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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 17-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The originally presented claims are directed to a mobile material processing system including a mobile base. The newly submitted claims 17-20 are directed to a stationary material processing system positioned on a floor. The inventions are independent in that each may be implemented without the other and distinct in that they require different structural arrangements that require searches in different technological fields.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed 10/03/2025 have been entered. The prior 112 rejections and drawing objections have been overcome. Accordingly claims 1, 4, 7 and 9-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant firstly argues (page 10-11):
“Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action did not make out a prima facie case of obviousness for the following reasons:
In the Background of applicant's disclosure, applicant sets forth the current situation in the manufacturing industry, and, in particular the lack of trained personnel in the welding industry in which the number of active welders is decreasing at a rate that is significantly higher than the entry rate of new welders into the field. "...it is evident on the one hand that demands in the welding industry for reliable, consistent and repeatable welded structure fabrication processes may be satisfied by sophisticated and very costly automated systems that minimize the potentially adverse and unpredictable effects of human and process variables on weld quality.
However, conflicting demands for relatively inexpensive, mobile and versatile welding systems capable of producing weldments of the highest quality that may also be set up and operated by less experienced individuals in high mix, low volume production environments create a tension in the industry that heretofore has not been addressed by prior art systems.
Accordingly, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art from this disclosure that a need exists for a collaborative robot welding system that can be set up and programmed intuitively by an operator without the need for significant computer programming and coding training. A need also exists for a readily re-deployable and transportable automated welding system that may be installed in a manufacturing operation and moved from one worksite to another without significant labor or rigging or substantial acquisition and installation capital expenditures, dedicated floor space, or ancillary internal support and operating systems."
Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the modification the teachings of Kotera with that of Michels to reject the mobility of applicant's system which is now recited in claim 1, since claim 2 has been cancelled inasmuch as Kotera does not teach or suggest the elements of applicant's invention. Kotera's system is stationary and presents precisely the types of problems applicant's system was developed to overcome. Michels' system includes a pair of fork lift channels or "stake packets" which enable a fork lift operator to move Michel's system from one spot to another within a manufacturing facility and park it there where it is likely to remain once locked in place. It is not a self-contained, mobile unit like the system disclosed by applicant, which can be pushed by an operator from one spot to another, essentially "to the work material." No articulated basis with some rational underpinning in support of the legal conclusion of obviousness exists which would teach, suggest or motivate one skilled in the art to combine Kotera and Michels to produce applicant's novel mobile system. The elements of applicant's invention are simply not present in either reference. In addition, applicant respectfully submits that Kotera teaches away from applicant's solution and that one of ordinary skill in the art would neither refer to Kotera to solve the problems that applicant's invention solves nor have any reasonable expectation of success in addressing the problems by so doing.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that any rejection of the mobility features of applicant's system as defined in the current amended claims listing under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious be withdrawn.
However Examiner respectfully disagrees because as disclosed by Applicant above, Michels teaches mobility as needed for bringing a processing system to work pieces, while Osicki and Luis both provide motivation to ease of mobility to processing equipment enhanced by casters/wheels as provided in rejection, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Examiner notes the degree to which something is moveable as claimed is indefinite as claimed, see 112b rejection.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant secondly argues (page 11):
“Claim 4 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kotera in view of Osicki. It is the Examiner's position that "Osicki teaches (Fig-1-6-7) the support structure comprises a mobile base (mobility means of wheels 132, see figure 1) including a bottom or lower platform (668) adapted to stow and transport the power supply (778) and the control system (768) ("a welding power supply 788 used with a welding operation mounts to and rests on a platform 668 and is connected to and can be a part of the welding cell unit 600. A robot controller 768, which controls the robot 610, also rests and mounts on the platform 668 to provide control signals to the robot 610."[0029]), and an upper cantilevered shelf (see planar surface of welding cell 600 in figure 7 having cantilever end thereto and supporting robot 610) adapted to mount the programmable collaborative robot (610), the mobile base being adapted to be relocated by the operator to bring the material processing system to the work (see wheels at base of cart figure 6)".
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Careful examination of Osicki's Figs. 5, 6, and 7 reveal that the robot actually resides within a lower portion of the welding cell on surface 652 and that another component, which does not appear to be numbered, is mounted on a plate secured to the upper right rear corner of the welding sell frame. Moreover, applicant's claim 4 has been amended to delete any reference to an upper cantilevered shelf.
Examiner is unsure what Applicant is arguing, if in regards to cantilever the point is moot because of the subject matter amended out of the claims as disclosed by Applicant, however the cantilever would be a continuation off plane as shown in figure 7 and be part of 652 provided by Applicant and shown in figure 6, the power supply is clearly below the robot arm on platform 668 as cited above and shown in figure 7. Examiner notes the arm is configured to operate at the cantilever and therefore capable of operating outside the cart when the cantilever is removed or folded away.
Applicant secondly argues (page 12-13):
Moreover, the methodology taught by Chevallereau has nothing to do with applicant's system. Firstly, Chevallereau's safety system is designed to work in a welding cell, and one of the advantages of applicant's system is dispensing with the need for welding cells and all of the limitations associated therewith.
Secondly, Chevallereau methodology involves mathematical calculations to determine theoretical interpolation positions of the robot movement with respect to a theoretical position thereof and employs a second clock in the robot controller to control the speed of the robot and to actually change the trajectory thereof in an attempt to avoid contact with a detected object. The LIDAR system of applicant's invention works in a completely different manner. Nonetheless, in response to the Examiner's concerns, applicant has amended claim 7 to12 more clearly define the elements of Applicants safety system to distinguish them over the prior art of record.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the safety system regardless of cell or open area both address hazard of human interference with sensors altering robot operating speed for safety, the bodily incorporation as disclosed in prior response to argument is obvious because the disclosed advantages are obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art therebetween. Chevallereau teaches a slow down of operating speed, neither claims or Chevallereau disclose the specific operating task of processing. In effort to further prosecution and in light of the Applicants amendments, newly cited additional reference Brooke teaches a slow down while continuing operational work.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 12-15 have been examined as best understood dependent to claim 4 (presently written in dependence to canceled claim 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 7 recites “the system operating speed is reduced in accordance with recognized safety standards in response to conditions detected by the safety system”, it is unclear what the recognized safety standards are or what the detected conditions are.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4,7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “without significant labor and/or rigging” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “significant labor” and “rigging” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what amount of labor qualifies as significant and it is unclear what level of weight or dimensions would justify rigging use by people of different capabilities, and to what extent such as gloves or a crane would be in relation to rigging.
Similarly see regarding speed adjustments of claim 7 “ which are safe for an operator”, it is unclear what a safe speed for operator is in view of mass effecting momentum and undefined motor strengths.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotera (US 2018/0304391) in view of Luis (US 2017/0173779) and Michels (US 2008/0128400).
Regarding claim 1, Kotera discloses (Fig-1a) a material processing system for performing processing operations on work material, comprising:
a
a material processing implement (welding torch 8);
at least one programmable collaborative robot (Robot 1 is operable via programed controller 21 “The robot control device 21 is a digital computer and includes a CPU, a memory, or the like connected to each other with a bus or the like. The robot control device 21 controls servo motors M1 to M6 of respective axes of the robot 1. Furthermore, the robot control device 21 can similarly control the servo motor M0 of the wire feeding device 30 as a control shaft associated with the robot 1. A teach pendant 21a that causes the robot 1 to perform jog feeding when teaching the robot 1 is connected to the robot control device 21.” [0024]) operatively connected to the pivotable about a J1 axis (not illustrated), a J2 axis (not illustrated), and a J3 axis (not illustrated) as pivots” [0021]);
a power supply (23 “A welding power source 23 connected to the robot 1 and the robot control device 21 is a welding power source for arc welding and one for the robot control device 21 is installed separately.” [0026]) operatively connected to the material processing implement (as shown by cables of figure 1A);
a control system (21a) adapted to enable an operator to guide the programmable collaborative robot and manipulate the material processing implement to operatively engage and process the work material in response to instructions programed by the operator (“At the time of a teaching operation, an operator moves the robot 1 by the teach pendant 21a or hand guide and iteratively determines a position of the tip of the welding wire 20 protruding from the tip of the welding torch 8 at a desired teaching position of the workpiece. Alternatively, an operator may move the robot 1 as described above and determine a position of the workpiece gripped by the robot 1 relative to the welding torch fixed to a predetermined position.” [0028]).
Kotera is silent regarding a mobile base being adapted to be relocated by an operator without significant labor and/or rigging to bring the material processing system to the work material
However Luis teaches a mobile base being adapted to be relocated by an operator without significant labor and/or rigging to bring the material processing system to the work material (“The axle assembly may be connected directly to a robot or robotic arm in order to automate the loading, offloading, and rotation of parts and fixtures. Casters or other types of wheels may be attached to the bottom of the extensible frame to allow, for example, the rotatable fixturing platform to be readily moved or transported.” [0005].)
The advantage of a mobile base being adapted to be relocated by an operator without significant labor and/or rigging to bring the material processing system to the work material, is to allow enhanced ease of moving a material processing apparatus, base system, emphasis added “The axle assembly may be connected directly to a robot or robotic arm in order to automate the loading, offloading, and rotation of parts and fixtures. Casters or other types of wheels may be attached to the bottom of the extensible frame to allow, for example, the rotatable fixturing platform to be readily moved or transported.” [0005].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kotera and Luis before him or her, to modify the support frame structure of Kotera to include the wheeled and component support structure layout of Luis because providing a wheeled system enables the operator to move a processing system without material handling equipment.
Additionally Michels teaches mobility of an automated processing system adapted to bring to workpiece (“Additional welding skids 100 can be added to or taken away from the weld assembly 150 quickly and easily to increase or decrease capacity as needed. Furthermore, should the operation of one welding skid 100 in the weld assembly 150 cease unexpectedly, the affected welding skid 100 can be easily removed and replaced with another welding skid 100” [0033]).
The advantage of mobility of an automated processing system adapted to bring to workpiece, is to provide ease of transport of a welding robot relative to work and reduce downtime in exchanging welding robots “Additional welding skids 100 can be added to or taken away from the weld assembly 150 quickly and easily to increase or decrease capacity as needed. Furthermore, should the operation of one welding skid 100 in the weld assembly 150 cease unexpectedly, the affected welding skid 100 can be easily removed and replaced with another welding skid 100. Because each welding skid 100 has dedicated controls, the controllers 122 of each welding skid 100 in the weld assembly 150 need not be significantly reprogrammed to work in concert with the replacement welding skid 100. This can significantly reduce weld assembly 150 downtime. The weld assembly 150 is easily transportable, reconfigurable and has a high degree of commonality between individual welding skids 100.” [0033-0034].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kotera and Michels before him or her, to modify the support frame structure of Kotera to include the skid transport system of Michels because providing a unified movable frame system to a robotic welding system enables ease of transport and positioning relative to workpiece.
Regarding claim 9, Kotera discloses the material processing system of claim 1, Kotera further discloses wherein the material processing implement comprises a welding torch (welding torch 8).
Claim 4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotera in view of Luis and Michels and in further view of Osicki (US 2013/0119039).
Regarding claim 4, Kotera discloses the material processing system of claim 1, Kotera as already modified teaches wherein the mobile base includes a frame (2/25 or Luis as modifying modular frame 102 [0033]), a plurality of supporting legs (Luis 104), each of the plurality of supporting legs including a leveling device or foot attached thereto (leveling and feet anticipated by Luis “Casters with brakes 1415 may be provided on a bottom of the extensible frame 1410 to allow the rotatable fixturing platform 1400 to be readily moved or transported. The casters 1415 in this and other embodiments may comprise leveling casters. Also, in this and other embodiments of the present disclosure, outriggers 1411 may be attached to the bottom braces to allow for threaded or welded levelling feet to be attached to the bottom frame and support and/or level the fixturing platform.” [0140]).
Kotera as modified is silent regarding a bottom or lower platform adapted to stow and transport the power supply and the control system, the storage area or platform having a bottom surface, a plurality of wheels or casters mounted to the bottom surface and a gridded upper work surface of table adapted to mount the programmable collaborative robot thereon.
However Osicki teaches a bottom or lower platform (688) adapted to stow and transport the power supply (778) and the control system (768), the storage area or platform having a bottom surface (668), a plurality of wheels or casters mounted to the bottom surface (as shown in figure 7) and a
The advantage of a bottom or lower platform adapted to stow and transport the power supply and the control system, the storage area or platform having a bottom surface, a plurality of wheels or casters mounted to the bottom surface and a gridded upper work surface of table adapted to mount the programmable collaborative robot thereon, is to provide more usable space to the mobile processing apparatus and or store components of the mobile processing apparatus enhancing ease of movement between locations “Wheels 132 are employed to facilitate transport of the welding cell unit 100 from location to location.” [0016] “In an embodiment, the retractable support system includes an upright table support 222 which is coupled to a bottom surface of the table top 226 via a table angle bracket 224.” [0020].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kotera and Osicki before him or her, to modify processing apparatus of Kotera to include processing apparatus storage system of Osicki because providing storage area along with mobile base enables an enhanced ease of moving the mobile processing apparatus and enhanced space allocation.
Kotera as modified is silent regarding the work surface being gridded.
However Luis teaches (grid of holes known to material processing for holding both workpieces and tooling relative to one another during processing “A welding table typically has a surface with an array of holes to hold fixturing and other tools. The fixturing tools hold work pieces in alignment during welding. In this way, welding tables allow complex work pieces to be efficiently welded.” [0002]).
The advantage of the work surface being gridded, is to enable attachment of tools and workpieces relative to each other for relative relation therebetween during processing “A welding table typically has a surface with an array of holes to hold fixturing and other tools. The fixturing tools hold work pieces in alignment during welding. In this way, welding tables allow complex work pieces to be efficiently welded.” [0002]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kotera and Luis before him or her, to modify the workpiece holding structure of Kotera to include the grided retaining workpiece features of Luis because providing a grided workpiece retaining system enables adjustable positioning of the workpiece and replacement/rearrangement of workpiece support structure.
Regarding claim 13, Kotera as modified teaches the material processing system of claim 5 Kotera as already modified teaches wherein the mobile base comprises a worktable or cart having a footprint of approximately three feet wide and six feet deep (it would be obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art to provide a foot print of a mobile cart within the finite range of being to big to move and to small to place the robotic system, see MPEP 2144.05 II. B.).
Regarding claim 14, Kotera as modified teaches the material processing system of claim 5 Kotera as already modified teaches wherein the mobile base comprises a worktable or cart having a footprint of approximately six feet wide and six feet deep (it would be obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art to provide a foot print of a mobile cart within the finite range of being to big to move and to small to place the robotic system, see MPEP 2144.05 II. B.).
Regarding claim 15, Kotera as modified teaches the material processing system of claim 5 Kotera as already modified teaches wherein the mobile base includes a first end, a second end, a platform or storage shelf operatively connected to the first end thereof (Osicki as modifying anticipates expandability of spaces “Alternatively or in addition, a greater number of panels than shown can be employed to facilitate a larger-sized footprint and/or different shape of the table top 422, thereby providing a greater range of motion for the robotic weld system. One or more securements, such as securement 428, is employed to couple each panel to the table top 422.” Osicki [0025] “a welding power supply 788 used with a welding operation mounts to and rests on a platform 668 and is connected to and can be a part of the welding cell unit 600. A robot controller 768, which controls the robot 610, also rests and mounts on the platform 668 to provide control signals to the robot 610.” Osicki [0029] the size accommodating more usable space while being reducible for transport “In an example, the welding cell unit 100 is in an operational state when extended (e.g., in a classroom) and returned to a non-extended position for transport therefrom.” Osicki [0018]), and
Kotera is silent regarding a pair of diagonally extending braces secured at a first end to the platform and at a second end to the first end of the cart, the pair of diagonally extending braces being adapted to support the platform or storage shelf.
However Osicki teaches a pair of diagonally extending braces (224, see figure 2) secured at a first end to the platform (going up to 208 as shown in figure 2) and at a second end to the first end of the cart (where bracing contacts cart), the pair of diagonally extending braces being adapted to support the platform or storage shelf (as shown in figure 2).
The advantage of a pair of diagonally extending braces secured at a first end to the platform and at a second end to the first end of the cart, the pair of diagonally extending braces being adapted to support the platform or storage shelf, is to provide more usable space to the mobile processing apparatus and or store components of the mobile processing apparatus and or enhancing ease of movement between locations “Wheels 132 are employed to facilitate transport of the welding cell unit 100 from location to location.” [0016] “In an embodiment, the retractable support system includes an upright table support 222 which is coupled to a bottom surface of the table top 226 via a table angle bracket 224” [0020].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kotera and Osicki before him or her, to modify processing apparatus of Kotera to include processing apparatus storage system of Osicki because providing additional foldable storage area along with mobile base enables an enhanced ease of moving of the mobile processing apparatus with enhanced usable space.
Claim 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotera in view of Luis, Michels and Osicki and in further view of Linnell (US 9,278,449), Chevallereau (US 11,192,251) and Brooks (US 2014/0067121).
Regarding claim 7, The material processing system of claim 4, Kotera is silent regarding further including a corner mounted LIDAR operator protection safety system, adapted to generate and project outwardly form the material processing system preselected safety zone or non-visible safety barriers surrounding the material processing system.
However Linnell teaches further including a corner mounted (Lidar must be position relative to viewable detection area (line of sight) surrounding equipment for functionality, because the viewable angles relative to the detection area surrounding the equipment is finite, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as a matter of Routine Optimization, to place the LIDAR detector system within the bounds of workability to said finite detection area to include corners (edge of line of sight) of the equipment as presently modified, see MPEP 2144.05 II. B.) LIDAR operator protection safety system (LIDAR perceives movement coming into detection area associated to robotics system “a LIDAR detector may be configured to detect unexpected objects and movement within a 15 foot area of the device actor during operation” (column 9-10, lines 64-17), adapted to generate and project outwardly form the material processing system preselected safety zone or non-visible safety barriers surrounding the material processing system (placement as routine to finite workable viewing angles of mobile cart as arranged oriented to work area as hazard area, see above MPEP 2144.05 II. B.)
The advantage of including a corner mounted LIDAR operator protection safety system, adapted to generate and project outwardly form the material processing system preselected safety zone or non-visible safety barriers surrounding the material processing system, is to avoid collisions “to automatically create a safety shutdown if an object is detected” (column 9-110, lines 64-17).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kotera and Linnell before him or her, to modify the robotic system of Kotera to include LIDAR safety system of Linnell, because providing a collision avoidance system enhances collision safety.
Kotera as modified is silent regarding whereby the collaborative welding system is operated at a faster speed under predetermined on conditions which are safe for an operator and whereby the system operating speed is reduced in accordance with recognized safety standards in response to conditions detected by the safety system.
However Chevallereau teaches whereby the collaborative welding system is operated at a faster speed under predetermined on conditions which are safe for an operator and whereby the system operating speed is reduced in accordance with recognized safety standards in response to conditions detected by the safety system (normal operation speed is faster than potential collision state speed “When an intrusion into the monitoring space is detected, the interpolation of the robot movement is performed according to an interpolation interval k.Math.Δt, but the servo frequency remains the same, equal to 1/Δt. Thus, starting from the position p(t+Δt), the next interpolation point should be at a position (211) as interpolated for a time Δt. The k factor being less than 1, the calculated interpolation position (210) is delayed in relation to this theoretical position (211). Also, the robot slows down without the programming being modified. To accomplish this function, the robot controller comprises a second clock, controllable, for the definition of interpolation time used for the calculation of the trajectory. This mode of speed control is commonly referred to as a virtual time control and can be compared, from a didactic point of view, to the slow-motion effect obtained by filming a scene at a higher frame rate than the projection frequency of the film.” (column 4-5, lines 58-7)) .
The advantage of whereby the collaborative welding system is operated at a faster speed under predetermined on conditions which are safe for an operator and whereby the system operating speed is reduced in accordance with recognized safety standards in response to conditions detected by the safety system, is to reduce speed of operation when the likelihood of collision is raised so that collision risk is lowered during operation “in case of a risk of collision, detected by the proximity sensor, the robot not only that slows down, but also tries to escape the obstacle, which increases the safety of the operator or the other robot located in the monitored environment.” (column 2, lines 55-59).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kotera as modified and Chevallereau before him or her, to modify the robotic safety system of Kotera to include the reduced speed safety function of Chevallereau, because providing a reduced speed of operation reduces risk of collision when potential collision hazards are present during operation.
Additionally Brooks teaches a slow down working speed relative to proximity to human collaborator “The lower speed limit is triggered when the robot's safety system detects entry of a person's torso and/or head into a danger zone around the robot; this zone may, for example, be defined as coextensive with the reach of the robot's appendages, i.e., with the robot's workspace. As long as the person's torso and head are outside the danger zone, the robot may operate at higher speeds. This allows a person to reach--from outside the danger zone--into the robot's workspace, e.g., to place new objects or materials for the robot or to retrieve finished objects or materials, while the robot operates at speeds above the lower speed limit. The higher speed limit, on the other hand, is never exceeded--it constitutes full speed; thus, under conditions compatible with the higher limit, reaching into the robot's workspace is intrinsically safe. This discrete (rather than continuously variable) approach to safety-related robot control balances the need to avoid injury with computational tractability and certainty.” [0007], using LIDAR “a scanning laser range finder (including appropriate perceptual processing functionality) that detects movement of people.” [0003].
The advantage of slowing down working speed relative to proximity to human collaborator using LIDAR, is to prevent harm speeds from contacting person “The robot further includes a computational facility for (i) defining a danger zone at least partially within the detection zone, (ii) operating the robot at a speed at or below a first threshold at which collisions between the appendages and a person's arms do not harm the person, and (iii) in response to detection of a person's torso or head within the danger zone, operating the robot at a speed at or below a second threshold at which collisions between the at least one appendage and the person's torso or head do not harm the person,” [0012].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kotera as modified and Brooks before him or her, to modify the robotic safety system of Kotera to include the LIDAR based reduced speed safety function of Brooks, because providing a reduced speed of operation reduces risk of harm to persons in collaboration to operation work.
Regarding claim 16, Kotera as modified teaches the material processing system of claim 7, Kotera as already modified teaches wherein the corner-mounted LIDAR operator protection safety system includes a pair of cylindrical housings and projector housings, each of the pair of cylindrical housings and projector housings being adjustably and rotatably secured to diagonally opposing corners of the bottom surface of the storage area or platform (the sweeping motion of a LIRAR system naturally requires a constant radial/cylindrical clearance envelope and would therefor at a minimum of internal housing require cylindrical portions, the LIDAR at corners is naturally required in that sensors can only operate line of site not around corners, the adjustability to include rotatable of the LIDAR position would be obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed because the as disclosed above position of a LIDAR system is relevant to its surroundings and therefor a universal joint of adjustable range would be obvious to the system, see MPEP 2144.04 V. D. Making Adjustable).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotera in view of Luis and Michels and in view of Krause (US 2011/0282492).
Regarding claim 10, Kotera discloses the material processing system of claim 1, Kotera is silent regarding wherein the material processing implement comprises a plasma cutting torch.
However Krause (Fig-1) teaches wherein the material processing implement comprises a plasma cutting torch (emphasis added “One end of the arm 16 supports a tool 18 that is used to perform a desired operation. For example, the tool 18 could be any of a welding torch, a plasma cutting tool, a material removal/deburring tool, and a coating tool/applicator for applying a sealant or paint. It is understood that any robotic tool can be used.” [0047]).
The advantage of wherein the material processing implement comprises a plasma cutting torch, is to provide the operations of various tools beyond welding torches to workpiece as needed “As a further example, the generated path is modified based upon a process knowledge and process parameters that are specific to a process associated with the tool 18 mounted on the arm 16.” [0062], “the tool 18 could be any of a welding torch, a plasma cutting tool, a material removal/deburring tool” [0047].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kotera and Krause before him or her, to modify welding system of Kotera to include the Plasma cutting torch of Krause, because plasma cutting provides varied operation to welding torches and is known exchangeable to robotic systems making use welding torches.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotera in view of Luis, Michels and Osicki and in further view of Sykes (US 2021/0331321)
Regarding claim 12, Kotera as modified teaches the material processing system of claim 5, Kotera as already modified teaches wherein the collaborative robot includes a robot arm operatively connected to a base (as shown in figure 1),
Kotera is silent regarding the base being operatively connected to an electrically isolating pad secured to the gridded upper work surface or table.
However Sykes teaches the base being operatively connected to an electrically isolating pad secured to the gridded upper work surface or table (robotic arm base 10 is electrically isolated “at least a portion of the aerial device 10 being electrically insulated” [0065]).
The advantage of the base being operatively connected to an electrically isolating pad secured to the gridded upper work surface or table, is to insure stray electrical current is not transferred through the robotic arm system “the aerial device 10 may be an insulated aerial device 10 with at least a portion of the aerial device 10 being electrically insulated such that electricity is not transmitted through said portion of the aerial device 10.” [0065].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kotera as modified and Sykes before him or her, to modify the robotic arm dealing with currents of Kotera to include the electrically isolated robotic arm dealing with currents of Sykes because providing an electrical isolation to a robotic arm inhibits stray current from flowing therethrough.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Spencer H Kirkwood whose telephone number is (469)295-9113. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 am - 9:00 pm Eastern.
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 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 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.
/Spencer H. Kirkwood/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761