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 Status
Claims 1-6 are pending:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2023, 12/10/2025, 03/25/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Implied phrases
Claim Interpretation - Language
Language and/or terms in the claims are interpreted as follows:
“electrode polishing apparatus” in claim 1/6 does not invoke 112f due to “blade portions” structure
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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:
“robot operation control unit” in claim 1/6
Corresponding structure
Generic controller with code, as informed by Para20
Or equivalent
“robot control apparatus” in claim 6
Corresponding structure
Generic controller with code, as informed by Para20
Or equivalent
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sigler269 (US 8,436,269) in view of Sigler609 (US 6,861,609).
Claim 1
Sigler269 discloses:
“A robot control apparatus for controlling operation of a robot (C4L11-13,21-24, robot welding gun) comprising a spot welding gun (best seen Fig1, gun arms 16/24) that has a pair of electrodes (electrodes 20/28) arranged to face each other (electrode 20/28 facing arrangement best seen Fig1/2), the robot control apparatus comprising:
a robot operation (C4L11-13,21-24, robot welding gun) … configured to cause the pair of electrodes of the spot welding gun to move (C5L34-55, robot moves electrodes to cutter blade 50) to polishing positions (positioning of electrodes 20/28 best seen Fig2/3) for polishing by blade portions (cutter teeth 59 of cutting surfaces 52/54) of an electrode polishing apparatus (cutter blade 50) so that surfaces of the pair of electrodes are polished by the blade portions of the electrode polishing apparatus (C5L34-55, electrode ridges 48 are cut), wherein
the robot operation … changes positions of the pair of electrodes that are in contact with the blade portions from the polishing positions so that the surfaces of the pair of electrodes that have been polished by the blade portions are scratched (C5L34-55, robot moves electrodes to cutter blade 50 to cut ridges 48).”
Sigler269 does not explicitly disclose a controller for the robot that moves the arrangement of Sigler269.
Sigler609 teaches (Fig1, spot welding gun 10, robot controller 34; C5L5-12) that it is known in the art to use a robot controller to control the movement of the robot and to control the operation of the welding gun.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to include a robot controller for the robot welding arrangement of Sigler269, as Sigler609 teaches that the application of a robot controller for a robot welding gun is standard practice, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such an addition of the robot welding gun of Sigler269 in order to practice the disclosure of Sigler269, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the robot welding arrangement of Sigler269 with the working and known application of a controller as taught by the robot welding arrangement of Sigler609.
Claim 2
The modified arrangement of Sigler269 by the teachings of Sigler609 discloses: “The robot control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the robot operation control unit (limitation is within the scope of the modification discussed in claim 1) causes the pair of electrodes to move (Sigler269: C5L34-55, robot moves electrodes to cutter blade 50 to cut ridges 48) so that the surfaces of the pair of electrodes are scratched (Sigler269: electrode 20/28 surfaces are scratched to form ridges 48) while changing the positions of the pair of electrodes that are in contact with the blade portions (Sigler269: cutter blade 50 rotates while in contact with surfaces of electrodes 20/28).”
Claim 3
The modified arrangement of Sigler269 by the teachings of Sigler609 discloses: “The robot control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, when scratching the surfaces of the pair of electrodes (Sigler269: C5L34-55), the robot operation control unit (limitation is within the scope of the modification discussed in claim 1) causes the pair of electrodes to move in an axial direction of the pair of electrodes and in a direction orthogonal to the axial direction (Sigler269: Fig2/3; C5L34-55, electrodes 20/28 are pressed against the cutter 50 axially, cutter 50 rotates about central vertical axis imparting radial movement/deformation of electrodes 20/28).”
Claim 4
The modified arrangement of Sigler269 by the teachings of Sigler609 discloses: “The robot control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when scratching the surfaces of the pair of electrodes (Sigler269: C5L34-55), the robot operation control unit (limitation is within the scope of the modification discussed in claim 1) causes the pair of electrodes to move so that the surfaces of the pair of electrodes come into contact with corner portions of the blade portions (Sigler269: Fig2/3; C5L34-55, electrodes 20/28 are pressed against the cutter 50 axially, corner of cutting surface 52/54 in contact with electrodes 20/28).”
Claim 5
The modified arrangement of Sigler269 by the teachings of Sigler609discloses: “The robot control apparatus according claim 1, wherein machining of scratching the surfaces of the electrodes is roughening machining (C5L34-55, cutter blade 50 to cut ridges 48 in electrodes 20/28).”
Claim 6
Sigler269 discloses:
“A spot welding system (best seen Fig1) comprising:
a spot welding gun (gun with arms 16/24) comprising a pair of electrodes (electrodes 20/28) arranged to face each other (electrode 20/28 facing arrangement best seen Fig1/2);
a robot (C4L11-13,21-24, robot welding gun) configured to move the spot welding gun (C4L11-13,21-24, robot welding gun);
an electrode polishing apparatus (cutter 50) configured to polish surfaces of the pair of electrodes by rotating blade portions (C5L34-55, cutter blade 50 to cut ridges 48 in electrodes 20/28 by rotation); and
a robot control apparatus (C4L11-13,21-24, robot welding gun) configured to control operation of the robot (C4L11-13,21-24, robot welding gun) and the electrode polishing apparatus (C5L34-55), wherein
the robot control apparatus comprises a robot operation (C4L11-13,21-24, robot welding gun) … that causes the pair of electrodes of the spot welding gun to move (C5L34-55, robot moves electrodes to cutter blade 50) to polishing positions (positioning of electrodes 20/28 best seen Fig2/3) for polishing by the blade portions (cutter teeth 59 of cutting surfaces 52/54) of the electrode polishing apparatus (cutter blade 50) so that surfaces of the pair of electrodes are polished by the blade portions that are rotating (C5L34-55, electrode ridges 48 are cut by rotation), and
the robot operation … changes positions of the pair of electrodes that are in contact with the blade portions from the polishing positions so that the surfaces of the pair of electrodes that have been polished by the blade portions are scratched (C5L34-55, robot moves electrodes to cutter blade 50 to cut ridges 48).”
Sigler269 does not explicitly disclose a controller for the robot that moves the arrangement of Sigler269.
Sigler609 teaches (Fig1, spot welding gun 10, robot controller 34; C5L5-12) that it is known in the art to use a robot controller to control the movement of the robot and to control the operation of the welding gun.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to include a robot controller for the robot welding arrangement of Sigler269, as Sigler609 teaches that the application of a robot controller for a robot welding gun is standard practice, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such an addition of the robot welding gun of Sigler269 in order to practice the disclosure of Sigler269, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the robot welding arrangement of Sigler269 with the working and known application of a controller as taught by the robot welding arrangement of Sigler609.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10,675,704 to Sigler: US Patent version of IDS reference
JP 2013-071182 to Sakamoto: Fig3, electrode polishing
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights