DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 4-7 in the reply filed on 7/3/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the elected production line apparatus is specifically designed and structurally adapted for box-type parts fixation and welding. Applicant further states that the welding apparatus is peculiar to the claimed method 8, which cannot be practiced by another materially different apparatus. This is not found persuasive because the welding apparatus can be utilized to weld distinct parts other than the sheet metal recited in method claim 8- e.g. to weld metal pipes or a composite component. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 4, the term “intelligent” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. It is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Also, feature of “the box-type parts” (line 1) lacks sufficient antecedent basis and it is unclear what is meant by “box-type”? This term is subject to varying interpretations of what is considered “box-type”, which may not be consistent. Applicant’s original specification repeats the same language.
As to claims 5-7, preamble in line 1 “the intelligent production line for welding the box-type parts” (line 1) renders the claim indefinite in scope for same reasons explained in claim 4 above.
For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: A production line for welding parts.
Appropriate corrections are requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno et al. (US 6355906, hereafter “Okuno”) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 109967848-A, see attached document, hereafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 4, Okuno discloses a production line for welding parts (fig. 17- line L, col. 5, lines 41-45), comprising a first conveyor belt (conveyor- col. 5, lines 47-50; fig. 17), a welding fixture (fig. 2) arranged on a first /side end of the first conveyor belt, a welding region (laser welding section 71) arranged on a first side of the welding fixture, a sucker robot (work handing robot Rn- fig. 17), arranged on a first side of the first conveyor belt and close to the welding fixture, and a second conveyor belt (fig. 17); wherein, the welding fixture includes a two-dimensional moving apparatus 113 (movable loaders- col. 9, lines 15-20; col. 11, lines 52-55; col. 12, lines 11-25), and a plurality of lifting apparatuses 75/115 (jig & clamp means- col. 9, lines 23-34) arranged on the two-dimensional moving apparatus (figs. 2, 10); wherein, each of the plurality of lifting apparatuses 75 (lift rods 103/105- fig. 6; col. 12, lines 3-10) comprises a first electromagnet 21 (figs. 4, 18; col. 11, line 52-60) being arranged at a first end (right side- fig. 4) of the lifting apparatus far away from the two-dimensional moving apparatus, and a second electromagnet 21 being arranged at a second end (left side- fig. 4) of the lifting apparatus close to the two-dimensional moving apparatus. Examiner notes that being “close” and “far” is relatively broad and not limited by any specific distance- in the plurality of electromagnets 21 shown by Okuno (fig. 4), at least one magnet is closer and another is further away compared to a selected point from the moving loader mechanism.
Although Okuno does not explicitly show a welding robot, welding robot is common knowledge to ordinary skilled artisan. Okuno is also silent with respect to the electromagnet 21 having a plurality of mutually perpendicular magnetic surfaces; they have at least one magnetic surface. However, such features are known in the art. Zhang (also directed to automatic welding system- abstract) teaches a programmable welding robot 100 useful for multi-purpose industrial tasks (figs. 1-2, [0038]). Zhang shows a conveying transfer robot 200 including a gripper assembly 202 (fig. 3) with connecting rod 204/205 and magnet assembly fixed to two tail ends of the connecting rod, wherein the magnet assembly includes two electromagnets 207, each provided with three mutually perpendicular magnetic surfaces, such that the transfer robot can absorb different kinds of parts specifications (see figs. 7-8, [0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a welding robot and provide the electromagnet with three mutually perpendicular magnetic surfaces in the production line of Okuno because doing so would enable to absorb different kinds of parts specifications during operation, as suggested by Zhang. One would have found it obvious to provide plurality of mutually perpendicular magnetic surfaces in the electromagnet of Okuno with a motivation to improve flexibility and enable easier manipulation of the workpieces being handled by the welding fixture.
As to claim 5, Okuno does not mention a camera, however, the lifting apparatus 75/115 is adjustable through lift rods 103/105 (figs. 4, 6; col. 12, lines 3-10). Zhang teaches the transfer robot 200 comprising a camera 201 for obtaining visual identification image and identifying position information of each part (figs. 7-8; [0021, 0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a camera above the conveyor belt in the production line of Okuno in order to obtain visual images and identify position information useful for welding operations. The camera is well suitable to identify sheet metal dimensions based on obtained image. Examiner notes that sheets metal are workpiece materials and adjustments based thereon relate to operating procedure of the welding apparatus. The courts have held that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (see MPEP 2115). A recitation with respect to the material intended to be worked upon by a claimed apparatus does not impose any structural limitations upon the claimed apparatus. The welding apparatus in the combination of Okuno & Zhang encompasses a camera above the first conveyor belt to identify part dimensions; wherein, according to the identified part dimensions, each of the plurality of lifting apparatuses is adjusted in position.
As to claim 6, Okuno discloses work handing robot Rn (fig. 17), which intrinsically has at least one robot arm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have suction cups arranged on the robot arm in Okuno since such feature is common knowledge and doing so would provide strong grasp on the workpiece.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno in view of Zhang as applied to claim 4 above, and further as evidenced by Kremers et al. (US 4412121) & Wang et al. (CN 109623229-A, see attached document)
As to claim 7, Zhang is silent with respect to the welding robot arm including a welding gun, camera and a light source, however, examiner takes official notice for these features as they are well-known. Kremers teaches a welding gun 18, light source 28 and camera 28 mounted to a robotic arm of an industrial robot, the setup being apparent to those skilled in the art (fig. 1; col. 18, lines 34-40). Similarly, Wang (also directed to automatic robotic welding- abstract, technical field) teaches camera 1, lens 2, annular light source 4 and welding gun 8 mounted to an arm of the welding robot (figs. 1-2, [0020]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount a welding gun, a second camera, and an annular light source on arm of the welding robot in the combination of Okuno & Zhang since such arrangement is conventional, as shown by Kremers & Wang.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been submitted. Applicant is reminded of candor duty to disclose all information material to patentability. See MPEP 2001 and CFR 1.56.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights