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 .
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 term 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.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent Claim 1 is rejected below and is considered representative of independent Claim 6.
Claim 1 recites:
A method to determine alignment of a nozzle tip on a robotic arm, comprising:
moving the robotic arm to a pre-programmed alignment position, thereby positioning the nozzle tip adjacent to an alignment fixture secured to a stationary member,
wherein the nozzle tip has a first end and the alignment fixture has a second end, the alignment fixture being in a retracted position to thereby create a first distance between the first end of the nozzle tip and the second end of the alignment fixture to 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; and
determining whether the first end of the nozzle tip is aligned with the second end of the alignment fixture such that an axis of the nozzle tip is collinear with an axis of the alignment fixture.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03 relates.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) relates.
The claim recites a limitation of “determining”, “with no particular limitations provided which render them unable to be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The disclosure in particular even explicitly states that this determination may be performed by a person without assistance. See e.g. [0042] of Applicant’s specification “As described herein, the determination of block 804 may be made manually by an operator”.
These limitations, as drafted, are a basic process or processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind.
Thus, the claim recites mental processes.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements of “moving the robotic arm” and “extending the alignment feature”.
These elements appear to be well known, insignificant (collision prevention is not significant to the determination itself and calibration through physical interaction inherently always requires some positoining), and appear to merely be a part of data gathering steps requisite for the determination. They furthermore appear to merely link the concept of determination to the field of robotics.
See MPEP 2106.05.
Applicant’s disclosure makes clear as is well understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that merely knowing there is an alignment/calibration issue is of no use unless action is taken based upon that knowledge. Claims 4, 12, and 14 wherein a specific action is taken “if the axis of the nozzle tip is misaligned” is an example of utilizing the determination.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05 relates.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. The claim individually or as a whole does not appear to amount to more than the exception.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 6, the claim recites effectively broader variations of the same limitations and subject matter Claim 1. Claim 1 is therefore rejected under the same logic as Claim 1 above.
With respect to the dependent claims of independent Claims 1 and 6 identified above, the claims merely recite additional details to the mental processes recited in Claim 1 or 6 and/or additional extra-solution activities which do not meaningfully alter the rejections made above with respect to Claim 1.
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, 5 – 11, and 13 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”), 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) positioning 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),
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 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. 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.
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 Claim 5, the combination of Mangelsen and Malanowski teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Mangelsen further teaches:
wherein the nozzle tip is used in a vehicle manufacturing process (This does not appear to further limit Claim 1. It appears to merely describe the setting in which the nozzle tip might be used, which does not appear to provide any clear narrowing of scope to the structure of the nozzle tip or the steps of the method recited. Furthermore, even based on Applicant’s disclosure there is no clear indication as to what might be narrowed by such a recitation. The calibration process itself, which is what is claimed, appears to have no relationship to vehicle manufacturing in particular.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner provides that it is common knowledge to use a welding robot in vehicle manufacturing processes, let alone nozzles in general, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would readily use the robot in such a setting).
Regarding Claims 6 – 11 and 13, the claims appear directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 1 – 3 and 5 with respect to the application of prior art. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 1 – 3 and 5. The claims appear to merely rearrange and slightly alter the phrasing of particular limitations between the claims.
Claims 4, 12, 14 – 17, and 19 – 20 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 – 20, the claims appear directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 1 – 5 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 and 5 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
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.
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