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 .
Response to Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on December 24, 2025. Claims 1-8 and 11 are amended. Claims 9 and 10 are filed as previously presented. Claim 12 is new. Applicant amended to recite “display” in place of “notification unit” in addition to clarifying drawing and specification features regarding the teaching operation panel which are supported by the written description in the original disclosure, and as such objections to the Drawings and Specification have been withdrawn. Amendments to claims 1 and 2 obviate the claim objections. Amendments to claims 1-8 obviate the 112f claim interpretations. Amendments to claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 obviate the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections. As such, all corresponding claim objections, claim interpretations, 112(a) rejections, and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn. Examiner addresses Applicant’s arguments with regard to the prior art below in “Response to Arguments”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Examiner’s interpretation of “absence” with regard to a workpiece is improper (see Remarks Pages 10-12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the broadest reasonable interpretation is considered in light of the specification, Applicant has not provided an alternative meaning which limits the definition of “absence”. Thus, absence in this case can be interpreted at the broadest to mean any operation in which the robot is not in contact with, and therefore absent of, the workpiece. As such, arguments have been considered but are NOT PERSUASIVE.
Applicant further argues that Hatada does not describe two distinct modes which are selected by a user (Remarks Page 12). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., selections by a user) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant has amended the claims in the current filing to include this feature, and as such Examiner has amended the rejection accordingly.
Applicant further argues that Hatada “does not describe the advantageous effects achieved by at least one embodiment of the instant application” (Remarks Page 13). In response to applicant's argument that the primary reference does not describe the advantages of the instant application, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., advantages of one-time adjustment and reusing adjustment result for various postures) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant has not amended such features into the claim language, and as such the argument is NOT PERSUASIVE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatada et al. (US 2017/0083002 A1; hereinafter “Hatada”).
Regarding claim 1, Hatada discloses a control device for controlling a servo motor for driving a tool for holding a workpiece or applying a treatment to the workpiece (“The control device 15 includes a robot control device 16 which controls the robot 12 and a welding gun control device 18 which controls the spot welding gun 14” [0057]. Thus, there is a control device for controlling a servo motor for driving a tool for holding and applying treatment to the workpiece.), the control device comprising:
an input device for inputting a user instruction indicating a selected mode from among a preliminary adjustment mode in which the tool is operated in absence of the workpiece, and an operation mode in which the tool is operated in presence of the workpiece (“An operator can input an operation program, a judgement value, and the like from the input part 43 to the control device 15” [0062]. “The operator selects the position detection mode or the welding operation mode.” [0089]. Thus, there is an input device which allows the operator to select a desired mode for controlling the robot. Fig. 12 displays methods for position detection mode wherein the workpiece is first disposed between the two electrodes before an electrode approaches the workpiece. The position detection control mode stops operation of the tool once contact is detected, i.e., the tool is operated in absence of the workpiece when in the position detection mode is in the preliminary adjustment mode. “When an actual welding operation is performed, the control device 15 controls the position and the posture of the robot 12 based on the detected position of the workpiece W so that welding can be performed at an accurate position” [0084]. Thus, once a position is detected, i.e., the robot is in proper contact with (i.e., presence of) the workpiece, the actual welding operation is performed based on the welding instruction at the desired position.);
a control processor configured to control the servo motor in the selected mode input via the input device (“Then, in the position detection mode, the control device 15 reads an instruction of the region 84 and performs the position detection control. On the other hand, in a welding operation mode in which the actual welding operation is performed, the control device 15 controls to perform the welding operation without reading the instruction of the region 84” [0089]. Thus, the control device, i.e., control processor, controls the servo motor in the selected mode input via the input device.); and
a parameter adjustment processor configured to adjust a detection parameter in the preliminary adjustment mode, wherein the control processor is configured to control the servo motor in the operation mode using the detection parameter adjusted by the parameter adjustment processor (“The robot control device 16 according to the present embodiment includes a calculation part 57 which judges whether or not the workpiece detection parameter is large and an update part 58 which updates the workpiece detection parameter set in the operation program” [0141]. Such update part adjusts, i.e., updates, the workpiece detection parameter during the abutment judgement process. The workpiece detection parameter is updated in the operation program which controls the operations of the operation mode. Additionally, the workpiece detection parameter may be a movement speed of the movable electrode and/or an abutment judgement value (see [0018] and [0020]).).
Regarding claim 2, Hatada discloses a control device for controlling a servo motor for driving a moving mechanism for moving a tool for holding a workpiece or applying a treatment to the workpiece (“The control device 15 includes a robot control device 16 which controls the robot 12 and a welding gun control device 18 which controls the spot welding gun 14” [0057]. Thus, there is a control device for controlling a servo motor for driving a robot, i.e., moving mechanism, for moving a tool for holding and applying treatment to the workpiece.), the control device comprising:
an input device for inputting a user instruction indicating a selected mode from among a preliminary adjustment mode in which the tool is operated in absence of the workpiece, and an operation mode in which the tool is operated in presence of the workpiece (“An operator can input an operation program, a judgement value, and the like from the input part 43 to the control device 15” [0062]. “The operator selects the position detection mode or the welding operation mode.” [0089]. Thus, there is an input device which allows the operator to select a desired mode for controlling the robot. Fig. 12 displays methods for position detection mode wherein the workpiece is first disposed between the two electrodes before an electrode approaches the workpiece. The position detection control mode stops operation of the tool once contact is detected, i.e., the tool is operated in absence of the workpiece when in the position detection mode is in the preliminary adjustment mode. “When an actual welding operation is performed, the control device 15 controls the position and the posture of the robot 12 based on the detected position of the workpiece W so that welding can be performed at an accurate position” [0084]. Thus, once a position is detected, i.e., the robot is in proper contact with (i.e., presence of) the workpiece, the actual welding operation is performed based on the welding instruction at the desired position.);
a control processor configured to control the servo motor in the selected mode input via the input device (“Then, in the position detection mode, the control device 15 reads an instruction of the region 84 and performs the position detection control. On the other hand, in a welding operation mode in which the actual welding operation is performed, the control device 15 controls to perform the welding operation without reading the instruction of the region 84” [0089]. Thus, the control device, i.e., control processor, controls the servo motor in the selected mode input via the input device.); and
a parameter adjustment processor configured to adjust a detection parameter in the preliminary adjustment mode, wherein the control processor is configured to control the servo motor in the operation mode using the detection parameter adjusted by the parameter adjustment processor (“The robot control device 16 according to the present embodiment includes a calculation part 57 which judges whether or not the workpiece detection parameter is large and an update part 58 which updates the workpiece detection parameter set in the operation program” [0141]. Such update part adjusts, i.e., updates, the workpiece detection parameter during the abutment judgement process. The workpiece detection parameter is updated in the operation program which controls the operations of the operation mode. Additionally, the workpiece detection parameter may be a movement speed of the movable electrode and/or an abutment judgement value (see [0018] and [0020]).).
Regarding claim 3, Hatada discloses the control device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a current detection processor configured to detect a current value of a current flowing in the servo motor (“The abutment judgement part 55 detects the electric current of the electrode drive motor 34 at the interval TB” [0073]. Thus, the abutment judgement part detects a current value of a current flowing in the servo motor over the designated time intervals as shown in the example of Fig. 5.),
wherein the parameter adjustment processor is configured to adjust the detection parameter based on a change with time of the current value detected by the current detection unit (“The control device is formed so as to be capable of detecting a state value of the electrode drive motor including an electric current, a torque, or a number of rotations of the electrode drive motor” [0014]. The update part updates, i.e., adjusts, the workpiece detection parameters based on the state values of the electrode motor drive, which is shown in Fig. 5 as an evaluation of the change with time of the current value detected (see [0018-0021]).).
Regarding claim 4, Hatada discloses the control device according to claim 3, further comprising
a contact detection processor configured to detect contact of the tool with the workpiece by the tool in the operation mode by comparing with the detection parameter detected by the current detection processor (“The abutment judgement part 55 judges whether or not the movable electrode 30 is in contact with the workpiece W” [0070]. Figs. 5-8 show examples of the judgement criteria for detecting contact of the tool with the workpiece by comparing current values and rotation speed values, i.e., detection parameters and limited current values detected (see [0071-0081]).).
Regarding claim 5, Hatada discloses the control device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a position detection processor configured to detect a rotational position of the servo motor (“The robot position detector 56 according to the present embodiment is configured with a rotation angle detector mounted on each of the robot drive motor 29. The robot control device 16 receives a signal relating to a rotation position outputted from the robot position detector 56” [0065]. Thus, the robot position detector 56 detects a rotational angle, i.e., position, of the drive motor, i.e., servo motor. Thus, the robot position detector will be considered as a functional equivalent for the position detection unit as best understood by Examiner in light of the 112(f) claim interpretations.),
wherein the parameter adjustment processor is configured to adjust the detection parameter based on a change with time of the rotational position detected by the position detection processor (“Further, when the abutment judgement part 55 judges the contact of the movable electrode 30 based on the rotation speed of the electrode drive motor 34, the abutment judgement value of the rotation speed is set in the region 88” [0105]. Thus, the abutment judgement value of the rotation speed (detection parameter) is set, i.e., adjusted, based on the change with time of the rotational position (rotation speed). Electrode movement speeds are set by electrode movement speed update part 58a, i.e., the parameter adjustment unit (see [0146-0148]).).
Regarding claim 7, Hatada discloses the control device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a current detection processor configured to detect a current value of a current flowing in the servo motor (“The abutment judgement part 55 detects the electric current of the electrode drive motor 34 at the interval TB” [0073]. Thus, the abutment judgement part detects a current value of a current flowing in the servo motor over the designated time intervals as shown in the example of Fig. 5. Although such abutment judgement part is not described directly as a current sensor, such part will be considered as a functional equivalent of the current detection unit as determined by the function disclosed in the 112(f) claim interpretation above.);
a distance calculation processor configured to calculate in the preliminary adjustment mode a distance necessary for the current value to fall within a predetermined fluctuation range based on a change with time of the current value detected by the current detection processor (“In step 161, the abutment judgement value judgement part 57b calculates a magnitude of the fluctuation of the electric current” [0153]. This magnitude, i.e., distance, is evaluated against a preset tolerance range in which judgement is made and based on the value of such magnitude, determines whether or not to adjust the abutment judgement value for which the magnitude is evaluated against. Such evaluations are made with respect to a change with time of the current value detected by the abutment judgement part, i.e., current detection unit. The abutment judgement value judgement part will be considered as a functional equivalent to the distance calculation unit as is best understood by Examiner in light of the 112(f) claim interpretations cited above.); and
a display configured to display the distance (A display part is shown in Fig. 28 as being connected to the update part, and as such is configured to display the magnitude and fluctuation range, i.e., distance, once the information regarding the analysis passes through the calculation and update parts. Given that Examiner best understood the display unit to be the display device of the instant application, such display part will be considered as a functional equivalent to the display unit in light of the 112(f) claim interpretations above.).
Regarding claim 8, Hatada discloses the control device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a current detection processor configured to detect a current value of a current flowing in the servo motor (“The abutment judgement part 55 detects the electric current of the electrode drive motor 34 at the interval TB” [0073]. Thus, the abutment judgement part detects a current value of a current flowing in the servo motor over the designated time intervals as shown in the example of Fig. 5. Although such abutment judgement part is not described directly as a current sensor, such part will be considered as a functional equivalent of the current detection unit as determined by the function disclosed in the 112(f) claim interpretation above.);
a distance calculation processor configured to calculate in the preliminary adjustment mode a distance necessary for the current value to fall within a predetermined fluctuation range based on a change with time of the current value detected by the current detection processor (“In step 161, the abutment judgement value judgement part 57b calculates a magnitude of the fluctuation of the electric current” [0153]. This magnitude, i.e., distance, is evaluated against a preset tolerance range in which judgement is made and based on the value of such magnitude, determines whether or not to adjust the abutment judgement value for which the magnitude is evaluated against. Such evaluations are made with respect to a change with time of the current value detected by the abutment judgement part, i.e., current detection unit. The abutment judgement value judgement part will be considered as a functional equivalent to the distance calculation unit as is best understood by Examiner in light of the 112(f) claim interpretations cited above.); and
a program modification processor configured to modify an operation program used in the operation mode based on the distance (The abutment judgement value update part 58b updates the abutment judgement value set in the operation program with the resulting action pertaining to the judgement, as is described in [0155] and [0157]. The abutment judgement value update part will thus be considered as a functional equivalent to the program modification unit as was best understood by Examiner in light of the 112(f) claim interpretations.).
Regarding claim 9, Hatada discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the tool is a spot welding gun (“spot welding gun 14”; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hatada discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the tool is a robotic hand (The spot welding gun 14 will be considered to be a “robotic hand” as it has two electrodes which are robotically controlled via the welding gun operation control part and additionally close around and clamp the workpiece when operating on such workpiece (see [0061] for reference to the electrodes “sandwiching” the workpiece, thereby clamping/grasping it between the electrodes).).
Regarding claim 11, Hatada discloses the control device according to claim 2,
wherein the moving mechanism is a robot arm mechanism, and the servo motor is configured to drive a joint part of the robot arm mechanism (“The robot 12 includes a lower arm 24 which is supported by the turning base 22 to be rotatable, an upper arm 26 which is supported by the lower arm 24 to be rotatable, and a wrist portion 28 which is rotatably supported by the upper arm 26. The robot 12 includes robot drive motors 29 which drive the turning base 22, the lower arm 24, the upper arm 26, and the wrist portion 28” [0059]. Thus, the moving mechanism is considered as the robot comprising arm parts and drive motors, i.e., servo motors, which drive the joint part of each of the arm parts.).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatada in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2009/0001056 A1; hereinafter “Takahashi”).
Regarding claim 6, Hatada teaches the control device according to claim 1.
However, Hatada does not teach …a display configured to, in response to the detection parameter being larger than a predetermined value, display an alarm to notify a user.
Takahashi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …a display configured to, in response to the detection parameter being larger than a predetermined value, display an alarm to notify a user. (“The positioning method of spot welding robot may further comprise: moving the movable electrode tip in the direction approaching toward the opposition electrode tip with the work piece interposed between the opposition electrode tip positioned at the position of spot welding point and the movable electrode tip, sandwiching the work piece under prescribed applied pressing force to measure a closed separation of the two opposing tips between the opposition electrode tip and the movable electrode tip, and determining the difference value by subtracting the preset plate thickness of the work piece from the closed separation of the two opposing tips; and comparing the difference value with a predetermined reference value, and sounding an alarm when the difference value is greater than the reference value” [0016]. Thus, when the detection parameter, i.e., difference between plate thickness and electrode separation values, exceeds the predetermined reference value, an alarm is sounded to notify the user of the error in positioning of the electrodes. Sounding an alarm may be considered as an audible display in this instance.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control device of Hatada to include the alarm system as described by Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the alarm signals to the operator that there is a positional error in need of correction before spot welding functions can occur, based on the reference values stored in the control program (Takahashi, [0017]), thereby reducing inaccurate welding operations and/or reducing maintenance downtimes due to early error detection and diagnosis.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatada in view of Aoki et al. (US 2018/0056434 A1; hereinafter “Aoki”).
Regarding claim 12, Hatada teaches the control device of claim 3.
Hatada does not explicitly teach …a pinching detection processor configured to detect holding of the workpiece by the tool in the operation mode by comparing with the detection parameter detected by the current detection processor.
Aoki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …a pinching detection processor configured to detect holding of the workpiece by the tool in the operation mode by comparing with the detection parameter detected by the current detection processor (“FIG. 11 shows an enlarged schematic diagram of electrodes of second spot welding apparatus according to the present embodiment. The second spot welding apparatus 11 has a torque sensor 38 provided on the output shaft of the electrode drive motor 34. The pressurizing force detection part 66 can detect the pressurizing force based on the output of the torque sensor 38. As has been described, the actual pressurizing force may be detected by providing the torque sensor 38” [0099]. Thus, there is a pressurizing force detection part, i.e., pinching detection processor, which detects a holding of the workpiece by the tool when performing spot welding, i.e., operation mode, by comparing a value with a detected current, i.e., torque response from the torque sensor.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the spot welding apparatus of Hatada to include the pressurizing force detection part as taught by Aoki with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because if the pressurizing force, i.e., pinching, operation during spot welding is inclined outside of a judgement range, then spot welding will be performed in an abnormal state outside of a judgement range which leads to errors in the spot welding system (Aoki, [0008-0009]).
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 SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 8 A.M. to 3 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656