DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejections to the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner has addressed the arguments below with respect to the manner in which they were presented (i.e. by their section and number and letters).
IV. A. a.
The combination of references Mangelsen and Malanowski is explicitly and specifically “to incorporate alignment features into the nozzle … in other words, pointer 44 and/or receptacle body 74 are incorporated in function into the nozzle”. Applicant appears to be arguing Mangelsen alone and separate.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, Examiner notes that the statement “Mangelsen’s entire method is premised on replacing the working tool components … with a specialized alignment pointer” is a mischaracterization of Mangelsen. Mangelsen performs a separate alignment with respect to just the robot arm, and furthermore that the alignment of the tool only requires such removal due to the nozzle lacking the alignment features itself.
IV. A. b.
The relevancy of the arguments presented herein are wholly unclear. Regardless of if “the method still requires removal of the nozzle and contact tip in every instance” in Mangelsen alone, the rejection relies on a combination which lacks this deficiency (and as provided in 34. of the previous Office Action this deficiency is acknowledged and the primary reason for the combination of references) rendering this argument irrelevant. See again above.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that there is no clear and explicit disclosure in Mangelsen supporting Applicant’s above recited statement. Instead, due to the lack of complete clarity such that it is more likely than not that the nozzle is removed, the rejection relies on the combination of Mangelsen with Malanowski. In other words, the disclosure makes no explicit disclosure that the nozzle must always come off, as evidenced by Applicant’s own arguments which paraphrase rather than provide any explicit recitation thereof from the disclosure.
IV. A. c.
The relevancy of the arguments presented herein are wholly unclear. Regardless of if “the method still requires removal of the nozzle and contact tip in every instance” in Mangelsen alone, the rejection relies on a combination which lacks this deficiency (and as provided in 34. of the previous Office Action this deficiency is acknowledged and the primary reason for the combination of references) rendering this argument irrelevant. See again above.
Furthermore, Applicant mischaracterizes the language of the amended claims. Applicant states “in the claimed method … the same end that applies substance during manufacturing – is directly used in determining wither the nozzle tip axis is collinear with the alignment fixture axis”. The actual language of the claim, as demonstrated by Claim 1 is “wherein the nozzle tip has a first end” and “determining, using the first end of the nozzle tip”. The claims do not state what the “first end” is with any particularity, especially not that it is the same end that applies substance during manufacturing. Furthermore, it is unclear even if support exists for this statement. See the Claim Interpretation section below discussing “nozzle tip” below and refer to Applicant’s disclosure wherein where any substance exits the nozzle and the portion used for measurement appear to be wholly distinct and separate portions of the nozzle (e.g. Figure 5B). The nature of “using the first end of the nozzle tip” is likewise not claimed with any particularity, especially not as being “directly used”, and is provides no clear patentable significance in light of the determination already being with respect to said tip and thus inherently somehow involving, and thus using, said tip.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
IV. A. d.
Applicant’s arguments appear to rely on Applicant’s specification. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The language of the claims is simply that of “the nozzle tip being configured to apply a substance to a vehicle” with a particular timing or manner of use being that of “during a vehicle manufacturing process”.
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments appear to rely on a misunderstanding of welding in general and more particularly the welding involved in a welding torch having a nozzle and contact tip as disclosed by Mangelsen. At a minimum, the nozzle, being a nozzle rather than just a cone (see Claim Interpretation Section of current and previous Office Action discussing definition of the term “nozzle”), will apply some kind of substance to the welding surface. Additionally, there is no limitation on Mangelsen that renders it incapable of being used in a vehicle manufacturing process, and the claim language is extremely broad such that the scope of the claim is not narrowed such that it means anything more than such a capacity. It is well understood, commonplace knowledge that welding processes may (and typically are) be used in vehicle manufacturing, and there is nothing preventing a robotic welder as in Mangelsen from being used in such an environment. MPEP 2114 relates. There is no evidence that the structure of a welding torch must fundamentally be different from another welding torch to be considered functionally capable of performing the task of applying a substance to a vehicle during a vehicle manufacturing process, and this appears to amount to no more than a recitation of the manner of operating the device.
With respect to the limitation of “apply a substance”, the nozzle of a welding torch provides and directs the flow of gas and electrode wire, protecting the electrode and weld from external contaminants. The present claim language does not define the nature of the verb “apply” in “apply a substance”, especially not such that it must mean that the substance is permanently adhered as appears implied by Applicant’s arguments. Thus, the gas from a nozzle alone reads on this limitation. Furthermore, a welding torch using a nozzle and a contact tip applies additive material via wire or similar using the contact tip, and is the purpose of the contact tip structure.
These pieces of information are common knowledge to welding in general. A welding torch does in fact apply a substance rather than just applying energy as asserted. Normally a wire, or electrode, melts into and joins with the base metal of the weld. See for example, “The torch 24 includes a welding tube 34 through which passes a welding wire 36 fed from a reel (not shown). The wire 36 includes a wire tip 38 projecting through a contact tip within a nozzle 42” of relevant prior art Gold (US 5013887 A) recited in the Conclusion section below or “In an arc welding apparatus, such as Metal Inert Gas (MIG) or Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) welding gun, a welding wire is fed through the welding gun to provide a molten metal pool to join metal work pieces together. An inert gas is directed through the front (distal) end of the welding gun to provide a surrounding layer or blanket of shielding gas to protect the molten metal pool from atmospheric contamination” ([0004]) and “A nozzle assembly surrounds the contact tip and gas diffuser. The nozzle assembly further directs the shielding gas towards the work pieces to blanket the molten metal pool” ([0005]) of relevant prior art Hassan et al. (US 20160082540 A1) recited in the Conclusion section below which shares the nozzle and contact tip welding torch structure.
IV. B. a.
In response to applicant's argument that Malanowski is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the prior art is pertinent to the problem of downtime spent for alignment/calibration. See [0048] of Applicant’s specification which recites “For example, the methods described herein provide the ability to quickly re-align the nozzle tip if it is out of alignment. As a result, the downtime (when a nozzle is bent) is greatly reduced (e.g., downtime can be reduced from 20 minutes on average, to 1 minute on average)”. See furthermore Applicant’s arguments made with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 which while not stated in the specification further states that the technological improvement, or problem solved, is of both downtime and “alignment errors introduced by removing and reattaching the nozzle tip are eliminated”. Thus, prior art which discloses incorporation of alignment features into other components which solves problems of downtime and alignment errors introduced by removal and reattachment is clearly pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned, especially as asserted by Applicant’s own arguments found in these Remarks.
Furthermore, the combination is merely of well understood and routine incorporation of alignment features into components which mate or otherwise interact with each other. A person of ordinary skill in the art is not looking for guidance on how to verify nozzle tip alignment as asserted by Applicant, but instead is simply looking for guidance on incorporating alignment features into the nozzle tip, the alignment calibration process itself not deviating from Mangelsen’s disclosure, only the preparatory steps thereof. Hassan et al. (US 20160082540 A1) and Phillips et al. (US 20230407829 A1) (both referenced in the Conclusion section below) both disclose the use of alignment features for interacting and mating parts, the orientation of a nozzle for fuel injectors in the case of Phillips and welding nozzle components in the case of Hassan. Either of these references may have also been relied upon as the general concept again is of incorporating alignment features, Malanowski is simply considered the most analogous prior art in actual implementation of the combination provided in the final structural form presented by the combination.
In summary, the combination is of different features already within Mangelsen as a single alignment feature, wherein alignment features in general are common knowledge in effectively all structural arts. The better question is therefore if it is reasonable to believe if one of ordinary skill in the art would consider incorporating such features into a nozzle, which Examiner finds Malanowski, Hassan, and Phillips to individually and especially collectively demonstrate is a reasonable consideration. At least one motivation to do so is already provided in the previous rejections, and Applicant’s remaining arguments appear to primarily relate to arguing against any such motivation to combine and so will be left to be addressed below.
IV. C.
First, Applicant appears to not be arguing inoperability, but instead the motivation to combine Mangelsen and Malanowski, as none of Applicant’s arguments appear to actually demonstrate inoperability or in other words lack of functioning. Applicant incorrectly states that “the asserted motivation is drawn from Malanowski’s “alignement nozzle” ”. The motivation to combine, as stated in 36. of the prior Office Action and reiterated above is to “remove additional steps and unaccounted for alignment errors” and furthermore to incorporate a well-known, “common” feature of an incorporated alignment feature. The motivation is not the feature itself as was asserted by Applicant.
Applicant then states that the modification provided “would render Mangelsen’s system inoperable for its intended purpose”.
However, as an initial matter, Mangelsen clearly states the primary intended purpose of the system and method disclosed in Column 1, Lines 20 – 23, “It is necessary to check both the alignment of the tool and the alignment of the robot because these two objects can be misaligned individually”. The intended purpose of Mangelsen is thus alignment, not the nature of the alignment itself. Furthermore, the general structures remain the same, only their location thereof is moved and only in the case of tool/nozzle alignment (to the nozzle). Furthermore, Applicant appears to continue to misunderstand or mischaracterize the combination of Mangelsen and Malanowski. Mangelsen alone already discloses the alignment features, they are simply not co-located with the nozzle itself and are found on a separate device that must be swapped with the nozzle. The combination is simply that of incorporating alignment features onto a nozzle directly, particularly one sliding into another structural feature, which is disclosed by Malanowski.
Additionally, Applicant states that “Mangelsen’s pointer, by contrast, is a precision machined diagnostic instrument with close-tolerance flanges 52 and 54 that cooperate with a sleeve bore 86 to actively detect and quantify misalignment”. This again mischaracterizes the prior art. Mangelsen never discusses machining or being machined, let alone precision machining, only a close tolerance relationship between particular portions of two components and that only in particular for the robot alignment. There is no “active” nature to the alignment, at least in a manner by which Malanowski is considered passive by comparison, let alone the combination actually presented in the rejection, and there is no particular quantification of the misalignment. Tolerance is only discussed as being necessarily close with respect to the robot alignment, not the torch alignment, wherein only the torch alignment is of concern with respect to the present claims. Consequently, there is no “fundamental mismatch”, particularly as the combination is different than appears asserted, present.
With respect to Applicant’s first apparent real argument of inoperability, Examiner first notes that all of Applicant’s arguments appear to not be that of inoperability, but instead of drawbacks or limitations to the presented combination. Drawbacks are not the same as lacking function. Second, these asserted drawbacks or limitations appear similarly or equally relevant to Applicant’s own disclosure, yet Applicant has stated benefits which are clearly considered to outweigh these deficiencies given Applicant’s claimed invention. It is unclear why these benefits would not similarly outweigh the drawbacks in the case of this combination.
With respect to the first item, drawbacks do not amount to inoperability but instead to simply reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art may not be motivated to make the alteration or combination. In other words, Applicant appears to instead be relying on an argument of Mangelsen somehow teaching away from this combination or a lack of motivation to combine. Furthermore, while there may be drawbacks there are similarly benefits.
First, the system may be calibrated with respect to the nozzle which is the true tool center point of the robot system, rather than a placeholder (the pointer), which is especially important for a wear item as argued. Without making a new pointer to match each nozzle at each calibration time, there would always be a discrepancy between nozzle and tool/pointer alignment, particularly whenever a nozzle does have any imperfections which do not actually prevent operation unless not accounted for. In other words, Applicant’s arguments instead indicate further reasons why calibrating with respect to the nozzle rather than a separate tool is advantageous rather than of issue; i.e. it all allows for an imperfect but still usable nozzle to be calibrated and used, even after a collision. Additionally, as noted above, the system of Mangelsen aligns both the robot in general, and the tool specifically, wherein the nozzle is a component of the tool. This would allow for possibly three calibrations to be performed under the proposed combination (the nozzle and the pointer replacing the nozzle in addition to the robot alignment) where necessary. Three calibrations would facilitate isolation and determination of if production/operation issues are due to a nozzle, the tool overall, or the robot arm. In other words, the pointer remains useful and instead adds to the robustness of the system. Finally, incorporating the alignment features into the nozzle would remove the need to perform a minimum of four component attachment/removal steps for an alignment/calibration check, significantly reducing downtime, and possibly removing an additional two if it is reasonable to leave the pointer attached to the robot for the whole arm alignment portion.
With respect to the second item, the alignment tool 80 is equivalent to Applicant’s alignment fixture 304. Both the combination used in the rejection and Applicant’s disclosure then use the nozzle in relation to the alignment tool/fixture for calibration. Issues of wear, thermal cycling, material buildup, etc. are equally of concern. As even evidenced by Applicant’s present claims, these issues can be, and sometimes must be, simply rectified by replacing the nozzle. Consequently, Applicant’s asserted benefits appear equally relevant to the claimed invention and thus the combination.
Examiner furthermore notes that the disclosure of Mangelsen appears silent with respect to “operational stresses” (that are not “collisions”) asserted by Applicant as being disclosed, and that unlike Applicant’s disclosure collisions are specifically detected and can trigger an alignment check. Therefore, Mangelsen does not appear to provide any disclosure which might be considered to even teach away from these modifications as the disclosure only appears to be aware of alignment issues, not to avoid anything which might cause them.
With respect to Applicant’s second apparent real argument of inoperability, Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument appears to wholly rely on a misinterpretation of the combination/alteration of Mangelsen with Malonowsky. First, the robot alignment/calibration is not relevant to the present claims. Second, the combination is merely to incorporate the alignment features into the nozzle. The combination is not to intentionally render the remaining features of Mangelsen inoperable as appears argued by Applicant. The pointer 44 would still exist and therefore remain operable for alignment of the robot, and of the tool in general where desired. Furthermore, as noted above, Applicant’s issue with the deformation of the nozzle propagating error into the system is again 1) equally an issue for Applicant’s system, 2) actually instead allows the system to correct for these errors where possible and is instead actually a benefit, and 3) incorrectly characterized as limiting the system as it can still be identified. The combination again does not remove the pointer from the system as a whole. The system is able to align the robot arm separately contrary to Applicant’s assertion, and the pointer is even still usable to substitute the nozzle for an additional verification check in the manner originally disclosed. Thus, alignment may be checked at increasing levels of specificity and thus issues identified at increasingly general levels in the kinematic chain of the robot (robot arm, tool/nozzle mounting surface, and nozzle tip/TCP).
In short, to compensate for variation in nozzles initially due to manufacturing, variations in nozzles over time (due to use, collision, etc.), provide further verification methods, and reduce downtime, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the system and method of Mangelsen, in particular such that the alignment features disclosed are incorporated into the nozzle directly as disclosed by Malanowski. Doing so would not compromise any close tolerance measurement relationship or eliminate the ability to independently diagnose robot versus tool misalignment as asserted. Any close tolerance measurement related failures would simply be identified as the nozzle not fitting into the alignment fixture and would itself indicate an alignment failure and component replacement requirement.
To reiterate, the system is not modified in the manner argued by Applicant.
Claim Interpretation
The term “nozzle tip” has been interpreted broader than the plain English meaning might suggest, in light of Applicant’s disclosure utilizing the term in a manner not in complete alignment with the plain English meaning.
The plain English meaning would appear to be from the combination of the terms “nozzle” and “tip”.
The contextually appropriate definitions for the term “nozzle” appear to be (from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary accessed 2/26/2026):
1 a : a projecting vent of something
b : a short tube with a taper or constriction used (as on a hose) to speed up or direct a flow of fluid
Wherein, the contextually appropriate definition for the term “vent” appears to be (from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary accessed 2/26/2026):
1 : an opening for the escape of a gas or liquid or for the relief of pressure
The contextually appropriate definition for the term “tip” appears to be (from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary accessed 2/26/2026):
the usually pointed end of something
Consequently, the plain English language meaning of the term “nozzle tip” would appear to be:
a pointed end of i) a projecting opening for the escape of a gas or liquid or for the relief of pressure, or ii) a short tube with a taper or constriction used (as on a hose) to speed up or direct a flow of fluid
Applicant’s specification appears to most particularly describe what is meant by a “nozzle tip” within the drawings wherein the nozzle tip is given the reference character “104”. Based on the reference character 104 and respective lead line in each Figure wherein 104 appears as well as the context of the definitions above, it is clear that “nozzle tip” instead means:
i) a projecting body for the escape of a gas or liquid, or ii) a tube to direct a flow of fluid
For clarity, it is noted that this definition is exclusive of solids. Examiner notes that in welding, solid metal becomes a liquid and/or gas.
The particular reason for this interpretation is that reference character 104 refers to the entire body of the nozzle, rather than a particular portion, and especially not a “tip”. The closest “tip” appears explicitly and separately called out under reference character 504 as an end. It is unclear if an opening even exists at 504 (see e.g. Figure 5B wherein an opening exists not referred to by the lead line of 504).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 3 and 6 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangelsen et al. (US 6317994 B1) in view of Malanowski et al. (US 20230240770 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mangelsen teaches:
A method to determine alignment of a nozzle tip on a robotic arm, comprising:
… moving the robotic arm to a pre-programmed alignment position (See at least Figure 4, Line 66 through Column 5, Line 1, “The robot is then moved to a position wherein the torch 40 is in alignment with the alignment tool 80 at test station 78”) that positions (See at least Figure 4 and the following items) the [nozzle tip] (See at least pointer 44 and receptacle body 74) adjacent to an alignment fixture (See at least test station 78) secured to a stationary member (See at least Column 4, Lines 33 – 36, “Post 84 is mounted by means of a bolt 88 to an L-shaped frame 90 having an upstanding leg 92 and a lower horizontal leg 94. The L-shaped frame 90 is mounted in a stationary position at test station 78” and Figure 3),
the nozzle tip being configured to apply a substance to a vehicle during a vehicle manufacturing process (Examiner notes that this only defines the structure of the limitation “nozzle tip” functionally. The claim does not recite that the nozzle tip is used in a manufacturing process, etc. The welding torch disclosed including nozzle 40 and contact tip provide gas and welding/electrode wire under the common knowledge understanding of welding torches, as evidenced by references Gold and Phillip also recited in this office action. There is no particular further limitation provided which alters the scope of the structure by reciting “vehicle” or “vehicle manufacturing”. In other words, there is no expectation that the robot welder is incapable of performing operations on a vehicle),
wherein the [nozzle tip] has a first end (See at least upper pointer flange 52, a lower pointer flange 54, and/or and a reduced central diameter surface 56) and the alignment fixture has a second end (See at least sleeve bore 86), the alignment fixture being in a retracted position to thereby (Examiner notes that this appears merely descriptive rather than limiting due to the use of “thereby”. MPEP 2111.04 relates. In the interest of compact prosecution, see at least Figure 4 and the following items) create a first distance between the first end of the nozzle tip and the second end of the alignment fixture to (This appears to be a mere description of the intent of a step or function and does not appear to limit the scope thereof) prevent collision between the nozzle tip and alignment fixture;
once the [nozzle tip] is positioned adjacent to the alignment fixture, extending the alignment fixture such that a second distance is placed between the first end of the nozzle tip and the second end of the alignment fixture, the second distance being less than the first distance (See at least Column 5, Lines 1 – 3, “At this point the sleeve 82 is moved upwardly as shown in FIG. 5 to determine whether or not there is proper alignment” as well as Figure 4 in comparison to Figure 5); and
determining, using the first end of the nozzle tip, whether the first end of the nozzle tip is aligned with the second end of the alignment fixture (The nature of “determining” is not claimed in any manner. “using the first end of the nozzle tip” is vague and non-specific and merely requires the involvement of the first end in some unspecified manner, which it inherently is as part of the structure of the nozzle. See at least Column 5, Lines 3 – 5, “If the sleeve does not slip easily over both flanges 52 and 54 there is improper alignment. If the sleeve does slip over flanges 52 and 54 there is proper alignment”) such that (This does not appear to be a positively recited limitation and merely an intended result. If alignment is simply collinearity, the claim could explicitly state as such) an axis of the [nozzle tip] is collinear with an axis of the alignment fixture (In the interest of compact prosecution, see Figure 5 wherein it is abundantly clear that the use of two flanges 52 and 54 spaced apart, as well as flat-planed flanges (in cross-section), rather than a single non-planar alignment feature similar but different thereto inherently forces collinearity under the geometry of the structures disclosed).
Mangelsen does not disclose that the nozzle is normally still attached while using the pointer 44. See instead Column 3, Lines 37 – 39 wherein it is disclosed that at least normally “In order to mount the alignment pointer 44 on the torch 40 it is first necessary to remove the nozzle (not shown) and the contact tip (not shown) from the end of the torch 40”. Examiner notes the phrasing “normally” is used as Mangelsen later discusses a “receptacle body” in Column 4, Lines 53 – 60 without actually disclosing what the receptacle body might be.
Therefore, at a minimum Mangelsen appears to disclose that a nozzle is not normally still attached, and must be removed and consequently reattached as part of the normal process of Mangelsen alone which includes additional effort and causes the method and system to not account for any discrepancies in alignment due to the nozzle itself.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate alignment features into the nozzle as disclosed by Malanowski, in particular those of the flanges of Mangelsen, into the nozzle of Mangelssen with a reasonable expectation of success. It is common to incorporate alignment features into components, and doing so in the case of Malanowski would remove additional steps and unaccounted for alignment errors. The combination thus provided is that the nozzle of Mangelsen itself has flanges 52 and 54. In other words, pointer 44 and/or receptacle body 74 are incorporated in function into the nozzle (but not that the pointer 44 is removed from the system as it is used in alignment of the robot and may still be used in the same manner disclosed).
Thus while Mangelsen alone does not teach, the combination with Malanowski teaches:
… while the nozzle tip remains on the robotic arm …
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mangelsen and Malanowski teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Mangelsen further teaches:
wherein the alignment fixture is (Examiner notes that this word has been interpreted as “comprises”, particularly inasmuch as disclosed by Applicant the bolt itself is not used for alignment but alignment shaft 310 is) a bolt extending through the stationary member (See at least bolt 88 in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mangelsen and Malanowski teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Mangelsen further teaches:
wherein determining whether the first end of the nozzle tip is aligned with the second end of the alignment fixture comprises determining whether the second distance is equal to a pre-defined distance (The “pre-defined distance” is not itself defined in any manner. The relationship of the sleeve bore 86 to the flanges 52, 54 are of a particular cooperating relationship such that the distance will inherently be from 0 to the tolerance difference pre-established by the geometry under alignment. See for example the discussion thereof in Column 4, Lines 5 – 18).
Regarding Claims 6 – 11, the claims appear directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 1 – 3 with respect to the application of prior art. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 1 – 3. The claims appear to merely rearrange and slightly alter the phrasing of particular limitations between the claims.
Claims 4, 12, 14 – 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangelsen et al. in view of Malanowski et al., further in view of Sawdon (US 20030177656 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mangelsen and Malanowski teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Mangelsen does not explicitly teach, but Sawdon in combination with Mangelsen and Malanowski teaches:
wherein, if the axis of the nozzle tip is misaligned with the axis of the alignment fixture, the method further comprises:
aligning the nozzle tip such that the axis of the nozzle tip is aligned with the axis of the alignment fixture (See at least [0033] “Any adjustment that is necessary to the end arm effector 120 to locate the corresponding alignment member 38 in its appropriate cooperating relationship to the cooperating alignment member 46 is performed”); or
replacing the nozzle tip with a second nozzle tip whose axis is aligned with the axis of the alignment fixture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to correct any misalignment as taught by Sawdon with a reasonable expectation of success. It is well understood and routine in calibration methods to correct any deviations rather than simply identify their existence and ignore them without further action.
Regarding Claims 12, 14 – 17, and 19, the claims appear directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 1 – 4 with respect to the application of prior art. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claim 4 which most corresponds to Claim 14 as the independent claim, wherein Claims 1 – 3 rely only on Mangelsen to teach the limitations therein. The claims appear to merely rearrange and slightly alter the phrasing of particular limitations between the claims. For example, Claim 14 recites “an alignment bolt” rather than “an alignment fixture”, however Claim 2 illustrates that the alignment fixture comprises an alignment bolt which is still shown as disclosed by Mangelsen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Examiner was unable to find, within their search of the prior art, a reference which discloses alone or in combination adjusting a calibration distance between a nozzle and a calibration feature/reference feature/etc. after initial positioning of the nozzle by “screwing … [a] bolt into [a] stationary member”. While Mangelsen discloses the sleeve, it is clearly not a structure similar to a bolt, nor even if a bolt were used there is no clear reason for it to be screwed into the stationary member. Additionally, while Mangelsen discloses positioning bolt 96 for general alignment of the robotic arm rather than the tool, even if adapted to a nozzle situation there still remains no reason for it to be adjusted after initial positioning, particularly in the manner claimed, except perhaps in setting a baseline for later calibrations to refer to. However, the claims are directed to calibration, not setting up a baseline for calibration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hassan et al. (US 20160082540 A1) which discloses welding end structures including nozzle structures which would facilitate combinations with Mangelsen et al. (US 6317994 B1).
Phillips et al. (US 20230407829 A1) which discloses nozzles having alignment features integrated therein.
Gold (US 5013887 A) which discloses alignment of a welding torch with respect to an alignment feature.
The following prior art references may be considered as reading on the limitations inasmuch as the nature of “retract” and “extend” are not claimed and other positions are not excluded.
Chang et al. (US 20240308078 A1).
Andersson et al. (US 20110022216 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights