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 .
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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), 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: “welding equipment” in Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-12, and 16-17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Objections
Claim 1-15, and 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, L. 8 “a stability” should be -- the stability --;
Claims 2-15, and 17 are also objected for being dependent on a objected claim.
Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-12, and 16-17: Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-12, and 16-17recites the limitation “welding equipment” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the terms “welding equipment” without defining the supporting structure.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
To further advance prosecution the limitation “first mixing member” and “second mixing member” are interpreted as any mechanical structures that affix two elements together, such as a first bracket and second bracket.
Regarding Claim 12: Claim 12 recites “the stability of the welding equipment is low or medium”, it is not clear what value can be quantified as “low or medium”, yielding indefiniteness. To further advance prosecution the above limitation is interpreted as “the stability of the welding equipment is unsatisfactory”.
Regarding Claims 2, 5-7, 9, and 13-15: Claims 8-10 are also being rejected for being dependent on above rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsukamoto (US 2025/0014171).
Regarding Claim 1: Tsukamoto discloses a method (the disclosure of the system discloses its method of operation) for determining a stability ("misalignment", title) of a welding equipment (1; Fig. 1), comprising: acquiring a plurality of initial welding images (images from 2; Fig. 1) of the welding equipment, each of the plurality of initial welding images comprising at least one welded workpiece (left and right parts of Fig. 2 (a-b)); obtaining at least one welding spot position (spots along dashed lines; Fig. 2 (a-b)) of each of the at least one welded workpiece by processing the plurality of initial welding images using a detection model (model enabling detection of the dash lines In Fig. 2 is necessarily present); determining a welding center position (M1 and M2 and Fig. 2) of each welded workpiece based on the at least one welding spot position of each welded workpiece output by the detection model (see Fig. 2); and determining a stability ("misalignment", title) of the welding equipment based on the welding center positions of all welded workpieces.
Regarding Claim 2: Tsukamoto discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses wherein each of the at least one welded workpiece comprises a plurality of welding spots (dots in Fig. 10), and the plurality of welding spots are represented by a plurality of welding spot coordinates ("x,y"; Fig. 10), and determining the welding center position of each welded workpiece based on the at least one welding spot position of each welded workpiece comprises: calculating a welding spot center average value (M1 and M2; Fig. 2) of each welded workpiece, based on the plurality of welding spot coordinates of each welded workpiece; and determining the welding center position of each welded workpiece based on the welding spot center average value of each welded workpiece (M1 and M2; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16: Tsukamoto discloses a determining device (device of Fig. 16) used to determine a stability ("misalignment", title) of a welding equipment (1; Fig. 1), comprising: a communication device (6; Fig. 6), acquiring a plurality of initial welding images (images from 2; Fig. 1), each of the plurality of initial welding images comprising at least one welded workpiece (left and right parts of Fig. 2 (a-b)); and a processor (7; Fig. 16), coupled to the communication device (see Fig. 16), being used for: obtaining at least one welding spot position (spots along dashed lignes; Fig. 2 (a-b)) of each of the at least one welded workpiece by processing the plurality of initial welding images using a detection model (model enabling detection of the dash lines In Fig. 2 is necessarily present); determining a welding center position (M1 and M2 and Fig. 2) of each welded workpiece based on the at least one welding spot position of each welded workpiece output by the detection model; and determining the stability ("misalignment", title) of the welding equipment based on the welding center positions of all welded workpieces.
Regarding Claim 17: Tsukamoto discloses a welding equipment (equipment of Fig. 17), wherein the welding equipment receives the stability of the welding equipment determined using the method of claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above), and adjusts welding parameters (Fig. 8, [0017]) of the welding equipment according to the stability of the welding equipment.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 3-15 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as well as correct the above 112(b) rejection, and objection if present.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art fails to teach “wherein determining the stability of the welding equipment based on the welding center positions of all welded workpieces comprises: calculating a variance of the welding spot center of each welded workpiece and/or a standard deviation of the welding spot center of each welded workpiece based on the plurality of welding spot coordinates of each welded workpiece and a corresponding welding spot center average value of each welded workpiece; determining the stability of the welding equipment based on the variance of the welding spot center of each welded workpiece and/or the standard deviation of the welding spot center of each welded workpiece” (for Claim 3); “wherein determining the stability of the welding equipment based on the welding center positions of all welded workpieces comprises: determining a total number of welded workpieces whose welding center positions within a standard welding center position range, based on the welding center position of each welded workpiece; determining whether the total number of welded workpieces whose welding center positions within the standard welding center position range meets a preset stable quantity; and determining that the stability of the welding equipment is high in response that the total number of welded workpieces whose weld center positions within the standard weld center position range meets the preset stable quantity” (for Claim 4); “wherein the detection model comprises a first detection model and a second detection model, wherein obtaining the at least one welding spot position of each welded workpiece by processing the plurality of initial welding images using the detection model comprises: obtaining a contour of each welded workpiece in each initial welding image by processing each initial welding image using the first detection model, and determining a welding position of each welded workpiece in each initial welding image; and obtaining the at least one welding spot position of each welded workpiece in each initial welding image by processing the welding position of each welded workpiece in each initial welding image using the second detection model” (for Claim 5); “wherein the determining of the stability of welding equipment based on the welding center positions of all welded workpieces comprises: determining a concentration situation of the welding positions of all the welded workpieces based on a welding spot center of each of all the welded workpieces; determining that the stability of the welding equipment belongs to a first level in response that the concentration situation of the welding positions of all the welded workpieces is relatively concentrated; and determining that the stability of the welding equipment is belongs to a second level in response that the concentration situation of the welding positions of all the welded workpieces is scattered” (for Claim 10); “wherein determining the stability of the welding equipment based on the welding center positions of all welded workpieces comprises: comparing the welding spot center average value of each welded workpiece with a preset center threshold; in response that the welding spot center average value of any one welded workpiece is less than or equal to the preset center threshold, determining that the welding position of the welding equipment is considered relatively stable; or in response that the welding spot center average value of any one welded workpiece is greater than or equal to the preset center threshold, determining that the welding position of the welding equipment is unstable” (for Claim 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights