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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-3 as filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error. Recommend changing “in a case the pivot member” to “in a case when the pivot member” on line 10.
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: verb tense. Recommend changing “configuring” to “configured” on lines 6, 9, 12, 17, and 21.
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: nonstandard English. Recommend changing “multijoint” to “multi-joint” on lines 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 18, and 22.
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 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 Higgins et all (U.S. Patent Application 20130228612 A1 hereinafter “Higgins”).
Regarding Claim 1, Sayama discloses A robot welding system that performs friction stir welding of a workpiece, the robot welding system comprising: a multijoint robot; a pivot member provided at a leading end of an arm of the multijoint robot; and a control apparatus configuring to control an operation of the multijoint robot and an operation of the pivot member, wherein the control apparatus includes: an estimator configuring to use the arm of the multijoint robot to estimate a flexure direction of the multijoint robot in a case the pivot member is pushed against the workpiece. Sayama pertains to a friction stir welding (FSW) robot and discloses in figure 1, 0028, and 0031 a multi-joint robot (there articulated arm) with a pivot member (there machining tool) and controller which executes a friction stir welding control. In 0033 Sayama further discloses the details of the robotic arm control unit, “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.” For one skilled in the art of robotic control it is known that the “deflection amount Qa” of Sayama is analogous to the “flexure direction, A2” in the present application. Thus, Sayama teaches how to estimate the flexure direction of a multi-joint FSW robot.
Sayama fails to teach changing the rotational direction of a pivot member. However, Higgins teaches: a setter configuring to set, based on the flexure direction, a rotational direction of the pivot member so that a friction force generated by the pivot member being in contact with the workpiece is generated in an opposite direction of the flexure direction. In the present application the forces acting on the pivot member perpendicular to the direction of welding direction that arise from the contact with the workpiece are referred to as friction forces. And it is proposed that these friction forces may cause deviation from the desired welding path. However, in the art of FSW, the forces acting on the pivot member perpendicular to the welding direction that arise from the contact with the workpiece material and can cause deviations from the welding path are referred to as the lateral forces. Additionally, the lateral forces do not come from friction, but arise from the pressure gradient created by higher workpiece material flow on the retreating side than on the advancing side. This is sometimes referred to as the Magnus effect, or Magnus force (see provided references for further evidence). Thus, it is known in the art that changing the rotation of the pivot member, changes the material flow characteristics and subsequently the direction of the lateral forces. This is specifically disclosed in Higgins. Higgins pertains to a consumable pivot member (there friction bit joining tool) and discloses in 0038 how “Altering the flow characteristics may be achieved by reversing the rotational direction of a spindle that is rotating the friction bit joining tool performing friction bit joining”.
In FSW, forces acting on the pivot member can cause deviations from the desired welding path. Sayama teaches how to estimate the flexure direction of a multi-joint FSW robot. Higgins teaches that changing rotational direction of the pivot member changes the lateral forces that arise from contact with the workpiece material. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sayama to incorporate the teachings of Higgins and set the pivot member rotation direction to counter the flexion direction in an effort to reduce the lateral forces acting on the pivot member and reduce deviations from the desired welding path.
Regarding Claim 2, in addition to the limitations of Claim 1 discussed above, Sayama further discloses The robot welding system according to claim 1, wherein the estimator is configuring to estimate the flexure direction based on an orientation of the multijoint robot that performs welding of the workpiece with the pivot member. The primary embodiment of the FSW robot found in Sayama estimates the deflection amount based on the posture of the arm (0045). For one skilled in the art of robotic control it is known that the “deflection amount” is analogous to “flexure direction” and that “posture” is analogous to “orientation.” Thus, Sayama teaches how to estimate the flexure direction of a multi-joint FSW robot based on the orientation of a multi-joint robot.
Regarding Claim 3, Sayama discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses Claim 3: The robot welding system according to claim 2, wherein the estimator is configuring to estimate the flexure direction based on an angle of each joint of the multijoint robot. The primary embodiment of the FSW multi-joint robot disclosed by Sayama pertains to correcting for the counterforce exerted on the pivot member by the workpiece by applying a deflection compensation to the robotic arm. However, in 0033 Sayama details that if a more basic flexure (and not counterforce) correction control is needed, that the method disclosed in US 20040193293 Watanabe et al (hereinafter Watanabe) is sufficient. While not pertaining to a FSW device, Watanabe disclosed in Fig 3 and 0036 how obtaining the angle of each joint of the multi-joint robot is used to estimate the flexure direction. Therefore, it would have been known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the advice of Sayama and use the method disclosed by Watanabe to estimate the flexure direction based on an angle of each joint of the multi-joint robot
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in this office action is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20040193293 A1. Flexure Correction Apparatus And Method For Robot. Watanabe, Ito, Kosaka, and Takizawa.
Mostafa Akbari, Milad Esfandiar, Amin Abdollahzadeh, The role of force and torque in friction stir welding: A detailed review, Journal of Advanced Joining Processes, Volume 11, 2025, 100289, ISSN 2666-3309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jajp.2025.100289.
A current review article that discusses the Magnus effect and provides references to studies conducted prior to the filing date of this application.
Atharifar, H., Lin, D. & Kovacevic, R. Numerical and Experimental Investigations on the Loads Carried by the Tool During Friction Stir Welding. J. of Materi Eng and Perform 18, 339–350 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-008-9298-1.
Fig 1 illustrates how the lateral forces are a function of material flow and not friction.
Shayan Eslami, Luis Mourão, Nuno Viriato, Paulo J. Tavares, P.M.G.P Moreira, Multi-axis force measurements of polymer friction stir welding, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Volume 256, 2018, Pages 51-56, ISSN 0924-0136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.01.044.
Fig 7 illustrates how the lateral forces are in the opposite direction of the applicants proposed friction forces A2/A3.
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