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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/12/2024, 9/26/2025, and 3/24/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
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:
“input/output unit” in claims 1, 6, and 7;
“measuring unit” in claims 1, 6, and 7;
“processing unit” in claims 1-7;
“generation unit” in claim 6;
“output unit” in claim 6; and
“input/output control unit” in claim 7.
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.
Applicant’s disclosure describes the above limitations as follows:
input/output unit: “welding interface 170 is an example of an input/output unit” (para. [004] of Applicant’s published application, US 25024/0316669);
measuring unit: “processor 110 performs the processing of Step ST20, and thereby functions as an example of a measuring unit configured to measure the time” [0045];
processing unit: “processor 110 performs the processing of Steps ST22 and ST23, and thereby functions as an example of a processing unit configured to perform predetermined processing when the time is equal to or less than the first threshold” [0056];
generation unit: “arc welder 300 functions as an example of a generation unit by generating an arc in response to receiving an input of a welding start command” [0044];
output unit: “arc welder 300 functions as an example of an output unit by outputting a generation notification indicating that an arc has been generated when an arc has been generated” [0044]; and
input/output control unit: “processor 110 that controls the welding interface 170 is an example of an input/output control unit” [0044].
Regarding the structure of processor 110, Applicant’s disclosure states, “ processor 110 is, for example, a CPU (central processing unit), MPU (micro processing unit), SoC (system on a chip), DSP (digital signal processor), GPU (graphics processing unit), ASIC (application specific integrated circuit), PLD (programmable logic device), or FPGA (field-programmable gate array). Alternatively, the processor 110 is a combination of two or more of these. Alternatively, the processor 110 may be a combination of any of these and a hardware accelerator or the like” [0011].
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 § 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, 6,and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muragaki et al. (JP 2005-279687).
Regarding claim 1, Muragaki discloses a control device, comprising:
an input/output unit (“robot controller” (para. [0010] of attached translation)) configured to output first information (“welding start command” [0010]) instructing start of welding to an arc welder (“welding power source” [0010] of “robot” [0010]) and receive input of second information (“arc generation confirmation signal” [0010]) indicating generation of an arc by the arc welder;
a measuring unit (processor in which “processing is executed” [0012]) configured to measure a time from the output of the first information to the input of the second information (“time (T in FIG. 2) for confirming the receipt of the arc generation confirmation signal” [0010]); and
a processing unit (processor in which “processing is executed” [0012]) configured to perform predetermined processing when the time or a statistic of the times is equal to or less than a first threshold (“the time (T in FIG. 2) for confirming the receipt of the arc generation confirmation signal is set as an additional item of the command as shown in FIG. 2 (a) or as a file as shown in FIG. 2 (b). Register. FIG. 2A shows an example in which T is 0.5 seconds at “T = 0.5” in the row S1. FIG. 2B is an example in which T is set by “tfile (1)” in the row S1. In this case, T is determined by the value in the file tfile (1)” [0010]; “When the robot controller recognizes the arc occurrence confirmation signal within the arc occurrence confirmation time, it continues to move the robot (B5). After that, it performs welding according to the planned welding line and welding conditions, and ends the welding when it reaches the welding end point” [0011]).
Regarding claim 6, Muragaki discloses a welding system, comprising:
a control device (“robot controller” ([0010]); and an arc welder (“robot” [0010]),
the control device comprising:
an input/output unit (“robot controller” [0010]) configured to output first information (“welding start command” [0010]) instructing start of welding to the arc welder (“welding power source” [0010] of “robot” [0010]) and receive input of second information (“arc generation confirmation signal” [0010]) indicating generation of an arc by the arc welder;
a measuring unit (processor in which “processing is executed” [0012]) configured to measure a time from the output of the first information to the input of the second information (“time (T in FIG. 2) for confirming the receipt of the arc generation confirmation signal” [0010]); and
a processing unit (processor in which “processing is executed” [0012]) configured to perform predetermined processing when the time or a statistic of the times is equal to or less than a first threshold (“the time (T in FIG. 2) for confirming the receipt of the arc generation confirmation signal is set as an additional item of the command as shown in FIG. 2 (a) or as a file as shown in FIG. 2 (b). Register. FIG. 2A shows an example in which T is 0.5 seconds at “T = 0.5” in the row S1. FIG. 2B is an example in which T is set by “tfile (1)” in the row S1. In this case, T is determined by the value in the file tfile (1)” [0010]; “When the robot controller recognizes the arc occurrence confirmation signal within the arc occurrence confirmation time, it continues to move the robot (B5). After that, it performs welding according to the planned welding line and welding conditions, and ends the welding when it reaches the welding end point” [0011]), and
the arc welder comprising:
a generation unit (“welding power source” [0010]) configured to receive input of the first information and generate the arc (“robot controller recognizes the row S1 in FIG. 2 and outputs a welding start command to the welding power source” [0010]); and
an output unit (“an arc generation confirmation signal is output from the welding power source” [0010]) configured to output the second information when the arc is generated by the generation unit.
Regarding claim 7, Muragaki discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a processor comprised by a control device (“operation of the robot 1 is controlled based on a work program stored in the robot controller 5 in advance” [0002]) comprising an input/output unit to function as:
an input/output control unit (processor of “robot controller” [0010]) configured to control the input/output unit (“robot controller” ([0010]) to output first information (“welding start command” [0010]) instructing start of welding to an arc welder (“welding power source” [0010] of “robot” [0010]) and receive input of second information (“arc generation confirmation signal” [0010]) indicating generation of an arc by the arc welder;
a measuring unit (processor in which “processing is executed” [0012]) configured to measure a time from the output of the first information to the input of the second information (“time (T in FIG. 2) for confirming the receipt of the arc generation confirmation signal” [0010]); and
a processing unit (processor in which “processing is executed” [0012]) configured to perform predetermined processing when the time or a statistic of the times is equal to or less than a first threshold (“the time (T in FIG. 2) for confirming the receipt of the arc generation confirmation signal is set as an additional item of the command as shown in FIG. 2 (a) or as a file as shown in FIG. 2 (b). Register. FIG. 2A shows an example in which T is 0.5 seconds at “T = 0.5” in the row S1. FIG. 2B is an example in which T is set by “tfile (1)” in the row S1. In this case, T is determined by the value in the file tfile (1)” [0010]; “When the robot controller recognizes the arc occurrence confirmation signal within the arc occurrence confirmation time, it continues to move the robot (B5). After that, it performs welding according to the planned welding line and welding conditions, and ends the welding when it reaches the welding end point” [0011]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest wherein the processing unit performs the predetermined processing when a number or a ratio of the times equal to or less than the first threshold among the times measured a plurality of times is equal to or greater than a second threshold as required in claim 2, wherein the statistic is an average value, a median value, a minimum value, or a maximum value as required in claim 3, wherein the processing unit provides, as the predetermined processing, a notification indicating that a program for determining a start position of the welding is to be modified as required in claim 4, or wherein the processing unit changes a program for determining a start position of the welding as the predetermined processing to move the start position away from a to-be-welded object as required in claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 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 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights