulation. As disclosed, the methods are performed by the laser welding teaching device which is additionally inclusive of offline simulations (see [0011]).) including one or more computers capable of receiving an operator operation (“As shown, the teaching device 10 may be a processing device such as a notebook computer provided with software having a feature as described below” [0028]. Such a computer is capable of receiving an operator operation.), the offline teaching method comprising:
acquiring three-dimensional shape data of a workpiece produced by welding (“First, the teaching device 10 reads CAD data and IGES data of the workpiece W from a database (not shown) (step S101)… In the modeling, a three-dimensional model is generally formed, in view of the depth of the workpiece or the welding depth” [0030]. Thus, the teaching device receives, i.e., acquires, three-dimensional shape data of the workpiece produced by welding via CAD data.), an operation trajectory of the welding (In S104, the system determines a welding order either automatically via distance calculations or manually via operator input. This order is best understood as the operation trajectory of the welding which is received by the teaching device (see [0031]).), and a scanning range of a sensor configured to scan an appearance shape of the workpiece (“Next, the operator determines a scannable area by means of the laser scanner 20 (i.e., an area capable of being welded in the actual welding) (step S103). This area means a scannable area by scanner 20 when a TCP of the robot 12 is within the area. For example, the size of the scannable area is approximately 200 mm.times.200 mm” [0030]. Thus, the operator determines the scannable range of the scanner, i.e., scanning range of a sensor. Paragraph [0038] describes a function of the scanner which scans welding lines, i.e., an appearance shape of the workpiece. The determination of the scannable range is performed via the teaching device.);
generating three-dimensional regions based on the acquired scanning range and a scanning section designated by the operator operation, the three-dimensional regions being regions to be scanned by the sensor (Paragraph [0032] describes classifying the welding lines into welding groups. These welding groups are considered as the three-dimensional regions. As shown in Fig. 4c, the outline of scannable areas A1-A4 exemplify the acquired scanning range, and the distinction of the four areas are scanning sections, i.e., groups, which are manually designated by the operator input operation (see [0032]). Scannable areas A1-A4 are three-dimensional regions which encompass the depth of the model and the welding at each designated regions (see [0030]). This grouping process is performed via the teaching device.);
disposing at least one of the three-dimensional regions on the three-dimensional shape data of the workpiece based on the operator operation acquired from the input device (Fig. 4c shows the three-dimensional regions disposed on the three-dimensional shape data of the workpiece. As described in [0032], the operator inputs via mouse or the like each scannable area to be included in the selection of the three-dimensional regions to be scanned. These functions are performed by the teaching device.); and
creating and outputting, to a welding robot that performs the welding, a teaching program for scanning a three-dimensional region based on the disposed three-dimensional region and the operation trajectory of the welding (Paragraphs [0035-0041] describe the creation of a motion program, i.e., teaching program, used to scan the three-dimensional regions A1-A4. The motion program for the scanner is based on each of the three-dimensional regions A1-A4 as well as the order, i.e., operation trajectory, of the welding. See Fig. 8 for the illustrative example of such a process. “After the motion program for the robot and the scanner is prepared, the teaching device 10 executes an off-line simulation based on the motion program (S4). In the simulation, the operation of the robot is checked. Next, the motion program is downloaded (S5). In other words, the motion program for the robot and the scanner is outputted to the robot control device 14 from the teaching device 10” [0042-0043]. Thus, after simulation satisfies a final check requirement, the motion program is output from the teaching device to the welding robot that performs the welding. These functions are performed by the teaching device.).
Regarding claim 9, Nagatsuka discloses an offline teaching method performed using an offline teaching device (“ The laser welding teaching method may further comprise a step of executing an offline simulation based on the motion program for the robot and the laser scanner, prior to the actual welding operation” [0013]. Thus, there is a teaching method inclusive of offline simulation. As disclosed, the methods are performed by the laser welding teaching device which is additionally inclusive of offline simulations (see [0011]).) including one or more computers (“As shown, the teaching device 10 may be a processing device such as a notebook computer provided with software having a feature as described below” [0028].), the offline teaching method comprising:
inputting three-dimensional shape data of a workpiece produced by welding to the computer (“First, the teaching device 10 reads CAD data and IGES data of the workpiece W from a database (not shown) (step S101)… In the modeling, a three-dimensional model is generally formed, in view of the depth of the workpiece or the welding depth” [0030]. Thus, there is three-dimensional shape data of the workpiece produced by welding input to the computer via a stored databased which the shape data is retrieved from.);
inputting, to the computer, a scanning section in which an appearance shape of the workpiece is scanned (As shown in Fig. 4c, the outline of scannable areas A1-A4 exemplify the acquired scanning range, and the distinction of the four areas are scanning sections, i.e., groups, which are manually designated by the operator input operation to the teaching device, i.e., computer (see [0032]). For clarity, Paragraph [0038] describes a function of the scanner which scans welding lines, i.e., an appearance shape of the workpiece.);
inputting, to the computer, a shape of a scanning portion scanned in the scanning section (“Then, an operator specifies a plurality of sites or welding lines to be welded (ten welding lines in this case) (step S102). At this point, the teaching device 10 may indicate the workpiece W and the welding lines on a display 10a of the device 10 or another suitable display” [0030]. Thus, the operator designates the weld lines, i.e., shapes of a scanning portion scanned in each of the designated scanning sections.); and
creating a teaching program for causing a welding robot that performs the welding to scan a three-dimensional region based on the shape of the scanning portion (The motion program, i.e., teaching program, causes the robot to scan the scannable areas based on the weld lines, i.e., designated shapes of the scanning portion in each of the three-dimensional regions.).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagatsuka in view of Kuwahara et al. (US 2015/0112482 A1; hereinafter “Kuwahara”).
Regarding claim 6, Nagatsuka teaches the offline teaching device according to claim 1.
However, Nagatsuka does not explicitly teach …wherein the processor is configured to rotate the three-dimensional region based on one point on the three-dimensional region designated by the operator operation and a rotation amount around the one point, and
the processor is configured to create the teaching program for scanning the three-dimensional region based on the operation trajectory of the welding and at least one three-dimensional region among all the three-dimensional regions including the rotated three-dimensional region.
Kuwahara, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …wherein the processor is configured to rotate the three-dimensional region based on one point on the three-dimensional region designated by the operator operation and a rotation amount around the one point (“As illustrated in FIG. 6B, the projecting unit 111d can rotate the projection plane PP about the normal direction of the point P1 based on setting contents in an operating component "rotation angle specification" in the dialog box 123, for example (refer to the arrow 601 in FIG. 6B)” [0089]. Thus, the projection plane, i.e., three-dimensional region, is rotated based on the point P1 on the projection plane which was designated by the operator (see [0081]) and the desired rotation amount, i.e., the rotation angle specification.)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the grouping designations of the weld lines (i.e., three-dimensional regions) as taught by Nagatsuka to include the rotation operations specified by the operator as taught by Kuwahara with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the rotation orients the work lines with respect to the desired operation while increasing operator flexibility in determining the desired orientation of the work to be achieved (Kuwahara, [0089-0090]). With respect to the invention of Nagatsuka, the rotation of such three-dimensional regions would allow flexibility in determining the minimum number of scannable areas required to group respective weld lines (Nagatsuka, [0032]). Such a modification is an example of a combination of known methods which yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).
In combination, Nagatsuka as modified by Kuwahara thus teaches … the processor is configured to create the teaching program for scanning the three-dimensional region based on the operation trajectory of the welding and at least one three-dimensional region among all the three-dimensional regions including the rotated three-dimensional region (The motion program, i.e., teaching program, for scanning the three-dimensional regions is created based on the ordering of weld lines (i.e., operation trajectory of the welding) and each scannable region A1-A4 (i.e., at least one three-dimensional region among all three dimensional regions) (Nagatsuka). In modifying how the scannable regions are determined to include the rotation function as taught by Kuwahara, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the three-dimensional regions would thus include the rotated three-dimensional region as well as any other such three-dimensional regions.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagatsuka.
Regarding claim 7, Nagatsuka teaches the offline teaching device according to claim 1.
Nagatsuka does not explicitly teach …wherein the processor is configured to move a position of the three-dimensional region based on a movement amount of the three-dimensional region designated by the operator operation, and
the processor is configured to create the teaching program for scanning the three-dimensional region based on the operation trajectory of the welding and at least one three-dimensional region among all the three-dimensional regions including the moved three-dimensional regions.
However, Nagatsuka explicitly teaches … wherein the processor is configured to move a position of the three-dimensional region based on a movement amount of the three-dimensional region designated by the operator operation (During the process of grouping (see [0032]), the operator manually selects where to place the three-dimensional regions A1-A4 with respect to the weld lines. The operator would thus begin with an arbitrary selection and then decidedly move the regions such that “the number of scannable areas each including one or more welding line is minimized” [0032]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this process would be determined by some aspect of trial and error in which the operator would move the scannable areas through designated operator inputs determining a specific movement amount until the desired arrangement of scannable areas is achieved in S109 for manual grouping/ classification of weld lines.)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the operator of Nagatsuka moves the three-dimensional regions as designated by the operator input according to the desired movement amount until the desired grouping of weld lines is achieved. Since such teachings are implicit, one of ordinary skill in the art would find such methods obvious to try, in which the three-dimensional regions would either have to be fixed upon selection, or movable such that one may edit the selections before submission to the teaching device, thereby choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143.I(E)).
Provided these implicitly teachings, Nagatsuka therefore additionally teaches … the processor is configured to create the teaching program for scanning the three-dimensional region based on the operation trajectory of the welding and at least one three-dimensional region among all the three-dimensional regions including the moved three-dimensional regions (Paragraphs [0035-0041] describe the creation of a motion program, i.e., teaching program, used to scan the three-dimensional regions A1-A4. The motion program for the scanner is based on each of the three-dimensional regions A1-A4 as well as the order, i.e., operation trajectory, of the welding. See Fig. 8 for the illustrative example of such a process. The three-dimensional regions A1-A4 would therefore be inclusive of any such region of the A1-A4 selections which were moved.).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/394,121 (hereinafter ‘121) in view of claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/736,045 (hereinafter ‘045).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of ‘121 claims an offline teaching device comprising:
a memory; and
a processor configured to:
receive an operator operation;
acquire three-dimensional shape data of a workpiece produced by welding, an operation trajectory of the welding, and a scanning range of a sensor configured to scan an appearance shape of the workpiece;
generate three-dimensional regions (“at least one three-dimensional region”) based on the acquired scanning range and a scanning section …, the three-dimensional regions (“at least one three-dimensional region”) being regions to be scanned by the sensor; and
dispose (“display on a screen”) at least one of the three-dimensional regions on the three-dimensional shape data of the workpiece based on the operator operation, and create and output, to a welding robot that performs the welding, a teaching program for scanning the three-dimensional region based on the disposed three-dimensional region and the operation trajectory of the welding.
Claim 1 of ‘121 does not claim …a scanning section designated by the operator operation…
Claim 3 of ‘045, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …a scanning section designated by the operator operation (“the three-dimensional region selected by the operator operation with reference to a welding line selected by the operator operation”; In this case, the welding line selected by the operator operation is best understood as a scanning section designated, i.e., selected, by the operator operation.)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanning section as claimed by ‘121 to include a designation by the operator operation in selecting a scanning section as claimed in ‘045 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to claim this designation of a scanning section because the claim further specifies how the scanning section is determined, alluding to an increased flexibility in using the device.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 of ‘121 claims an offline teaching method performed by an offline teaching device including one or more computers capable of receiving an operator operation, the offline teaching method comprising:
acquiring three-dimensional shape data of a workpiece produced by welding, an operation trajectory of the welding, and a scanning range of a sensor configured to scan an appearance shape of the workpiece;
generating three-dimensional regions (“at least one three-dimensional region”) based on the acquired scanning range and a scanning section …, the three-dimensional regions (“at least one three-dimensional region”) being regions to be scanned by the sensor;
disposing (“displaying on a screen”) at least one of the three-dimensional regions on the three-dimensional shape data of the workpiece based on the operator operation acquired from the input device; and
creating and outputting, to a welding robot that performs the welding, a teaching program for scanning a three-dimensional region based on the disposed three-dimensional region and the operation trajectory of the welding.
Claim 8 of ‘121 does not claim …a scanning section designated by the operator operation…
Claim 3 of ‘045, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …a scanning section designated by the operator operation (“the three-dimensional region selected by the operator operation with reference to a welding line selected by the operator operation”; In this case, the welding line selected by the operator operation is best understood as a scanning section designated, i.e., selected, by the operator operation.)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanning section as claimed by ‘121 to include a designation by the operator operation in selecting a scanning section as claimed in ‘045 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to claim this designation of a scanning section because the claim further specifies how the scanning section is determined, alluding to an increased flexibility in using the device. Motivation for such a modification to the claim would be best described as a combination of known methods which yields predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights