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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on April 16, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 12 are amended. Claims 9-10 are filed as previously presented. Claims 2, 4, and 11 are cancelled. Examiner’s response to arguments have been included below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the cited portions of Hatada do not determine a threshold from fluctuations in current value in the absence of a workpiece (Remarks, Page 7). Claim 1 remains rejected under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatada. However, Applicant’s amendments required Examiner to cite alternative portions of the reference which were not considered in the previous rejection. As a result, Examiner’s new interpretation redefines the features specifically argued by Applicant with respect to the previous rejection. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the threshold calculation have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on the same features applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 3, and 7-10 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 configured to control a servo motor that drives a tool configured to hold a workpiece or apply 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 configured to receive, from a user, 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 via instructions from the input operation program. More specifically, there is an abutment judgement value update, i.e., preliminary adjustment mode, which occurs in a time interval TB (see [0153]). “In the present embodiment, an interval TB from a time t1 to a time t2 is determined in advance. The interval TB is an interval in which there is no possibility of a contact of the movable electrode 30 with the workpiece W” [0073]. Therefore, the preliminary adjustment mode determined in advance occurs in absence of the workpiece. The operation mode will be the control of the tool after time t2 in which the electrode is positioned in contact with the workpiece and the welding operation mode performs the actual welding in presence of the workpiece.);
a control processor configured to control the servo motor in accordance with the selected mode (“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.);
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.); and
a threshold value calculation processor configured to calculate, in the preliminary adjustment mode, a threshold value by adding a predetermined margin to a maximum value of the current value identified from a fluctuation of the current value detected during a constant-speed operation of the servo motor in the absence of the workpiece (“In step 161, the abutment judgement value judgement part 57b calculates a magnitude of the fluctuation of the electric current. The fluctuation of the electric current corresponds to a variation range of the electric current. With reference to FIG. 5, for example, the magnitude of the fluctuation of the electric current can be calculated by subtracting a minimum value from a maximum value at the interval TB from the time t1 to the time t2” [0153]. “In step 164, the abutment judgement value judgement part 57b judges whether or not the magnitude of the fluctuation is greater than a predetermined high fluctuation judgement value. The high fluctuation judgement value can be determined in advance. In step 164, when the magnitude of the fluctuation is greater than the high fluctuation judgement value, the control proceeds to step 165. In step 165, the abutment judgement value update part 58b performs a control to increase the abutment judgement value set in the operation program. In other words, the abutment judgement value update part 58b performs a control to widen a tolerance range in which judgement is made. For example, the abutment judgement value update part 58b performs a control to increase the abutment judgement value to a predetermined value. Alternatively, the abutment judgement value update part 58b can performs a control to update the current abutment judgement value set in the operation program to the abutment judgement value to which a predetermined value is added” [0156-0157]. Thus, the abutment judgement value update part, i.e., threshold value calculation processor, calculates during the updating of the abutment judgement value, i.e., preliminary adjustment mode, an abutment judgement value, i.e., threshold value, by adding a predetermined value, i.e., margin, to the abutment judgement value as it corresponds to the maximum fluctuation value determined through the interval TB (identified as the time t1 through t2 before time tx at which contact is made; see [0078] which indicates this interval is accompanied by a constant-speed operation of the electrode drive motor). ),
wherein the control processor is configured to, in the operation mode (As described above, the operation mode is the mode for positioning and operating the welding tool after the time t2 which is predetermined.),
move the tool toward the workpiece (“In FIG. 4, another enlarged schematic diagram of the spot welding gun and the workpiece according to the present embodiment is illustrated. The movable electrode 30 moves toward the workpiece W so that the movable electrode 30 abuts on the workpiece W” [0070]. Thus, the electrode, i.e., tool, is moved toward the workpiece.), and
detect contact of the tool with the workpiece by comparing the current value detected by the current detection processor with the threshold value (“The control device 15 detects that the movable electrode 30 comes into contact with the workpiece W. With reference to FIG. 2, the robot control device 16 includes an abutment judgement part 55. The abutment judgement part 55 judges whether or not the movable electrode 30 is in contact with the workpiece W” [0070]. “In an example as illustrated in FIG. 5, the increase amount ID of the detected electric current exceeds the abutment judgement value of the electric current at a time t3. The abutment judgement part 55 judges that the movable electrode 30 comes into contact with the workpiece W at the time t3” [0073]. Therefore, the abutment judgement value part of the control device detects contact of the electrode, i.e., tool, with the workpiece by comparing the detected electrical current exceeding the abutment judgement value, i.e., threshold value.).
Regarding claim 3, Hatada discloses the control device according to claim 1,
wherein the threshold value calculation processor is configured to adjust the threshold value based on a change with time of the current value detected by the current detection processor during the constant-speed operation of the servo motor in the absence of the workpiece (“In step 161, the abutment judgement value judgement part 57b calculates a magnitude of the fluctuation of the electric current. The fluctuation of the electric current corresponds to a variation range of the electric current. With reference to FIG. 5, for example, the magnitude of the fluctuation of the electric current can be calculated by subtracting a minimum value from a maximum value at the interval TB from the time t1 to the time t2” [0153]. Thus, the abutment judgement value judgement part determines a change of the current value detected over the time interval TB in which there is the constant-speed operation of the servo motor in absence of the workpiece. This fluctuation magnitude is used to instruct the abutment judgement value update part to adjust the abutment judgement value, i.e., threshold, as described in the rejection of claim 1.).
Regarding claim 7, Hatada discloses the control device according to claim 1, further comprising:
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. The fluctuation of the electric current corresponds to a variation range of the electric current. With reference to FIG. 5, for example, the magnitude of the fluctuation of the electric current can be calculated by subtracting a minimum value from a maximum value at the interval TB from the time t1 to the time t2” [0153]. Thus, the abutment judgement value judgement part is a distance calculation processor which calculates during the preliminary adjustment mode the magnitude, i.e., distance, necessary for the current value to be maintained between the minimum and maximum value of the current detected over the interval TB.); 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.).
Regarding claim 8, Hatada discloses the control device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a distance calculation processor configured to calculate, in the preliminary adjustment model 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. The fluctuation of the electric current corresponds to a variation range of the electric current. With reference to FIG. 5, for example, the magnitude of the fluctuation of the electric current can be calculated by subtracting a minimum value from a maximum value at the interval TB from the time t1 to the time t2” [0153]. Thus, the abutment judgement value judgement part is a distance calculation processor which calculates during the preliminary adjustment mode the magnitude, i.e., distance, necessary for the current value to be maintained between the minimum and maximum value of the current detected over the interval TB.); 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, i.e., modifies the operation program used in the operation mode, based on the results of the magnitude of fluctuation and as is described in [0155] and [0157].).
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).).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatada.
Regarding claim 5, Hatada teaches the control device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a position detection processor configured to detect a rotational position of the servo motor (“The spot welding gun 14 includes an electrode position detector 65 for detecting a position of the movable electrode 30. The electrode position detector 65 according to the present embodiment is configured with a rotation angle detector mounted on the electrode drive motor 34. The welding gun control device 18 can detect the position of the movable electrode 30 based on an output from the electrode position detector 65” [0067].)…
Although not explicitly determined, Hatada also implicitly teaches …wherein the threshold value calculation processor is configured to adjust the threshold value based on a change with time of the rotational position detected by the position detection processor during the constant-speed operation of the servo motor in the absence of the workpiece (“FIG. 5 is a graph illustrating a change of the electric current when the movable electrode moves toward the workpiece. The movable electrode 30 moves, whereby the movable electrode 30 abuts on the workpiece W at a time tx. In the present embodiment, a feedback control of the electrode drive motor 34 is performed. In other words, the position of the movable electrode 30 is detected based on an output of the rotation angle detector mounted on the electrode drive motor 34. Then, when a difference between the position of the movable electrode 30 and a position of the operation instruction outputted from the welding gun operation control part 62 is large, the electric current supplied to the electrode drive motor 34 is increased. Accordingly, after the movable electrode 30 abuts on the workpiece W at the time tx, the electric current increases” [0072]. “Thus, the control device 15 according to the present embodiment detects that the movable electrode 30 comes into contact with the workpiece W based on the state value of the electrode drive motor 34 including any of the electric current, the torque, or the rotation speed. The control device 15 judges that the movable electrode 30 comes into contact with the workpiece W when the state value of the electrode drive motor 34 deviates from a predetermined range” [0081]. Thus, although not explicitly determined, the position of the electrode which is detected by the position detection processor influences the current and the rotation speed such that the predetermined range, i.e., threshold for detecting abutment, is directly dependent on the rotational position over time. As such, for the constant-speed operation of the servo motor over the interval TB in which the tool is absent the workpiece, the position detector influences fluctuations in the current as well as the determination for constant speed over this interval, thus contributing to the abutment judgement value updating process. Additionally, as rotation speed changes based on rotational position of the electrode over time, the current required to rotate the electrode changes, thereby causing an additional fluctuation in the current output.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the change with time to the rotational position detected by the rotation angle detector directly influences rotational speed and electrical current output, thus influencing the updating functions as shown in Fig. 31 and 32 as part of the preliminary adjustment mode.
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”) and further in view of Singh et al. (“Thermal Control for Peak Operation of Electric Robot Actuators”, 2021).
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 threshold value 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 threshold value 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 a threshold, 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 the system. 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 system error in need of correction, 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.
However, Examiner acknowledges that such a threshold as disclosed by Takashi is not one of limiting current values based on a reference current value, as is required by claim 1. As such, Examiner provides the teachings of Singh which indicates a method for setting a maximum current limit of an actuator based on a safe operating temperature of said actuator (Singh, Section I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to limit the current corresponding to the abutment judgement value as taught by Hatada according to safety requirements as evidenced by Singh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because by limiting current in such a way to maintain safe operating parameters of an actuator, this allows risk-free operation at high torques (Singh, Section VIII).
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 the current value detected by the current detection processor with the threshold value.
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 the current value detected by the current detection processor with the threshold value (“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 threshold value to a detected current, i.e., torque response from the torque sensor.).
For the purpose of combination, please note Hatada [0077] as indicating “Note that the electric current of the electrode drive motor 34 corresponds to a torque outputted by the electrode drive motor 34. The torque of the electrode drive motor 34 can be calculated based on the electric current of the electrode drive motor 34. Thus, when the torque of electrode drive motor 34 is employed as the state value of the electrode drive motor 34, the abutment of the movable electrode 30 can be also detected by a control similar to a control of the electric current.” Thus, the combination of Hatada in view of Aoki will be considered as a mere combination of prior art elements according to known methods which yields predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).
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
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 9 A.M. to 4 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
Prosecution Insights