DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amended claims filed on 04/07/2026. Claims 1-3 are amended. Claims 4 and 5 are added. Claims 1-5 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to the rejections of
claims 1-3 are directed towards the claims as amended. Therefore, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Sayama et al. (US Patent Application 20170216960 A1 hereinafter "Sayama") in view of Rowland et al (US Patent application US 20140027497 A1 hereinafter “Rowland”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The rotational speed of the pivoting member is not detailed in the specifications. The details of the control apparatus include the arm flexion estimator (21), the rotation direction setter (22), and the welding executer to start the rotation (23). There are no details provided on the control of the speed of the pivoting member.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayama et al. (US Patent Application 20170216960 A1 hereinafter "Sayama") in view of Rowland et al (US Patent application US 20140027497 A1 hereinafter “Rowland”).
Regarding Claim 1, Sayama discloses in figure 1 and 0033
A robot welding system (10) that performs friction stir welding (FSW) on a workpiece (W1, W2), the robot welding system comprising:
a multi-joint robot (22) having an arm (42) comprised of multiple joints set in an orientation to perform the FSW on the workpiece;
a pivoting member (20) provided at a leading end of the arm of the multi-joint robot, wherein the pivoting member is pressed on the workpiece while pivoting to perform the FSW on the workpiece; and
a control apparatus (32) configured to control an operation of the multi-joint robot and an operation of the pivot member, wherein the control apparatus is configured to implement:
based on the orientation of the arm of the multi-joint robot expected to be set during the FSW and prior to performing the FSW on the workpiece, estimating a flexure of the arm (Qa) of the multi-joint robot caused by pressing the pivoting member on the workpiece for the FSW; and
Sayama pertains to a FSW robot arm with deflection compensation control and discloses “The arm control unit 60 calculates a deflection amount Qa [mm] of the arm 42 in XYZ directions (FIG. 1), and executes a deflection compensation control to compensate or correct the deflection amount Qa….However, as will be described later, according to the present embodiment, the counterforce compensation control, which compensates the deflection amount Qa on the basis of a counterforce Fr that acts on the machining tool 20, is implemented as part of the deflection compensation control” (0033).
Sayama does not teach choosing the pivot member rotation direction prior to welding. However Rowland discloses
based on the estimated flexure of the arm of the multi- joint robot and prior to performing the FSW on the workpiece, determining a pivoting direction of the pivot member for the FSW so that a friction force generated by the pivoting member pivoting in the determined pivoting direction while in pressed-contact with the workpiece will generate a counterforce in direction opposite to a direction of the flexure.
Rowland pertains to a method of FSW and states “ As seen in FIG. 1, metal flows into and away from the edge of the metal strip when an FSW tool traverses through the tab and onto the edge of a metal strip. In this embodiment, the FSW is rotated in a counterclockwise manner, though those of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts will appreciate that the initial rotational direction is arbitrary with respect to the ultimate efficacy of the process, so long as the initial pass rotation direction and the direction of subsequent repair passes are reversed with respect to one another. For purposes of this application, therefore, the initial direction in which the FSW tool rotates is arbitrary, and not dependent upon any molecular curl issues or the like, and other tool rotation combinations are possible within the spirit and scope of the invention as described and claimed herein” (0026). Thus, it would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art to combine the FSW robot with deflection compensation control of Sayama with the arbitrary choice of pivot member rotation direction of Rowland, to choose the initial rotation direction of the pivot member.
Additionally, there is a recognized need in the art of FSW to minimize weld defects and increase processing accuracy, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve the problem. In terms of pivot member initial rotation direction there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem, namely clockwise or counterclockwise rotation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions of pivot member initial rotation direction with a reasonable expectation of success of minimizing welding defects or increasing processing accuracy.
Regarding Claim 2, Sayama in view of Rowland disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Sayama further discloses in figure 2 wherein the control apparatus (32) is further configured to determine the orientation of the arm of the multi-joint robot (60), prior to performing the FSW on the workpiece further specifying “The computation unit 52 includes an arm control unit 60 that controls the arm 42 through the arm motors 44a to 44f” (0032).
Regarding Claim 3, Sayama in view of Rowland disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Sayama further discloses in figure 2 wherein the control apparatus is further configured to process signals indicative of an angle of each of the multiple joints of the arm of the multi-joint robot to determine the orientation of the arm of the multi-joint robot (30a-f). Sayama determines the arm orientation of the multi-joint robot via current sensors, specifying “The current sensors 30a to 30f detect input currents Im1 to Im6 (hereinafter also referred to as “consumption currents Im1 to Im6”) [A] to the respective arm motors 44a to 44f from a non-illustrated power supply, and outputs the detected input currents Im1 to Im6 to the controller 32” (0030).
Regarding Claim 5, Sayama in view of Rowland disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Sayama further discloses in figure 3 and 0039-0043
wherein the control apparatus is further programmed to implement :
positioning the pivoting member above a start point of the FSW on workpiece (S1);
after moving the pivoting member above the start point of the FSW, starting to pivot the pivoting member in the determined pivoting direction (S2);
after starting to pivot the pivoting member in the determined pivoting direction, pressing the pivoting member on the start point of the FSW on the workpiece (S3); and
moving the pivoting member, while pivoting in press-contact with the workpiece, from the start point to an end point of the FSW on the workpiece to perform the FSW on the workpiece (S4).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan Daniel Neckel whose telephone number is (571)272-9537. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/NATHAN DANIEL NECKEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights