DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s argument/remarks filed on March 30, 2026, claims 1-12 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 6-7.
Response to Argument
Applicant's argument with respect to the amendment of the claims are moot in
view of a new ground of rejection. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the Office
Action below to view the ground of rejection, prior arts' cited sections and motivation.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a welding instruction unit configured to give an instruction to perform the welding; an external force acquisition unit configured to acquire a value of external force acting on the robot; a robot stopping unit configured to stop operation of the robot in a case where the value acquired by the external force acquisition unit is equal to or above a first threshold; and a wire stopping unit configured to stop feeding of the welding wire in a case where the value acquired by the external force acquisition unit is equal to or above a second threshold at a time of starting the welding. in claims 1, 6 and 7; a threshold adjustment unit configured to adjust a value of the second threshold according to any one or more of conditions for the welding and a state of the robot in claim 3; a restart control unit configured to execute a welding resumption procedure for resuming the welding when the wire stopping unit stops feeding of the welding wire in claim 5; and a notification unit configured to provide a notification when the wire stopping unit stops feeding of the welding wire in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the terms a welding instruction unit; an external force acquisition unit; a robot stopping unit; a wire stopping unit; a threshold adjustment unit; and a notification unit refer robot control device 60 / processor (see specification (Pub. No.- US 2025/0205884 A1) par. 16-17 and Figure 1).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-2 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al. (Pub No.: US 2022/0402061 A1) in view of Naitou (Pub. US 2023/0120261 A1) and Willinger et al. (US 2021/0354228 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mayer et al. disclose a robot control for controlling a robot that performs welding of a welding target object using a welding torch (e.g., robot control configured to perform welding process on the surface O of the workpiece W using a welding torch 1 (par. 27)) the welding torch feeding a welding wire (e.g., wherein the welding torch feeding welding wire 2 form a wire roil 6 (par. 27)), the robot control device (e.g., robot control) comprising:
a welding instruction unit (e.g., robot control ) configured to give an instruction to perform the welding (e.g., robot control configured to move the welding wire along a specified path and at a specified speed over the surface O of the workpiece W and perform a welding process (par. 27));
an external force acquisition unit (e.g., wire feed device / motor) configured to acquire a value of external force acting on the robot (e.g., to detect force between a welding wire and workpiece via wire feed device / motor (par. 12));
a wire stopping unit configured to stop feeding of the welding wire in a case where the value acquired by the external force acquisition unit is equal to or above a second threshold at a time of starting the welding (e.g., when the force exceed a specified maximum value – for instance, a specified threshold (par. 15 and 32), a cut off process of the welding wire is performed via cutting device 7 (par. 27) or a slag-removal process is trigger (par. 28, 15 and 18), which requires the wire feeding to be stopped during a welding process).
However, Mayer et al. failed to specifically disclose a robot stopping unit configured to stop operation of the robot in a case where the value acquired by the external force acquisition unit is equal to or above a first threshold.
Note: the specification discloses the first threshold and second threshold as independent value / parameter to control different robot components – e.g., stop (i) robot operation and (ii) feeding of the welding wire (see publication: par. 23, 22, and 5).
However, Naitou teach a welding robot comprising forces sensor(s) (par, 21 and 33) and control device 50 (processor) configured to detect external force applied to movable element of the robot 12 via the force sensor(s) (par. 33) and stop the operation of the robot 12 when an excessive external force (for instance, exceeding a threshold) is applied to the movable element of the robot – for instance, due to contact with an obstacle or worker (par. 57 and 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the robot and its control taught by Mayer et al., such that the robot comprises force sensor(s) and the robot control detects external force applied to movable element of the robot via the force sensor(s) to stop the operation of the robot when an excessive external force is applied to the movable element of the robot, in view of Naitou, with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of surely guaranteeing the safety of worker in the periphery of the robot and maintaining work efficiency (par. 4, 7 and 59).
However, Mayer et al., as modified by Naitou, failed to specifically disclose wherein the time of starting the welding is (i) or (ii) when an establishment of stable arc discharge is detected after an instruction to start welding (alternative limitation).
However, Willinger et al. teach a welding device configured to detect an arc voltage via sensor 35 (par. 52) for an ignited arc 27 before initiating a welding process (par. 31, 21 and abstract), which covers after an instruction to start welding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the robot and its control as taught by the combination of Mayer et al. in view of Naitou. such that the robot is configured to detect an arc voltage via sensor for an ignited arc before initiating a welding process, in view of Willinger et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of controlling the welding wire supply in a desired position and direction to a welding point in such a way that the welding wire does not dip too deeply into the weld pool and does also not move too far away from the weld pool (par. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Mayer et al. failed to specifically disclose wherein the second threshold is smaller than the first threshold.
However, Mayer et al., disclose a force exceeding a specified maximum value at the welding wire (par. 15 and 32) (limitation: second threshold) and
Naitou teaches an excessive external force applied to the movable element of the robot, which exceeding a threshold due to contact with worker / obstacle (par. 57 and 59) (limitation: first threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to reasonable conclude that when the robot implements the above two type of force detections to stop the operation of the robot and its component(s), the detecting force at the wire tip is smaller than the detecting force at the robot movable element (e.g., arm segment) because when the robot movable element contacts a big object (e.g., a worker), the detecting force would be larger than the force detected at the welding wire due to their mass relationship.
Regarding claim 10, Mayer et al. disclose a robot control further comprising: a notification unit configured to provide a notification when the wire stopping unit stops feeding of the welding wire (e.g., a robot control configured to output error message to a user or welder to cut off the welding wire via the cutting device (par. 18), which required the wire feeding to be stopped during cutting off process ).
Regarding claim 11, Mayer et al. disclose a robot apparatus comprising: the robot control device (e.g., a robot control / control device (par. 28 and 29)) according to claim1; and a robot (e.g., a welding robot (par. 27 and Figure 1)) that is controlled by the robot control device and positions the welding torch (e.g., robot control configured to move the welding wire along a specified path and at a specified speed over the surface O of the workpiece W and perform a welding process (par. 27)).
Regarding claim 12, Mayer et al. disclose a robot apparatus further comprising:
the welding torch held by the robot (e.g., Figure 1 show a welding robot holding a welding torch 1 (par. 27) );
a wire supply device configured to supply the welding wire to the welding torch (e.g., wire roll configured to feed wilding wire 2 to the welding torch (par. 27)); and
a welding power source configured to supply a welding current to the welding torch (e.g., a welding current source 4 supplies current and voltage to the welding torch 1 / welding wire 2 (par. 27) ).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al. (Pub No.: US 2022/0402061 A1) in view of Naitou (Pub. US 2023/0120261 A1), Willinger et al. (US 2021/0354228 A1) and Soe-Knudsen (US 2022/0219320 A1).
Regarding claims 3-4, Mayer et al., as further modified by Willinger et al., failed to specifically disclose (i) a threshold adjustment unit configured to adjust a value of the second threshold according to any one or more of conditions for the welding and a state of the robot and (ii) wherein the threshold adjustment unit adjusts the value of the second threshold according to any one or more of a feeding speed, a material, and a diameter of the welding wire, and a posture of the robot.
However, Soe-Knudsen teach a welding robot configured to adjust a force threshold value to compensate for changing working conditions of the robot (par. 97, 73, 4) – for instance, when a contact point of the robot (welding wire) interacts with an object (workpiece) (par. 30), which covers one or more material and posture of the robot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to furthermore modify the robot control, as taught by the combination of Mayer et al. in view of Naitou and Willinger et al., such that the robot control adjusts a force threshold value to compensate for changing working conditions of the robot when a contact point of the robot (welding wire) interacts with a workpiece during a welding process, in view of Soe-Knudsen, with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of avoiding false positive detection due to drifting of the force sensor by adjusting the force threshold value over time (par. 97).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al. (Pub No.: US 2022/0402061 A1) in view of Naitou (Pub. US 2023/0120261 A1), Willinger et al. (US 2021/0354228 A1) and Kawai et al. (Pub. US 2019/0224772 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Mayer et al. disclose a robot control configured to perform a cut off process of the welding wire via cutting device 7 (par. 27) or trigger a slag-removal process (par. 28, 15 and 18) when the force exceed a specified maximum value – for instance, a specified threshold (par. 15 and 32), which requires the wire feeding to be stopped during a welding process.
However, Mayer et al., as further modified by Willinger et al., failed to specifically disclose a restart control unit configured to execute a welding resumption procedure for resuming the welding when the wire stopping unit stops feeding of the welding wire.
However, Kawai et al. teach a welding robot 1 comprising a control device 2 (par. 56-57 and Figure 1) and configured to restart normal feeding of a welding wire W and welding process on a material (par. 57) after correcting the stopping of the welding wire feeding (par. 98 and 104 and 9) due to abnormality in the welding wire (par. 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to furthermore modify the robot control, as taught by the combination of Mayer et al. in view of Naitou and Willinger et al., such that the robot control restarts normal feeding of a welding wire W and welding process on a material after correcting the stopping of the welding wire feeding due to abnormality, in view of Kawai et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of restoring a welding process by giving instruction to increase or decrease the accommodated amount of welding wire via a wire feeding device (par. 8) and avoid manually winding the welding device (par. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Nagata et al. (US 2004/0128030 A1) directed to welding robot configured to prevent the robot from generating the excessive force and stop the operation of a robot gun when the movable electrode of the gun comes in contact with the work based on external force difference.
Peters et al. (US 2023/0142671 A1) directed to a welding robot configured to stop feeding electrode and restart feeding the electrode to resume deposition operation.
Fleming et al. (US 2019/0030635 A1) directed to a welding system to determine when an arc is reestablished by monitoring a welding voltage.
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 extension fee 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 Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Khoi H. Tran can be reached at 571 272 6919. 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.
/J.O.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights