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 Arguments
The amendment filed 3/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 are amended. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application. The claim limitations “a modification unit” in claim 1 and “offline teaching device” in claim 9 no longer invoke 112(f) interpretation in view of the claim amendments. The double patenting rejections are also withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s argument, see page 10, with respect to the cited prior art not teaching the amended subject matter has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Masaki (US 4380696 A) and Mori (US 20230381890 A1).
Applicant’s other arguments regarding Masaki are unpersuasive (See page 10). The applicant argues that Masaki fails to teach modifying positions of teaching points of a plurality of teaching programs because Masaki teaches correcting a single welding path. However, the applicant argues a narrower interpretation of teaching programs than what was actually claimed in the original claim. Under broad reasonable interpretation, Masaki’s teachings of a welding path include a plurality of teaching programs (e.g., command signals in col. 4, lines 64-68). Though, the argument is moot because the amendment further limits the teaching programs to also include a teaching program of a scanning operation, which Masaki is silent in regards to. The applicant also argues that Masaki’s teachings suffer from issues described in the instant specification, (i.e., relying on a camera to correct only a single path.). However, the claim rejections are made in view of the claims and not the specification.
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: “an acquisition unit” in claim 1;
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. See at least [0056] and [0155] describing a communication unit as an example of an acquisition unit.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the control unit is configured to the robot using the plurality of modified teaching programs.” It is unclear what the control unit is configured to do to the robot. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as “the control unit is configured to control the robot using the plurality of modified teaching programs.” Claim 3 is also rejected because is does not resolve the deficiencies of claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaki (US 4380696 A) in view of Mori (US 20230381890 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Masaki teaches
A robot control device, comprising: (“a control method and apparatus for manipulator welding apparatus.” See at least col. 1, lines 67-68)
an acquisition unit configured to: (i) be connected to a host device, a robot, and an inspection control device such that data can be communicated among the acquisition unit, the host device, the robot, and the inspection control device; (“The camera 28 is controlled by and provides imaging signals to a camera controller arrangement 36 over signal and control lines 38. The camera controller arrangement 36 is connected to provide signals to an image processing unit 40. … The image processing unit 40 is interconnected over data lines 42 to a data transformation system and system controller 44 of the present invention. The data transformation system and system controller 44 controls operation of the manipulator welding system and controls operation of the manipulator 10 by means of a servo control system referred to generally at 46.” See at least col. 4, lines 48-64)
and (ii) acquire information related to a position of a workpiece produced by welding; (“the camera 28 detects the image portions 64, 66 of the actual welding seam 68 in accordance with the position of the workpiece portions 60, 62.” See at least col. 7, lines 7-10; “an actual image at taught point A is obtained from the vision system. The flow of the program proceeds to a function block 100 wherein the image processing unit 40 calculates the deviation D.sub.a and provides this deviation to the system controller 44.” See at least col. 9, lines 6-10;)
a memory configured to store a set position of the workpiece with the robot configured to perform production as a reference; (“In response to the projected light pattern, the camera 28 along with the camera controller 36 and the image processing unit 40 provide a reference or template image for storage along with the taught path data. … During the teach mode, welding data is also recorded including desired weld speed and other appropriate parameters of the welding operation. In another specific embodiment, only the reference template image is taken with a reference work piece and the taught welding path is recorded during the first repeat pass of the first repeat workpiece as well be explained in detail hereinafter. The taught path for the first repeat work piece is then utilized for successive work pieces.” See at least col. 5, lines 12-34)
a calculation unit configured to calculate a position displacement amount of the workpiece based on the set position of the workpiece and an actual measured position of the workpiece based on the information related to the position of the workpiece; (“Thus at the taught points A, B, C and D, the image processing unit 40 calculates and provides respective deviation data D.sub.a, D.sub.b, D.sub.c and D.sub.d representing two-dimensional deviation data in an X-Z reference plane and including .DELTA.X and .DELTA.Z components.” See at least col. 7, lines 54-58 and fig. 5A)
a modification unit that is a processor configured to modify positions of teaching points of a (“the system controller 44 during the first repeat pass and in accordance with the deviation data D.sub.a, D.sub.b, D.sub.c and D.sub.d and the taught data representing the points A, B, C and D, calculates a corrected welding path represented by the corrected data points, A', B', C', and D' defining the actual welding seam presented by the newly positioned workpiece 14 representing positional changes from the taught reference workpiece position in the X and Z reference axes. In another specific arrangement, the system controller 44 utilizes absolute position data provided by digital encoders of the manipulator apparatus 10 and the deviation data D.sub.a, D.sub.b, D.sub.c and D.sub.d to provide the corrected data points A', B', C', and D'.” See at least col. 7, line 59 through col. 8, line 4)
and a control unit configured to control the robot using the (“Now with the weld gun 26 in the operative position, the function block 112 proceeds to condition the manipulator 10 to weld the actual seam with appropriate control of the welding equipment 32 and the desired recorded speed of movement along the actual path 80 in accordance with the data entered in the teach mode. Thus, the manipulator arm 20 is controlled to move the weld gun 26 over the path defined by the points A', B', C' and D'.” See at least col. 9, lines 52-60)
Masaki does not explicitly teach, but Mori teaches
a modification unit that is a processor configured to modify positions of teaching points of a plurality of teaching programs used by the robot in the production based on the position displacement amount of the workpiece by executing a program stored in the memory, the plurality of teaching programs including a teaching program of a welding operation and a teaching program of a scanning operation; (“A robot program and a scanner program are generated according to the position of each control point and each point of the direction (coordinate system of the control points) set in the program generation device of the laser processing system. However, a CAD data and the actual workpiece do not coincide with each other, and there are positional errors in the operation path of the robot, jigs, and the like. Therefore, it is necessary to teach and correct such a deviation and errors.” See at least [0006]; Specifically, the program generation device 9 calculates an appropriate path of the robot 2 and an appropriate path of the scanner 4 from the positional relationship between the earlier and later irradiation shapes, generates a robot program and a scanner program to which the calculated path of the robot 2 and the calculated path of the scanner 4 are applied, and transmits the robot program and the scanner program to the robot control device 5 and the scanner control device 6, respectively. To correct the control point before actually performing laser processing, the program generation device 9 generates a control point correction program for correcting the control point. The control point correction program is different in operation from the robot program and scanner program for machining.” See at least [0072-0073]; Also see at least [0062-0064])
and a control unit configured to control the robot using the plurality of modified teaching programs. (“it is assumed that at least the scanner 4, and preferably also the robot 2, are adjusted so as to operate accurately in response to commands of the programs.” See at least [0050]; “FIG. 6B shows the operation of the scanner 4 when the control point is corrected.” See at least [0081]; “In Step S6, the irradiation control unit 61 controls the scanner 4 to irradiate the workpiece 10 with the laser beam based on the position of the control point or the plurality of positions of the control point and directions of the control point in the coordinate system.” See at least [0108])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Masaki to further include the teachings of Mori with a reasonable expectation of success to more efficiently correct the control points. (See at least [0005-0010] and [0109])
Regarding Claim 4,
Masaki further teaches
wherein: the information related to the position of the workpiece is three-dimensional shape data of the workpiece; (“the camera controller 36 and the image processing unit 40 detect the optical pattern as transformed by the shape of the surface of the workpiece 14.” See at least col. 5, lines 18-21; “Thus, the camera 28 detects the transformed light pattern image including image pattern portions 64 and 66; the intersection of the lines 64, 66 defining the points along the intersection seam 68 of the workpiece portions 60, 62 to be welded for various positions of the camera 28 and the projection unit 30. Referring additionally to FIG. 4, a second example of a welding application is illustrated therein for welding the lap seam between the generally planar and overlapping workpiece portions 70, 72. The optical projected slit pattern from the projection unit 30 forms an image as transformed by the shape of the workpiece portions 70, 72 including a first line image 74 on the workpiece portion 70 and a second line portion 76 on the workpiece portion 72. Thus the respective workpiece images of FIGS. 3 and 4 are typical of the reference template image recorded by the image processor 40 in the teach mode for a reference workpiece and are also typical of the actual images formed by the successive workpieces in the repeat modes as detected by the camera 28 during the first pass of the repeat mode in accordance with operation on each successive workpiece.” See at least col. 6, line 67 through col. 7, line 27; The shape data is 3-dimensional data as illustrated by at least figs. 3 and 4.)
and the calculation unit is configured to calculate the actual measured position of the workpiece based on the three-dimensional shape data of the workpiece. (“Thus at the taught points A, B, C and D, the image processing unit 40 calculates and provides respective deviation data D.sub.a, D.sub.b, D.sub.c and D.sub.d representing two-dimensional deviation data in an X-Z reference plane and including .DELTA.X and .DELTA.Z components. In one specific arrangement, the system controller 44 during the first repeat pass and in accordance with the deviation data D.sub.a, D.sub.b, D.sub.c and D.sub.d and the taught data representing the points A, B, C and D, calculates a corrected welding path represented by the corrected data points, A', B', C', and D' defining the actual welding seam presented by the newly positioned workpiece 14 representing positional changes from the taught reference workpiece position in the X and Z reference axes.” See at least col. 7, lines 54-67; “In FIG. 5B, the .DELTA.Y deviation component illustrates the deviation in the Y-Z reference plane an detected by the image processing unit 40.” See at least col. 8, lines 9-11; Also see at least figs. 5A and 5B)
Regarding Claim 5,
Masaki further teaches
wherein the calculation unit is configured to: use the three-dimensional shape data of the workpiece to detect a feature point of the workpiece; and calculate the actual measured position of the workpiece based on the feature point of the workpiece. (“After the image processing unit has provided the deviation data D.sub.a representing the deviation between the taught point A and the actual weld seam point represented by the workpiece, the program flow proceeds to a function block 102 wherein the system controller 44 calculates the position of the actaul seam as data point A' from the deviation data D.sub.a and the taught data point A. When the calculation of the actual point A' is completed, the program flow proceeds to the decision block 104 to determine whether or not the first repeat pass has been completed encompassing the calculation of corrected path data for each of the taught data points, for example A, B, C and D.” See at least col. 9, lines 11-24, wherein the seam points are feature points of the workpiece.)
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaki (US 4380696 A) in view of Mori (US 20230381890 A1) and Kimoto (US 20130317646 A1).
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Masaki does not explicitly teach, but Kimoto teaches
wherein; the modification unit is configured to determine whether positions of teaching points of the plurality of modified teaching programs are outside an operating range of the robot; (“At the step S14, the calculating unit 25 calculates a difference amount for each of the initial teaching points, the difference amount being a difference between the trajectory X1 and each of a plurality of the initial teaching points P0 of the before-interchanged operational program. As can be seen from FIG. 3, the difference amount corresponds to the shortest distance between each of the initial teaching points P0 and the trajectory X1. Then, at the step S15, the controller 12 determines whether or not the difference amount is equal to or smaller than the allowable value K.” See at least [0047-0048]; Examiner Interpretation: The difference is between initial/original teaching points and teaching points of a modified teaching program. The positions are outside of an operating range of the robot when the difference amount is greater than the allowable value.)
and if it is determined that the positions of the teaching points of the plurality of modified teaching programs are not outside the operating range of the robot, the control unit is configured to the robot using the plurality of modified teaching programs. (“When the controller 12 determines that all of the difference amounts are equal to or smaller than the allowable value K, the process proceeds to the step S16. At the step S16, the controller 12 executes the after-interchanged operational program by simulation.” See at least [0048])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Masaki to further include the teachings of Kimoto with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent excessive deviation from the target movement path. (See at least [0004], [0008-0010], and [0078])
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Masaki does not explicitly teach, but Kimoto teaches
wherein if it is determined that the positions of the teaching points of the plurality of modified teaching programs are outside the operating range of the robot, the control unit is configured to return the positions of the teaching points of the plurality of modified teaching programs to the positions of the teaching points of the plurality of teaching programs before the modification. (“when the difference amount calculated by the calculating unit exceeds the allowable value, the position adjusting unit performs position adjustment by shifting the teaching points of the after-interchanged program by a fixed distance in directions of vectors directed toward the initial teaching points from the points that are positioned on the trajectory such that distance from the initial teaching points to the points on the trajectory become the smallest.” See at least [0014], wherein shifting the teaching points towards the initial teaching points is equivalent to returning the positions of the teaching points to the positions before the modification.; For an alternative interpretation of operating range of the robot: “at the step S17, the controller 12 compares the cycle time CT with the initial cycle time CT0 stored in the initial storage unit 22. Then, when the cycle time CT is smaller than the initial cycle time CT0, the controller 12 adopts the after-interchanged operational program without correction. On the contrary, when the cycle time CT is not smaller than the initial cycle time CT0, the position adjusting unit 27 changes all of the positions of the teaching points P to be the initial teaching points P0, and returns the operational program to the program adopting the initial teaching sequence.” See at least [0050], wherein the operating range of the robot is referring to an allowed cycle time with respect to reaching the position points.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Masaki to further include the teachings of Kimoto with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent excessive deviation from the target movement path and/or to decrease cycle time. (See at least [0004], [0008-0010], and [0078])
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaki (US 4380696 A) in view of Mori (US 20230381890 A1) and Wada (US 20230405850 A1).
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Masaki does not explicitly teach, but Wada teaches
wherein the feature point is a predetermined hole defined in the workpiece. (“Image data ID1 imaged by the vision sensor 14 at this time includes a workpiece feature WP that shows a visual feature point (an edge, a contour, a surface, a side, a corner, a hole, a protrusion, and the like) of each imaged workpiece W,” See at least [0042]; “the processor 30 gradually changes, by a predetermined displacement amount E, the position of the workpiece model WM in the virtual space defined by the sensor coordinate system C3, in accordance with the algorithm AL to which the parameter PM.sub.1 is applied, and searches for the position of the workpiece model WM where a feature point (an edge, a contour, a surface, side, a corner, a hole, a protrusion, or the like) of the workpiece model WM and the feature point of the workpiece feature WP corresponding to the feature point coincide with each other. … When the feature point of the workpiece model WM coincides with the feature point of the corresponding workpiece feature WP, the processor 30 detects, as the detection position DP.sub.1, coordinates (x, y, z, W, P, R) in the sensor coordinate system C3 of the workpiece coordinate system C4 set in the workpiece model WM.” See at least [0058-0059])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Masaki to further include the teachings of Wada with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate acquiring a workpiece model position in image data without expert knowledge. (See at least [0004-0007])
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Masaki does not explicitly teach, but Wada teaches
wherein the feature point is a predetermined surface of the workpiece or a corner of the predetermined surface of the workpiece. (“Image data ID1 imaged by the vision sensor 14 at this time includes a workpiece feature WP that shows a visual feature point (an edge, a contour, a surface, a side, a corner, a hole, a protrusion, and the like) of each imaged workpiece W,” See at least [0042]; “the processor 30 gradually changes, by a predetermined displacement amount E, the position of the workpiece model WM in the virtual space defined by the sensor coordinate system C3, in accordance with the algorithm AL to which the parameter PM.sub.1 is applied, and searches for the position of the workpiece model WM where a feature point (an edge, a contour, a surface, side, a corner, a hole, a protrusion, or the like) of the workpiece model WM and the feature point of the workpiece feature WP corresponding to the feature point coincide with each other. … When the feature point of the workpiece model WM coincides with the feature point of the corresponding workpiece feature WP, the processor 30 detects, as the detection position DP.sub.1, coordinates (x, y, z, W, P, R) in the sensor coordinate system C3 of the workpiece coordinate system C4 set in the workpiece model WM.” See at least [0058-0059])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Masaki to further include the teachings of Wada with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate acquiring a workpiece model position in image data without expert knowledge. (See at least [0004-0007])
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaki (US 4380696 A) in view of Mori (US 20230381890 A1) and Yamazaki (US 20240066701 A1).
Regarding Claim 9,
Masaki teaches
An offline teaching system, comprising: (“a control method and apparatus for manipulator welding apparatus.” See at least col. 1, lines 67-68; “the desired welding path is taught and recorded on a reference workpiece 14 during a single teach mode and as successive workpieces 14 are presented to the manipulator 10, the repeat mode with the two repeat passes is performed for each of the workpieces.” See at least col. 5, line 65 through col. 6, line 2)
a robot control device configured to control a robot configured to produce a workpiece by welding; (“Now with the weld gun 26 in the operative position, the function block 112 proceeds to condition the manipulator 10 to weld the actual seam with appropriate control of the welding equipment 32 and the desired recorded speed of movement along the actual path 80 in accordance with the data entered in the teach mode. Thus, the manipulator arm 20 is controlled to move the weld gun 26 over the path defined by the points A', B', C' and D'.” See at least col. 9, lines 52-60)
and an offline teaching device including: (i) a communication unit communicably connected to the robot control device; (ii) a memory; and (iii) a processor (“The data transformation system and system controller 44 controls operation of the manipulator welding system and controls operation of the manipulator 10 by means of a servo control system referred to generally at 46. The data transformation system and system controller 44 supplies the appropriate control signals to the servo control system 46 as command signals to position the manipulator arm 20 in one or more controllable axes. … During the teach mode, appropriate welding path data is recorded in the system controller 44 representing taught points along the desired welding path.” See at least col. 4, line 60 through col. 5, line 9)
wherein the offline teaching device is configured to: acquire information related to a position of the workpiece; (“the camera 28 detects the image portions 64, 66 of the actual welding seam 68 in accordance with the position of the workpiece portions 60, 62.” See at least col. 7, lines 7-10; “an actual image at taught point A is obtained from the vision system. The flow of the program proceeds to a function block 100 wherein the image processing unit 40 calculates the deviation D.sub.a and provides this deviation to the system controller 44.” See at least col. 9, lines 6-10)
calculate a position displacement amount of the workpiece based on a set position of the workpiece with the robot as a reference and an actual measured position of the workpiece based on the information related to the position of the workpiece; (“the image processing unit 40 calculates and stores corrected welding path data for the present workpiece 14 accounting for any changes in location of the workpiece 14 from that of the taught reference workpiece in the teach phase.” See at least col. 5, lines 53-57; “Thus at the taught points A, B, C and D, the image processing unit 40 calculates and provides respective deviation data D.sub.a, D.sub.b, D.sub.c and D.sub.d representing two-dimensional deviation data in an X-Z reference plane and including .DELTA.X and .DELTA.Z components.” See at least col. 7, lines 54-58 and fig. 5A; “Thus the present position of the manipulator is utilized in accordance with the deviation data at the respective present positions to obtain the corrected welding path data.” See at least col. 8, lines 25-29)
modify positions of teaching points of a (“the system controller 44 during the first repeat pass and in accordance with the deviation data D.sub.a, D.sub.b, D.sub.c and D.sub.d and the taught data representing the points A, B, C and D, calculates a corrected welding path represented by the corrected data points, A', B', C', and D' defining the actual welding seam presented by the newly positioned workpiece 14 representing positional changes from the taught reference workpiece position in the X and Z reference axes. In another specific arrangement, the system controller 44 utilizes absolute position data provided by digital encoders of the manipulator apparatus 10 and the deviation data D.sub.a, D.sub.b, D.sub.c and D.sub.d to provide the corrected data points A', B', C', and D'.” See at least col. 7, line 59 through col. 8, line 4)
and wherein the robot control device is configured to control the robot using the (“Now with the weld gun 26 in the operative position, the function block 112 proceeds to condition the manipulator 10 to weld the actual seam with appropriate control of the welding equipment 32 and the desired recorded speed of movement along the actual path 80 in accordance with the data entered in the teach mode. Thus, the manipulator arm 20 is controlled to move the weld gun 26 over the path defined by the points A', B', C' and D'.” See at least col. 9, lines 52-60)
Masaki does not explicitly teach, but Mori teaches
modify positions of teaching points of a plurality of teaching programs used by the robot in production based on the position displacement amount of the workpiece, the plurality of teaching programs including a teaching program of a welding operation and a teaching program of a scanning operation; (“A robot program and a scanner program are generated according to the position of each control point and each point of the direction (coordinate system of the control points) set in the program generation device of the laser processing system. However, a CAD data and the actual workpiece do not coincide with each other, and there are positional errors in the operation path of the robot, jigs, and the like. Therefore, it is necessary to teach and correct such a deviation and errors.” See at least [0006]; Specifically, the program generation device 9 calculates an appropriate path of the robot 2 and an appropriate path of the scanner 4 from the positional relationship between the earlier and later irradiation shapes, generates a robot program and a scanner program to which the calculated path of the robot 2 and the calculated path of the scanner 4 are applied, and transmits the robot program and the scanner program to the robot control device 5 and the scanner control device 6, respectively. To correct the control point before actually performing laser processing, the program generation device 9 generates a control point correction program for correcting the control point. The control point correction program is different in operation from the robot program and scanner program for machining.” See at least [0072-0073]; Also see at least [0062-0064])
and wherein the robot control device is configured to control the robot using the plurality of modified teaching programs. (“it is assumed that at least the scanner 4, and preferably also the robot 2, are adjusted so as to operate accurately in response to commands of the programs.” See at least [0050]; “FIG. 6B shows the operation of the scanner 4 when the control point is corrected.” See at least [0081]; “In Step S6, the irradiation control unit 61 controls the scanner 4 to irradiate the workpiece 10 with the laser beam based on the position of the control point or the plurality of positions of the control point and directions of the control point in the coordinate system.” See at least [0108])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Masaki to further include the teachings of Mori with a reasonable expectation of success to more efficiently correct the control points. (See at least [0005-0010] and [0109])
Mori also does not explicitly teach, but Yamazaki teaches
a processor configured to construct the workpiece and the robot in a virtual space by executing a program stored in the memory, (“A simulation device according to a first aspect of the present disclosure performs a simulation of an operation of a robot device including a robot. The simulation device includes a model generating unit that generates a robot device model and a workpiece model for a simulation based on three-dimensional shape data of the robot device and three-dimensional shape data of the workpiece. … The simulation device includes an operation information setting unit that generates an operation program including a teaching point.” See at least [0014]; “A program for performing the simulation of the robot device is stored in the storage 53.” See at least [0042])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Masaki and Mori to further include the teachings of Yamazaki with a reasonable expectation of success “to provide a simulation device that can easily determine or correct deviation of a position and an orientation of a robot.” (See at least [0016]; Also see at least [0076])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The relevant prior art does not disclose calculating the actual measured position of the workpiece based on positions of the two holes of differing sizes as disclosed by the applicant.
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 Karston G Evans whose telephone number is (571)272-8480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571)270-3976. 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.
/K.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights