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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Effective Filing Date
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC 119 (a)-(d) to application JP2021-199680 filed 12/08/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such, the effective filing date of the application is 12/08/2021.
Response to Amendment & Status of Claims
The amendments to the claim language filed 07/10/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 have been amended. Claims 1-8 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejections filed 03/11/2026 have been considered but are moot because amendments to the claim language have necessitated new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Acquisition unit” in claim 1, which appears to be described in paragraphs [0016]-[0021] of applicant’s specification.
“Calculation unit” in claims 1 and 2, which appears to be described in paragraphs [0018]-[0020] of applicant’s specification.
“Output Unit” in claims 1, 3, 4 and 6, which appears to be described in paragraphs [0031]-[0032] of applicant’s specification.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohri et al. (US 20220097178 A1), hereinafter Mohri, which claims priority to JP 2019-111619 filed 2019-06-14, in view of Clark et al. (US 20070176312 A1), hereinafter Clark and Wang et al. (US 20210252707 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Mohri discloses:
An offline teaching device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire welding line information indicating welding lines on a workpiece on which welding is executed (see at least [0055]: “The shape detection unit 500 includes a laser light source (not shown) configured to be able to scan the welded portion on the workpiece Wk based on position information of the welded portion received from the robot control device 2, and a camera (not shown) disposed to be able to image an imaging region including the periphery of the welded portion and configured to image a reflection trajectory (that is, a shape line of the welded portion) of the reflected laser light among the laser light emitted to the welded portion.”)
and obstacle information including at least a position of an obstacle disposed between the sensor and the workpiece (see at least [0145]: “However, an obstacle such as a jig or a pillar is already present at the position of the point P1. Therefore, it is impossible to perform the repair welding such that the welding is ended at the point P1. Therefore, in the third determination mode, the processor 31 determines a position, that is, a point P′, rounded to the point B which is an end point on the operation trajectory of the welding robot in the main welding as a welding end point. Since the end point B (point P′) is a point on the operation trajectory of the welding robot in the main welding, it is guaranteed that the welding robot does not collide with the obstacle, and it is possible to perform the repair welding such that the welding is ended at the end point.”)
and an output unit configured to generate a calculation result of the inclusion rate and output the calculation result to a screen (see at least [0091]-[0092]: “ Further, the data processing unit 35 counts the number of times of inspection for each welded portion, and when a welding inspection result is not good even if the number of times of inspection exceeds the number of times of inspection stored in the determination threshold storage unit 36, the data processing unit 35 determines that it is difficult or impossible to repair the defective portion by the repair welding. In this case, the determination unit 37 generates the alert including the position of the defective portion and the defect factor, and transmits the generated alert to the host device 1 via the robot control device 2. The alert transmitted to the host device 1 is transmitted to and displayed on the monitor MN1. The inspection device 3 may generate an alert having contents other than those described above. The alert is also transmitted to the host device 1 via the robot control device 2. The alert transmitted to the host device 1 is transmitted to and displayed on the monitor MN1.”)
Mohri does not explicitly disclose:
sensor information indicating an effective scanning region having a three-dimensional shape of a sensor that measures an appearance shape of a bead formed on the workpiece based on the welding;
a calculation unit configured to calculate an inclusion rate indicating a rate of measurable welding line in which measurement of the appearance shape is not impossible due to the obstacle during the measurement by the sensor based on the welding line information, the sensor information, and the obstacle information.
Clark, in the analogous field of endeavor of structural and welding inspection teaches:
sensor information indicating an effective scanning region having a three-dimensional shape of a sensor that measures an appearance shape of a bead formed on the workpiece based on the welding (see at least [0075]: “The present apparatus and method having a consistent inspection volume means that the inspection process could be optimised for the depth, for example, maximum sensitivity within 600 microns of the surface (depths of 1.6 mm are quoted as feasible for aluminium). So long as the swept (inspected volume) was wider than the bead width (bead width typically 0,3 to 10 mm for DLD) the grid array (scan area) area for the ultrasound generator can be 10.times.20 mm or smaller in area, which seems quite feasible, the inspection system would be independent of the restrictions of the final component geometry. The process is reliant on the fine step height relationship for consistent, precise (incremental) volumetric inspection.”)
Wang, in the analogous field of endeavor of industrial robotics, teaches:
a calculation unit configured to calculate an inclusion rate indicating a rate of measurable welding line in which measurement of the appearance shape is not impossible due to the obstacle during the measurement by the sensor based on the welding line information, the sensor information, and the obstacle information (see at least Fig. 1. See further [0036]: “The next step in the process, also shown on FIG. 3, is worst state search. Worst state search involves finding the location along the trajectory 330, in between each adjacent pair of the waypoints q.sup.r, having the worst state distance relative to the obstacles—which could be the worst amount of interference with one of the obstacles 310/312/314, or the smallest distance to one of the obstacles 310/312/314. For the trajectory 330, worst state points 352, 354, 356 and 358 are the worst states for the first, second, third and fourth sections of the trajectory 330, respectively. Each of the worst state points is designated as q.sub.worst,i, where i=(1, . . . , 4).”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Mohri with the volumetric scanning region as taught by Clark and the method of calculation as taught by Wang. This is because as stated in [0075] of Wang’s disclosure: “the inspection system would be independent of the restrictions of the final component geometry.” This is further because, as stated by [0006] of Wang’s disclosure: “… there is a need for an improved robot motion optimization technique which does not require dense waypoint spacing but still reliably identifies and automatically resolves any collisions or minimum distance threshold violations along the robot's trajectory.”
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mohri, Clark, and Wang teaches the offline teaching device according to claim 1.
Mohri does not explicitly disclose, but Wang teaches:
the calculation unit specifies an effective measurement region based on an overlap between the effective scanning region and the obstacle, and calculates the inclusion rate based on the effective measurement region and the welding line information (see at least Fig. 1. See further [0036]: “The next step in the process, also shown on FIG. 3, is worst state search. Worst state search involves finding the location along the trajectory 330, in between each adjacent pair of the waypoints q.sup.r, having the worst state distance relative to the obstacles—which could be the worst amount of interference with one of the obstacles 310/312/314, or the smallest distance to one of the obstacles 310/312/314. For the trajectory 330, worst state points 352, 354, 356 and 358 are the worst states for the first, second, third and fourth sections of the trajectory 330, respectively. Each of the worst state points is designated as q.sub.worst,i, where i=(1, . . . , 4).”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Mohri with the method of calculation as taught by Wang because, as stated by [0006] of Wang’s disclosure: “… there is a need for an improved robot motion optimization technique which does not require dense waypoint spacing but still reliably identifies and automatically resolves any collisions or minimum distance threshold violations along the robot's trajectory.”
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mohri, Clark and Wang teaches:
The offline teaching device according to claim 2.
Mohri further discloses wherein the output unit outputs a calculated value of the inclusion rate to the screen (see at least [0091]-[0092]: “ Further, the data processing unit 35 counts the number of times of inspection for each welded portion, and when a welding inspection result is not good even if the number of times of inspection exceeds the number of times of inspection stored in the determination threshold storage unit 36, the data processing unit 35 determines that it is difficult or impossible to repair the defective portion by the repair welding. In this case, the determination unit 37 generates the alert including the position of the defective portion and the defect factor, and transmits the generated alert to the host device 1 via the robot control device 2. The alert transmitted to the host device 1 is transmitted to and displayed on the monitor MN1. The inspection device 3 may generate an alert having contents other than those described above. The alert is also transmitted to the host device 1 via the robot control device 2. The alert transmitted to the host device 1 is transmitted to and displayed on the monitor MN1.”)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mohri, Clark and Wang teaches:
The offline teaching device according to claim 2.
Mohri further discloses wherein the output unit outputs a first welding line and a second welding line of the welding lines to the screen in a distinguishable manner (see at least [0091]-[0092]: “ Further, the data processing unit 35 counts the number of times of inspection for each welded portion, and when a welding inspection result is not good even if the number of times of inspection exceeds the number of times of inspection stored in the determination threshold storage unit 36, the data processing unit 35 determines that it is difficult or impossible to repair the defective portion by the repair welding. In this case, the determination unit 37 generates the alert including the position of the defective portion and the defect factor, and transmits the generated alert to the host device 1 via the robot control device 2. The alert transmitted to the host device 1 is transmitted to and displayed on the monitor MN1. The inspection device 3 may generate an alert having contents other than those described above. The alert is also transmitted to the host device 1 via the robot control device 2. The alert transmitted to the host device 1 is transmitted to and displayed on the monitor MN1.”)
the first welding line being located within the effective measurement region, and the second welding line being located outside the effective measurement region (see at least Figures 3 and 4.)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mohri, Clark and Wang teaches the offline teaching device according to claim 1.
Mohri does not explicitly disclose, but Wang teaches:
wherein the effective scanning region of the sensor includes at least a first effective scanning region based on a first arrangement position of the sensor and a second effective scanning region based on a second arrangement position of the sensor different from the first effective scanning region (see at least [0061]: “An optional computer 630, in communication with the controller 620, may be used for several different tasks—including providing obstacle geometry data in the form of CAD solid or surface models. The computer 630, if used, communicates with the controller 620 via any suitable wireless or hardwire network connection. As an alternative to using CAD data to define the obstacles 610, one or more sensors, such as a sensor 640, may be used. The sensor(s) 640 may be a camera or any type of object sensor capable of providing 3D geometry of the obstacles 610 in the workspace 602. The sensor(s) 640 could be one or more 3D cameras, or a plurality of 2D cameras whose data is combined into 3D obstacle data. The sensor(s) 640 could also include other types of devices such as radar, LiDAR and/or ultrasonic. The sensor(s) 640 also communicate with the controller 620 and/or the computer 630 via any suitable wireless or hardwire network connection.”)
and the calculation unit calculates a first inclusion rate indicating a rate of a first measurable welding line in which the measurement of the appearance shape is not impossible due to the obstacle during the measurement in the first effective scanning region, a second inclusion rate indicating a rate of a second measurable welding line in which the measurement of the appearance shape is not impossible due to the obstacle during the measurement in the second effective scanning region, and a whole inclusion rate indicating a ratio of a sum of the first measurable welding line and the second measurable welding line to the welding lines (see at least Fig. 1. See further [0036]: “The next step in the process, also shown on FIG. 3, is worst state search. Worst state search involves finding the location along the trajectory 330, in between each adjacent pair of the waypoints q.sup.r, having the worst state distance relative to the obstacles—which could be the worst amount of interference with one of the obstacles 310/312/314, or the smallest distance to one of the obstacles 310/312/314. For the trajectory 330, worst state points 352, 354, 356 and 358 are the worst states for the first, second, third and fourth sections of the trajectory 330, respectively. Each of the worst state points is designated as q.sub.worst,i, where i=(1, . . . , 4).”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Mohri with the method of calculation as taught by Wang because, as stated by [0006] of Wang’s disclosure: “… there is a need for an improved robot motion optimization technique which does not require dense waypoint spacing but still reliably identifies and automatically resolves any collisions or minimum distance threshold violations along the robot's trajectory.”
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Mohri, Clark and Wang teaches the offline teaching device according to claim 5.
Mohri further discloses wherein the output unit outputs the first inclusion rate, the second inclusion rate, and the whole inclusion rate to the screen as the calculation result of the inclusion rate (see at least [0091]-[0092]: “ Further, the data processing unit 35 counts the number of times of inspection for each welded portion, and when a welding inspection result is not good even if the number of times of inspection exceeds the number of times of inspection stored in the determination threshold storage unit 36, the data processing unit 35 determines that it is difficult or impossible to repair the defective portion by the repair welding. In this case, the determination unit 37 generates the alert including the position of the defective portion and the defect factor, and transmits the generated alert to the host device 1 via the robot control device 2. The alert transmitted to the host device 1 is transmitted to and displayed on the monitor MN1. The inspection device 3 may generate an alert having contents other than those described above. The alert is also transmitted to the host device 1 via the robot control device 2. The alert transmitted to the host device 1 is transmitted to and displayed on the monitor MN1.”)
Regarding claim 7, Mohri discloses:
An offline teaching method performed by an offline teaching device including one or more computers, the offline teaching method comprising:
acquiring welding line information indicating welding lines on a workpiece on which welding is executed (see at least [0055]: “The shape detection unit 500 includes a laser light source (not shown) configured to be able to scan the welded portion on the workpiece Wk based on position information of the welded portion received from the robot control device 2, and a camera (not shown) disposed to be able to image an imaging region including the periphery of the welded portion and configured to image a reflection trajectory (that is, a shape line of the welded portion) of the reflected laser light among the laser light emitted to the welded portion.”)
and obstacle information including at least a position of an obstacle disposed between the sensor and the workpiece (see at least [0145]: “However, an obstacle such as a jig or a pillar is already present at the position of the point P1. Therefore, it is impossible to perform the repair welding such that the welding is ended at the point P1. Therefore, in the third determination mode, the processor 31 determines a position, that is, a point P′, rounded to the point B which is an end point on the operation trajectory of the welding robot in the main welding as a welding end point. Since the end point B (point P′) is a point on the operation trajectory of the welding robot in the main welding, it is guaranteed that the welding robot does not collide with the obstacle, and it is possible to perform the repair welding such that the welding is ended at the end point.”)
and generating a calculation result of the inclusion rate and outputting the calculation result to a screen (see at least [0091]-[0092]: “ Further, the data processing unit 35 counts the number of times of inspection for each welded portion, and when a welding inspection result is not good even if the number of times of inspection exceeds the number of times of inspection stored in the determination threshold storage unit 36, the data processing unit 35 determines that it is difficult or impossible to repair the defective portion by the repair welding. In this case, the determination unit 37 generates the alert including the position of the defective portion and the defect factor, and transmits the generated alert to the host device 1 via the robot control device 2. The alert transmitted to the host device 1 is transmitted to and displayed on the monitor MN1. The inspection device 3 may generate an alert having contents other than those described above. The alert is also transmitted to the host device 1 via the robot control device 2. The alert transmitted to the host device 1 is transmitted to and displayed on the monitor MN1.”)
Mohri does not explicitly disclose:
sensor information indicating an effective scanning region having a three-dimensional shape of a sensor that measures an appearance shape of a bead formed on the workpiece based on the welding;
a calculation unit configured to calculate an inclusion rate indicating a rate of measurable welding line in which measurement of the appearance shape is not impossible due to the obstacle during the measurement by the sensor based on the welding line information, the sensor information, and the obstacle information.
Clark, in the analogous field of endeavor of structural and welding inspection teaches:
sensor information indicating an effective scanning region having a three-dimensional shape of a sensor that measures an appearance shape of a bead formed on the workpiece based on the welding (see at least [0075]: “The present apparatus and method having a consistent inspection volume means that the inspection process could be optimised for the depth, for example, maximum sensitivity within 600 microns of the surface (depths of 1.6 mm are quoted as feasible for aluminium). So long as the swept (inspected volume) was wider than the bead width (bead width typically 0,3 to 10 mm for DLD) the grid array (scan area) area for the ultrasound generator can be 10.times.20 mm or smaller in area, which seems quite feasible, the inspection system would be independent of the restrictions of the final component geometry. The process is reliant on the fine step height relationship for consistent, precise (incremental) volumetric inspection.”)
Wang, in the analogous field of endeavor of industrial robotics, teaches:
calculating an inclusion rate indicating a rate of a measurable welding line in which measurement of the appearance shape is not impossible due to the obstacle during the measurement by the sensor, based on the welding line information, the sensor information, and the obstacle information (see at least Fig. 1. See further [0036]: “The next step in the process, also shown on FIG. 3, is worst state search. Worst state search involves finding the location along the trajectory 330, in between each adjacent pair of the waypoints q.sup.r, having the worst state distance relative to the obstacles—which could be the worst amount of interference with one of the obstacles 310/312/314, or the smallest distance to one of the obstacles 310/312/314. For the trajectory 330, worst state points 352, 354, 356 and 358 are the worst states for the first, second, third and fourth sections of the trajectory 330, respectively. Each of the worst state points is designated as q.sub.worst,i, where i=(1, . . . , 4).”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Mohri with the volumetric scanning region as taught by Clark and the method of calculation as taught by Wang. This is because as stated in [0075] of Wang’s disclosure: “the inspection system would be independent of the restrictions of the final component geometry.” This is further because, as stated by [0006] of Wang’s disclosure: “… there is a need for an improved robot motion optimization technique which does not require dense waypoint spacing but still reliably identifies and automatically resolves any collisions or minimum distance threshold violations along the robot's trajectory.”
Regarding claim 8, Mohri discloses:
An offline teaching method performed by an offline teaching device including one or more computers, the offline teaching method comprising:
inputting welding line information to the computer, the welding line information indicating welding lines on a workpiece on which welding is executed (see at least [0055]: “The shape detection unit 500 includes a laser light source (not shown) configured to be able to scan the welded portion on the workpiece Wk based on position information of the welded portion received from the robot control device 2, and a camera (not shown) disposed to be able to image an imaging region including the periphery of the welded portion and configured to image a reflection trajectory (that is, a shape line of the welded portion) of the reflected laser light among the laser light emitted to the welded portion.”)
inputting obstacle information to the computer, the obstacle information including at least a position of an obstacle disposed between the sensor and the workpiece (see at least [0145]: “However, an obstacle such as a jig or a pillar is already present at the position of the point P1. Therefore, it is impossible to perform the repair welding such that the welding is ended at the point P1. Therefore, in the third determination mode, the processor 31 determines a position, that is, a point P′, rounded to the point B which is an end point on the operation trajectory of the welding robot in the main welding as a welding end point. Since the end point B (point P′) is a point on the operation trajectory of the welding robot in the main welding, it is guaranteed that the welding robot does not collide with the obstacle, and it is possible to perform the repair welding such that the welding is ended at the end point.”)
and outputting the calculation result to a screen (see at least [0091]-[0092]: “ Further, the data processing unit 35 counts the number of times of inspection for each welded portion, and when a welding inspection result is not good even if the number of times of inspection exceeds the number of times of inspection stored in the determination threshold storage unit 36, the data processing unit 35 determines that it is difficult or impossible to repair the defective portion by the repair welding. In this case, the determination unit 37 generates the alert including the position of the defective portion and the defect factor, and transmits the generated alert to the host device 1 via the robot control device 2. The alert transmitted to the host device 1 is transmitted to and displayed on the monitor MN1. The inspection device 3 may generate an alert having contents other than those described above. The alert is also transmitted to the host device 1 via the robot control device 2. The alert transmitted to the host device 1 is transmitted to and displayed on the monitor MN1.”)
Mohri does not explicitly disclose:
inputting sensor information to the computer, the sensor information indicating an effective scanning region having a three-dimensional shape of a sensor that measures an appearance shape of a bead formed on the workpiece based on the welding;
generating a calculation result of an inclusion rate indicating a rate of measurable welding lines in which measurement of the appearance shape is not impossible due to the obstacle during the measurement by the sensor, based on the welding line information, the sensor information, and the obstacle information;
Clark, in the analogous field of endeavor of structural and welding inspection teaches:
inputting sensor information to the computer, the sensor information indicating an effective scanning region having a three-dimensional shape of a sensor that measures an appearance shape of a bead formed on the workpiece based on the welding (see at least [0075]: “The present apparatus and method having a consistent inspection volume means that the inspection process could be optimised for the depth, for example, maximum sensitivity within 600 microns of the surface (depths of 1.6 mm are quoted as feasible for aluminium). So long as the swept (inspected volume) was wider than the bead width (bead width typically 0,3 to 10 mm for DLD) the grid array (scan area) area for the ultrasound generator can be 10.times.20 mm or smaller in area, which seems quite feasible, the inspection system would be independent of the restrictions of the final component geometry. The process is reliant on the fine step height relationship for consistent, precise (incremental) volumetric inspection.”)
Wang, in the analogous field of endeavor of industrial robotics, teaches:
generating a calculation result of an inclusion rate indicating a rate of measurable welding lines in which measurement of the appearance shape is not impossible due to the obstacle during the measurement by the sensor, based on the welding line information, the sensor information, and the obstacle information (see at least Fig. 1. See further [0036]: “The next step in the process, also shown on FIG. 3, is worst state search. Worst state search involves finding the location along the trajectory 330, in between each adjacent pair of the waypoints q.sup.r, having the worst state distance relative to the obstacles—which could be the worst amount of interference with one of the obstacles 310/312/314, or the smallest distance to one of the obstacles 310/312/314. For the trajectory 330, worst state points 352, 354, 356 and 358 are the worst states for the first, second, third and fourth sections of the trajectory 330, respectively. Each of the worst state points is designated as q.sub.worst,i, where i=(1, . . . , 4).”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Mohri with the volumetric scanning region as taught by Clark and the method of calculation as taught by Wang. This is because as stated in [0075] of Wang’s disclosure: “the inspection system would be independent of the restrictions of the final component geometry.” This is further because, as stated by [0006] of Wang’s disclosure: “… there is a need for an improved robot motion optimization technique which does not require dense waypoint spacing but still reliably identifies and automatically resolves any collisions or minimum distance threshold violations along the robot's trajectory.”
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 ELIZABETH NELESKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6064. The examiner can normally be reached 10 - 6.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/E.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights